Ex Parte Gardner et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 201613671476 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/671,476 11/07/2012 23696 7590 10/03/2016 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 5775 MOREHOUSE DR. SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR James M. Gardner 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. 070917C1Cl 3051 EXAMINER TIM ORY, KABIR A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2631 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/03/2016 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): us-docketing@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAMES M. GARDNER, VINCENT KNOWLES JONES IV, and DIDIER JOHANNES RICHARD VAN NEE Appeal2015-006830 Application 13/671,476 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EV ANS, and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 5, and 7-18. 3 App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). 1 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed February 9, 2015 ("App. Br."); Appellants' Reply Brief filed July 15, 2015 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed May 15, 2015 ("Ans."); and the Final Office Action mailed August 6, 2014 ("Final Act."). 2 Appellants identify QUALCOMM Incorporated as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. 3 In the Final Office Action, the Examiner indicated that claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 8. In the Answer, the Examiner indicated the rejection of claim 2 is withdrawn. Ans. 4. Because Appeal2015-006830 Application 13/671,476 We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims on Appeal Claims 1, 8-11, and 16-18 are independent claims. Claims 1 and 11 are reproduced below (with disputed limitations in italics): 1. A method for transmitting a modified preamble in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: determining a long training pattern for a preamble, wherein the long training pattern comprises values for subcarriers in a wireless channel; and transmitting a modified long training pattern in a modified preamble, wherein at least a part of the modified long training pattern has a low cross correlation with a corresponding part of the long training pattern. 11. A method for discriminating between packet types in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving one or more signals from one or more transmitters, the one or more signals including a long training pattern for a preamble that comprises values for subcarriers in a \'l1ireless channel; multiplying the long training pattern with a conventional long training pattern to form a first product; multiplying the long training pattern with a modified long training pattern to form a second product, wherein at least a part of the modified long training pattern has a low cross correlation with a corresponding part of the conventional long training pattern; determining, from the first product and the second product, which long training pattern was more likely to have been sent for the received long training pattern; and discriminating as to which type of packet was sent based on the more likely sent long training pattern. claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 2, we consider the rejection of claims 3 and 4 withdrawn as well. 2 Appeal2015-006830 Application 13/671,476 V anderperren et al. P erahia et al. References US 2004/0076246 Al US 7,352,688 Bl Examiner's Rejections Apr. 22, 2004 Apr. 1, 2008 Claims 11-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention. Final Act. 4--5. Claims 1, 5, and 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Perahia and Vanderperren. Final Act. 5-8. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments the Examiner erred. See App. Br. 6-13; Reply Br. 2--4. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Rejection of Claims 11-18 under 35 U.S. C. § 112, Second Paragraph The Examiner concludes that the term "more likely," as recited in independent claims 11 and 16-18, is indefinite because it is not clear whether the "conventional long training pattern," or the "modified long training pattern," has been sent for the "received long training pattern." Ans. 2. Appellants argue the term "more likely" is not per se indefinite. App. Br. 7. We agree with Appellants that "more likely" is not per se indefinite. We further agree with Appellants that the claims recite that a 3 Appeal2015-006830 Application 13/671,476 long training pattern is received. Reply Br. 2. However, "more likely" is a relative term, and Appellants have not directed us to, nor do we find, a description in Appellants' Specification as to how one of ordinary skill in the art ascertains the meaning of "more likely" in whether a conventional long training pattern or a modified long training pattern was sent for the received training pattern. See Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Although absolute or mathematical precision is not required," "[t]he claims, when read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, must provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art."). Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding claims 11-18 are indefinite. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 11-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Rejections of Claims 1, 5, and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Appellants argue Perahia does not teach "determining a long training pattern for a preamble," and "transmitting a modified long training pattern in a modified preamble," as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 2-3. Independent claims 8-10 recite similar limitations. Appellants note Perahia teaches a top preamble comprising long symbols 506 and a bottom preamble comprising long symbols 510. App. Br. 7 (citing Perahia Fig. 5). Appellants dispute the Examiner's finding that the long symbols 506/510 teach the recited "long training pattern" and "modified long training pattern." App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. Appellants note Perahia teaches "the modification of the 'modified preamble' is in the ordering and arrangement of components, rather than a modification of the 4 Appeal2015-006830 Application 13/671,476 components themselves." App. Br. 9 (citing Perahia Fig. 5); see App. Br. 1 O; see Reply Br. 3. Appellants assert Perahia teaches that the values of the long symbols 506/510 are not modified. Id. Appellants note Perahia states "[t]he long symbol values are preferably the same as those specified by the 802.1 la standard." App. Br. 9, 10; Reply Br. 3 (quoting Perahia col. 6, 11. 48--49). We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner finds Perahia teaches that the preamble structure is modified such that a modified long training pattern is within a modified preamble. See Ans. 3 (quoting Perahia col. 5, 11. 28-36). Perahia discloses: The IEEE 802. lla standard also provides for the use of a preamble including special symbols for use in synchronization and carrier estimation. In a transmitted frame or packet, this preamble precedes the data-carrying OFDM symbols. The preamble includes so-called short and long symbols. The portion of the packet including the long symbols is modified to facilitate MIMD channel estimation as it will be explained in greater detail below. Insertion blocks 310 insert the preamble symbols. Perahia col. 5, 11. 28-36 (emphasis added). The Examiner further finds Perahia modifies the preamble structure by adding long symbols. See Ans. 4 (quoting Perahia col. 8, 11. 39--4 7); see Perahia col. 8, 11. 39--41 ("In an alternative variant, the preamble structure of FIG. 5 is modified so that four or more long symbols are used on each transmitting antenna element."). Thus, the Examiner finds Perahia modifies the preamble and the long training pattern at least by changing the order of components and the number of components. We agree with the Examiner that such a modification to the pattern of long training symbols is within the scope of a "modified long training pattern," as recited in claim 1. We disagree with Appellants that the 5 Appeal2015-006830 Application 13/671,476 recited "modified long training pattern in a modified preamble," requires the components be changed themselves. App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 3. Although such modifications may be within the scope of a "modified long training pattern," the term is not so limited, and the Examiner has shown Perahia discloses modification to the pattern of long symbols as discussed above. Based upon the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1and8-10. Appellants do not present additional persuasive arguments regarding claims 5 and 7 (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 4), and, therefore, we sustain the rejection of these claims. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 11-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is AFFIRMED. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 5, and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation