Ex Parte Boariu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2016

12147373 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/147,373 06/26/2008
53666 7590 02/24/2016
BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP
Mark Bellermann
c/o CPA Global
P.O. BOX 52050
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Adrian Boariu
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2007P02850US/005l-O10001 6826
EXAMINER
CHOUDHURY, FAISAL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2478
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
uspto@brakehughes.com
docketing@cpaglobal.com
alison@BRAKEHUGHES.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADRIAN BOARIU,
SHASHIKANT MAHESHW ARI, and HAIHONG ZHENG
Appeal2014-000783
Application 12/147,373
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-8, 24--33, 42, and 43, which are all
the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Nokia Siemens Networks Oy.
(App. Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-000783
Application 12/147,373
Claimed Subject Matter
The invention relates to shared feedback channels in wireless relay
networks. (Title; Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed
limitations emphasized, is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
transmitting a transmission schedule for a downlink data
burst to a plurality of relay stations in a wireless network, the
transmission schedule identifying a downlink data channel for
downlink transmission of the downlink data burst and a
corresponding uplink shared feedback channel for uplink
transmission of an acknowledgment or a negative
acknowledgment, the feedback channel being shared by the
plurality of relay stations;
transmitting the downlink data burst to the plurality of
relay stations via the downlink data channel; and
receiving the acknowledgment or the negative
acknowledgment via the uplink shared feedback channel from
at least one of the plurality of relay stations.
Rejections
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Oleszcsuk (US 2008/0108355 Al, published May 8,
2008) and Zheng (US 8,149,757 B2, issued Apr. 3, 2012). (Final Act. 5---6.)
Claims 2--4 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Oleszcsuk, Zheng, and Sheen (US 2008/0085677 Al,
published Apr. 10, 2008). (Final Act. 7-8.)
Claims 24--29 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sheen and Zheng. (Final Act. 8-10.)
Claims 30-33 and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Oleszcsuk and Zheng. (Final Act. 10-12.)
2
Appeal2014-000783
Application 12/147,373
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner erred (App. Br. 7-12; Reply Br. 1-5). We are
unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions as to claims 1-7, 24--33, 42, and 43.
For these claims, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and in the
Answer (see Ans. 4--7).
As to claim 8, we agree with Appellants' contention the Examiner has
not shown the combination of Oleszcsuk and Zheng teaches "receiving the
acknowledgment or the negative acknowledgment from at least two of the
plurality of relay stations at approximately a same time," as recited in this
claim.
We highlight and address specific arguments and findings for
emphasis as follows.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 24-33, 42, and 43
The Examiner finds Zheng teaches a traffic channel that carries
negative acknowledgements (NAKs) from successive relay stations to the
base station, which teaches the feedback channel being shared by the
plurality of relay stations, as recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 2, 6 (citing
Zheng 6:59-67, 7:1-27).)
Appellants argue Zheng's traffic channel is not between the mobile
station and base station, and that sequential relay stations do not share the
same channel in the way that multiple relay stations with a direct connection
to the base station would share a channel. (See App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2.)
Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1,
3
Appeal2014-000783
Application 12/147,373
which does not recite the feedback channel being shared by relay stations
directly connected to base station. In addition, Appellants' Specification
provides that the "relay network may include ... multiple hops, in which the
relay stations may receive the data from and/or forward the data to other
relay stations in the wireless relay network" (Spec. i-f 36). Further,
Appellants do not explain how the term "shared feedback channel"
precludes multiple hop relay networks.
Appellants' Specification also provides that a shared feedback channel
"may, for example, include a common time for transmission by all the relay
stations 106 in the virtual group 102 (such as frame N+2), a common
frequency band, and/or a common code for transmission." (Spec. i-f 83.)
Similarly, the cited portion of Zheng teaches that uplink feedback "is
associated with the uplink traffic carried in the same frame." (Zheng 7:31-
32; see Ans. 5.) Accordingly, we are not persuaded claim 1 's shared
feedback channel must be construed, under the broadest reasonable
construction in light of the Specification, to exclude Zheng's sequential
communication between relay stations in a particular frame, relied on by the
Examiner (see Final Act. 2, 6 (citing Zheng 6:59----67, 7:1-27); Ans. 5 (citing
Zheng Figs. 3-7)).
Appellants also argue Zheng's channel between relay stations is not a
feedback channel, but a traffic channel that sends feedback only when traffic
data is lost. (App. Br. 9.) We agree with the Examiner, however, that
Zheng's channel is a feedback channel because it is a resource allocated for
carrying feedback. (Ans. 6 (citing Zheng 5:52-55); Final Act. 6 (citing
Zheng 7: 15-16).)
4
Appeal2014-000783
Application 12/147,373
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments directed to the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's
rejection, and we sustain the rejection of claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Oleszcsuk and Zheng. For the same reasons as claim 1,
we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 5 and 6, which are not argued
separately. (App. Br. 9.)
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims
24, 30, 42, and 43 for the same reasons as independent claim 1. (App. Br.
11.) Thus, for the same reasons as claim 1, we sustain the rejection of
independent claims 24 and 42 as unpatentable over Sheen and Zheng,
independent claims 30 and 43 as unpatentable over Oleszcsuk and Zheng,
and dependent claims 25-29 and 31-33, which are not argued separately.
(App. Br. 11.)
Claims 2-4 and 7
With respect to dependent claims 2--4 and 7, which are rejected based
on the combined teachings of Oleszcsuk, Zheng, and Sheen, Appellants
contend Sheen is not prior art because Sheen's provisional application (US
60/828, 132, filed Oct. 4, 2006 ("Sheen provisional")), relied on for priority,
does not support the disclosure of Sheen. (App. Br. 10-11.) According to
Appellants, the Examiner relies on paragraph 25 of Sheen to teach a "shared
feedback channel," but the corresponding paragraph of Sheen's provisional
application does not teach a "shared feedback channel." (App. Br. 10-11.)
The Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 2 builds on the rejection
of claim 1, and, as discussed above, relies on Zheng for teaching a shared
feedback channel. (See Ans. 6-7.) The Examiner relies on Sheen primarily
5
Appeal2014-000783
Application 12/147,373
for the "virtual group" recited in claim 2. (See Final Act. 8 ("It would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention
to modify the invention of Oleszcsuk-Zheng by using a virtual group as
taught by Sheen in order to transmit the same set of signal information.");
Ans. 7.) We agree with the Examiner that paragraph 12 of the Sheen
provisional teaches a cluster, which may be considered a virtual group. (See
Ans. 7.) In addition, we agree with the Examiner that paragraph 15 in the
Sheen provisional teaches a channel shared by relay stations of different
clusters to transfer data or signals (Ans. 7 (citing Sheen provisional i-f 15)),
which constitutes a channel shared by a virtual group. We also note
Appellants do not rebut the Examiner's findings regarding paragraph 15 of
the Sheen provisional. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 2--4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Oleszcsuk,
Zheng, and Sheen.
Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and recites receiving the
acknowledgement or the negative acknowledgement from at least two of the
plurality of relay stations at approximately a same time and via
approximately a same frequency band. The Examiner finds Oleszcsuk
teaches relay stations transmitting at approximately a same time and
frequency because each relay station is assigned its own frequency and
timeslot (Ans. 8 (citing Oleszcsuk Abstract, i-f 9)), and Zheng teaches
feedback from relay stations is associated with the uplink traffic carried in
the same frame (Ans. 8 (citing Zheng 7:27-35)).
6
Appeal2014-000783
Application 12/147,373
Appellants argue neither Oleszcsuk nor Zheng discloses relative
timing of transmissions from different relay stations. (Reply Br. 5.) We
agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown that Oleszcsuk or
Zheng teaches the claimed receiving from at least two of the plurality of
relay stations at approximately a same time. The cited portions of
Oleszcsuk state that each relay station is assigned its own timeslot
(Oleszcsuk Abstract, i-f 9), but do not teach timeslots of different relay
stations are correlated or shared. The cited portion of Zheng teaches uplink
feedback is associated with uplink traffic carried in the same frame (Zheng
7:31-32), but does not address the relationship between timing of multiple
relay stations. Accordingly, on the record before us, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Oleszcsuk or Zheng.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7, 24--33, 42, and 43 is
affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 8 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JRG
7