Ex Parte Cheng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

12871360 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/871,360 08/30/2010
66547 7590 09/29/2016
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shan CHENG
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.
1398-359 1599
EXAMINER
JA VAID, JAMAL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2412
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAN CHENG, SUNG TAE KIM, and JIN KYU HAN
Appeal2015-006974
Application 12/871,3 60
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1--4 and 12-15. Claims 5-11 are withdrawn. App. Br. 9-10. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claims
Claim 1 of Appellants' invention is independent and illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-006974
Application 12/871,3 60
1. A method of determining reference signal positions
in a frequency-time domain in an Orthogonal Frequency
Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) system, the method
comprising the steps of:
selecting, by a terminal of the OFDMA system, a plurality
of sub-carriers in one resource block according to a
predetermined mother pattern for reference signal allocation;
when a single resource block is assigned for transmission
to a user, determining the reference signal positions
corresponding to the plurality of selected sub-carriers in the
single resource block, by the terminal of the OFDMA system;
and
when multiple resource blocks are assigned for
transmission to a user, determining, by the terminal of the
OFDMA system, the reference signal positions in the multiple
resource blocks corresponding to the mother pattern, wherein the
mother pattern of at least one of the multiple resource blocks has
a reduced number of the plurality of selected sub-carriers
disposed near an edge of the at least one of the multiple resource
blocks.
The Examiners Rejections
Claims 1--4 and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ko,2 Abe,3 and one or more of Lim,4 Ro,5 and Malladi6.
See Final Act. 2-10.
2 Ko et al. (US 8,254,329 B2; issued Aug. 28, 2012) ("Ko")
3 Abe et al. (US 7,619,963 B2; issued Nov. 17, 2009) ("Abe")
4 Lim et al. (US 200710140104 A 1; published June 21, 2007) ("Lim")
5 Ro et al. (US 2006/0126491 Al; June 15, 2006) ("Ro")
6 Malladi et al. (US 2009/0011767 Al; published Jan. 8, 2009) ("Malladi")
2
Appeal2015-006974
Application 12/871,3 60
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the combination of
Ko, Abe, and Lim does not teach or suggest the following limitation of
claim 1:
when multiple resource blocks are assigned for transmission to a
user, determining, by the terminal of the OFDMA system, the
reference signal positions in the multiple resource blocks
corresponding to the mother pattern, wherein the mother pattern
of at least one of the multiple resource blocks has a reduced
number of the plurality of selected sub-carriers disposed near an
edge of the at least one of the multiple resource blocks.
See App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2; see also Final Act. 3-5 (citing Ko Figs. 7A, 7B,
8, and 9; col. 11, 11. 53-57; Abe claim 1, col. 9, 11. 3---6; Lim i-f 40). The
Examiner found Ko teaches this limitation except "wherein the mother
pattern of at least one of the multiple resource blocks has a reduced number
of the plurality of selected sub-carriers disposed near an edge of the at least
one of the multiple resource blocks." See Final Act. 3 (citing Ko Figs. 7 A,
7B, 8, and 9; col. 11, 11. 53-57). The Examiner found Abe teaches reducing
a number of a plurality of selected sub-carriers by disclosing that the pilot
and data arrangement format determining means reduces the number of sub-
carriers based on the received signal quality. See Final Act. 3--4 (citing Abe
claim 1, col. 9, 11. 3---6). The Examiner found Lim teaches "a reduced
number of the plurality of selected sub-carriers disposed near an edge of the
at least one of the multiple resource blocks" by selecting subcarriers for
signal transmission and excluding some subcarriers in an edge portion of a
frequency spectrum. See Final Act. 4--5 (citing Lim i-f 40). The Examiner
concluded it would have been obvious to have substituted one of Ko' s
3
Appeal2015-006974
Application 12/871,3 60
resource blocks with Lim's frequency spectrum to achieve the "wherein"
clause of the disputed limitation. See Ans. 5.
Appellants argue Lim does not teach or suggest the "wherein" clause
of the disputed limitation because Lim' s disclosure of "excluding some
subcarriers in an edge portion" refers to an edge portion of a full resource
spectrum, not "an edge of at least one of the multiple resource blocks." See
App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2; Lim i-f 40. Accordingly, Appellants argue that the
combination of Ko and Lim "would teach multiple resource blocks in a full
spectrum with a reduced number of subcarriers at an edge of the full
resource spectrum," not "at an edge of at least one of the multiple resource
blocks." Reply Br. 2 (emphasis added).
Having reviewed Appellants' arguments in light of the Examiner's
findings, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. Nothing in the
cited disclosures of Lim or Abe teaches or suggests a reduced number of
selected sub-carriers disposed near an edge "of the at least one of the
multiple resource blocks." See Abe claim 1, col. 9, 11. 3---6; Lim i-f 40. To be
sure, Abe does not specify where its sub-carriers are disposed (see Abe
claim 1, col. 9, 11. 3-6); and, as Appellants argue, Lim's "edge portion"
refers to a full resource spectrum, not "at least one of the multiple resource
blocks." See App. Br. 4 (citing Lim i-fi-1 40, 60); Reply Br. 2. Indeed, Lim is
silent as to the resource spectrum comprising a plurality of resource blocks,
and the Examiner does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would
consider the Lim's resource spectrum interchangeable with a resource block.
Therefore, the Examiner has not established that achieving the claimed
subject matter involves no more than a simple substitution of one known
element for another. See Ans. 5; KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
4
Appeal2015-006974
Application 12/871,3 60
398, 417 (2007). Accordingly, the Examiner has not adequately explained
how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
teachings of the Ko, Abe, and Lim to arrive at claimed invention. See Final
Act. 4--5; Ans. 4--6.
For these reasons, and constrained by the record before us, we agree
with Appellants that the Examiner has not established that the combination
of Ko, Abe, and Lim teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as independent
claim 12 and dependent claims 2, 12, and 13, which include the same
deficiency. We also reverse the rejections of claims 3, 4, 14, and 15, which
include the same deficiency and have not been cured by Ro or Malladi.
See Ans. 6-7; Final Act. 8-10.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1--4 and 12-15 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5