Ex Parte ChoiDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 2, 201713944081 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/944,081 07/17/2013 Hyung-Nam Choi 27701-007926C1 5413 114746 7590 Apple Inc. — FKM 150 Broadway Suite 702 New York, NY 10038 EXAMINER LE, BRIAN T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2469 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2017 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 HYUNG-NAM CHOI Appeal 2016-005103 Application 13/944,0811 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JON M. JURGOVAN, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—8 and 15—26, which constitute all of the claims pending in this appeal. App. Br. 2. Claims 9—14 have been canceled. Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-005103 Application 13/944,081 Appellant’s Invention Appellant invented a base station for coordinating error correction in a wireless communication system according to a transmission schedule received from a first transmitter. Spec. 113, Fig. 3. In particular, upon receiving a first data packet including a corruption from the first transmitter, and a second data packet containing error correction from a second transmitter, the base station decodes the first data packet and correct the corruption using the correction data in the second data packet. Subsequently, the base station transmits an acknowledgment message to the first transmitter or the second transmitter. Id. at 122. Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows: 1. A method for receiving a wireless communication, comprising; receiving a transmission schedule from a first transmitter over a wireless interface; receiving a first data packet from the first transmitter over the wireless interface based upon the transmission schedule, the first data packet including a corruption; receiving a second error correction data packet from a second transmitter over the wireless interface based upon the transmission schedule; decoding the received first data packet, the corruption being corrected based upon the second error correction data packet; and transmitting an acknowledgement message. Illustrative Claim Prior Art Relied Upon Agrawal et al. Terry et al. US 2009/0323577 Al US 2010/0296431 Al Dec. 31,2009 Nov. 25, 2010 2 Appeal 2016-005103 Application 13/944,081 Rejection on Appeal Claims 1—8 and 15—26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Terry and Agrawal. Final Act. 2-15. ANALYSIS We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 2—9, and the Reply Brief, pages 2—8.2 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated hereinbelow, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Ans. 2—21, Final Act. 2—15. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues that the combination of Terry and Agrawal does not teach or suggest a base station receiving different data packets from two separate transmitters. App. Br. 4— 5. In particular, Appellant argues the following: [Wjhile the MAC PDU Y of Terry originates in the transmitter 805, the relay 815 does not simply forward the MAC PDU Y received from the transmitter 805. The relay 815 ofTerry decodes the MAC PDU and transmits some or all of the MAC 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 6, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed Apr. 11, 2016), and the Answer (mailed Feb. 10, 2016) for their respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). 3 Appeal 2016-005103 Application 13/944,081 PDU header information to the receiver 810. (See Terry, [0066]). Since the relay 815 decodes the information received from the transmitter 805 prior to communicating with the receiver 810, the relay 815 is not sending the same information to the receiver 810 as the information that originated from the transmitter 805. The relay 815 is transmitting information encoded by the relay 815, not information encoded by the transmitter 805. This decoded MAC PDU information, like the Status Report Triggering Signal 1005, is originated at the relay 815. Thus, the receiver 810 in Terry only receives data from a first transmitter, the relay 815. Id. According to Appellant, because the relay decodes the information received from the transmitter, the relay sends to the receiver the decoded information, as opposed to the information as received from the transmitter. Id. at 5-6, Reply Br. 3—5 (citing Terry || 35, 37). Therefore, Appellant contends that Terry’s receiver receives data packets from a single transmitter, namely the relay, as opposed to two separate transmitters as required by the claim. Id. This argument is not persuasive. At the outset, we note that although claim 1 recites receiving data packets from two separate transmitters, the claim does not preclude the involvement of a third device in that transmission. As correctly noted by the Examiner, the claim does not require a direct communication between each of the transmitters and the receiver. Ans. 17. Instead, it merely requires receiving data from a first transmitter and a second transmitter. Further, as correctly noted by the Examiner, Terry discloses an embodiment wherein the relay device merely relays or forwards (without decoding) to the receiver the data packet (MAC PDU Y) received from the transmitter. Id. at 13—15 (citing Terry 135, Fig. 8). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the 4 Appeal 2016-005103 Application 13/944,081 intermediary role of the disclosed relay device does not in any way preclude the data packet received from the transmitter to be relayed to the receiver. Id. Additionally, even if the relay device decoded the information received from the transmitter to thereby transmit the decoded information to the receiver, such a transformation of the data packet would still fall within the scope of the disputed limitation, which does not preclude the intermediary device from translating the received data before forwarding it to the receiver. Simply put, because the disclosed receiver receives the MAC PDU Y data packet that originates from the transmitter [with the receiver as the target destination], Terry teaches that the data packet is received [by the receiver] from the transmitter. Second, Appellant argues that Terry never sends an error correction packet, but rather just retransmits the same packet. App. Br. 6. Therefore, Appellant submits that Terry does not teach or suggest the corruption in the first data packet being corrected based on the correction received in the second data packet. Id. Further, Appellant argues that Agrawal does not cure the noted deficiencies of Terry because, like Terry, it teaches a single base station for transmitting first and second data packets. Id. at 7. These arguments are not persuasive. As correctly noted by the Examiner, Appellant’s arguments are tantamount to an individual attack against the references. Ans. 18. As reiterated by the Examiner, Terry is relied upon for its teaching of a transmitter sending a first data packet including a corruption (MAC PDU Y, which a relay device does not deliver) to a receiver, and a relay device sending a second data packet including a correction (status report triggering signal to the receiver, which identifies bad packets). Id. at 18—19 (citing 5 Appeal 2016-005103 Application 13/944,081 Terry || 35—36, 58—59, 69, Figs. 8, 10). Further, the Examiner relies upon Agrawal for its teaching of a base station transmitting a transmission schedule, as well as an error signal and a subsequent correction signal used to correct the error signal by soft combining the two transmissions of the received packet. Ans. 20—21 (citing Agrawal 132). We agree with the Examiner that the proposed combination of Terry and Agrawal would have predictably resulted in a wireless system having a base station for dynamically correcting error in received packets. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Further, we note that although Appellant discusses the cited portion Agrawal, Appellant nowhere addressed, let alone rebutted the Examiner’s finding that Agrawal’s disclosure of soft combining the two transmissions of the packet teaches using the correction in the second transmission to correct the error in the first transmission. See Final Act. 3 (citing Agrawal 132). Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over the combination of Terry and Agrawal. Because Appellants do not make separate arguments for patentability of claim 2—8, and 15—26 above, the cited claims fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—8 and 15—26. 6 Appeal 2016-005103 Application 13/944,081 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation