Ex Parte CHO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 3, 2016

12110649 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/110,649 04/28/2008
66547 7590 02/04/2016
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joon-Y oung CHO
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.
678-3487 5868
EXAMINER
BALAOING, ARIEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2699
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2016 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 JOON-YOUNG CHO, JU-HO LEE,
HWAN-JOON KWON, and JIN-KYU HAN
Appeal2014-004243
Application 12/110,649
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of
claims 43-56. Claims 1--42 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
A. THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claimed invention relates to "allocating
positive Acknowledgement (ACK)/Negative Acknowledgement (NACK)
physical channel . . . resources with which a reception side notifies a
Appeal2014-004243
Application 12/110,649
transmission side of the success/failure in decoding of a received data
channel" (Spec. i-f 2.)
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 43 is exemplary:
43. A method for allocating physical resources to an
Acknowledgement (ACK)/Negative Acknowledgement (NACK) signal
channel in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
grouping ACK/NACK signal channels into a plurality of groups based
on uplink resource block indexes so that ACK/NACK signal channels of
consecutive uplink resource blocks do not belong to the same group,
wherein each ACK/NACK signal channel is used to transmit a downlink
ACK/NACK signal in response to a data channel received through a
respective one of a plurality of uplink resource blocks; and
allocating same frequency resources to ACK/NACK signal
channels belonging to the same ACK/NACK signal channel group
and allocating orthogonal sequences so ACK/NACK signal channels
in each ACK/NACK signal channel group are distinguished in a code
domain.
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Simonsson US 2002/0004407 Al Jan. 10,2002
Grob US 2004/0221218 Al Nov. 4, 2004
Hiraki US 2005/0181735 Al Aug. 18, 2005
Song US 2006/0098752 Al May 11, 2006
Malladi US 2008/0095109 Al Apr. 24, 2008
Claims 43, 44, 47, 48, 51, and 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grob, and Malladi.
2
Appeal2014-004243
Application 12/110,649
Claims 45, 49, and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Grob, Malladi, and Song.
Claims 46, 50, and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Grob, Malladi, and Simonsson.
Claims 55, and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Grob, Malladi, Song, and Hiraki.
II. ISSUE
The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Grob and Malladi teaches or would have suggested
"grouping ACK/NACK signal channels into a plurality of groups based on
uplink resource block indexes so that ACK/NACK signal channels of
consecutive uplink resource blocks do not belong to the same group" (claim
43, emphasis added)(Independent claims 55 and 56 contain a similar
limitation).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend "Grob actually discloses grouping users into sub-
groups and assigning predetermined numbers of channels to each user of the
sub-groups" (App. Br. 4, emphasis added), whereas in Appellants' invention
discloses "grouping a plurality of the ACK/NACK signal channels,"
therefore "channels of different groups as well as channels of the same
group are not overlapping" (App. Br. 5, emphasis added). Appellants then
contend although "Malladi illustrates individual ACK/NACK signal
channels, it fails to disclose that ACK/NACK signal channels are grouped
into a plurality of groups" (id.).
3
Appeal2014-004243
Application 12/110,649
After reviewing the record on appeal, we find the preponderance of
evidence supports the Appellants' position. Even though we agree with the
Examiner that "Grob discloses for example in the abstract that [t]he number
of channels assigned to each user (and therefore a sub-group) is determined
based, at least in part, on the number of sub-groups and a number of
channels available in the system" (Ans. 3--4, emphasis omitted), we are
unsure where in the cited portions of the Grob or Malladi there is a teaching
or suggestion of such grouping of the channels into a plurality of groups
based on uplink resource block indexes so that the "channels of consecutive
uplink resource blocks do not belong to the same group" (claim 43). That is,
although we agree Grob discloses and suggests assigning channels to users
based on the number of sub-groups (Ans. 3), we are unconvinced that the
cited portions of the references teach or suggest the contested claimed
"grouping" of "channels" so that the "channels of consecutive uplink
resource blocks do not belong to the same group" as required in independent
claim 43
Therefore, on this record, we cannot affirm the Examiner's§ 103
rejection of independent claim 43, and claims 44, 47, 48, 51, and 52
depending therefrom (App. Br. 6), over Grob and Malladi.
The Examiner makes no finding as to whether Song, Simonsson, and
Hiraki make up for the above-discussed deficiencies of Grob and Malladi.
Thus, we also reverse the rejections of: claims 45, 49, and 53 over Grob, and
Malladi, in further view of Song; claims 46, 50, and 54 over Grob, and
Malladi, in further view of Simonsson; and independent claims 55, and 56
over Grob, and Malladi, in further view of Song, and Hiraki.
4
Appeal2014-004243
Application 12/110,649
IV CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 43-56 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
REVERSED
5