Ex Parte Gholmieh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 16, 2017

13594454 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2017)

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.
13/594,454 08/24/2012 Ralph A. GHOLMIEH 120598 / 1376-909 3539
111523 7590 11/20/2017
The Marbury Law Group/Qualcomm
11800 Sunrise Valley Drive, 15th Floor
Reston, VA 20191
EXAMINER
LUU, LE HIEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/20/2017 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):
ptonoticesqc @marburylaw.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RALPH A. GHOLMIEH and GORDON KENT WALKER
Appeal 2017-006448
Application 13/594,4541
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—6, 8—17, 19-30, 33—37, 43—48, 50-59, 61—71,
73—82, 84—94, 96—105, 107—118, and 122—153.2 We have jurisdiction over
the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Qualcomm Incorporated as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 3.)
2 Claims 7, 18, 31, 32, 49, 60, 72, 83, 95, 106, and 119—121 are objected to
and indicated as containing allowable subject matter. (Final Act. 7.)
Appeal 2017-006448
Application 13/594,454
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to receiving a
data block or file containing a plurality of application symbols, determining
the number of application symbols received in the block, and generating a
metric based on the number of application symbols received in the block.
(Abstract.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A method for providing reception reporting information
in a wireless communication system, comprising:
receiving a plurality of application symbols within a file
transmitted by the wireless communication system;
determining a number (n) of application symbols
received in the file and a total number (k) of applications
symbols transmitted in the file;
generating a metric based on the number (n) of
application symbols received in the file and the total number (k)
of applications symbols transmitted in the file; and
transmitting the metric to a server.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1—3, 24, 37, 43—45, 66—68, 89-91, 112,
125, 126, 139, 140, and 153 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
by Chung-How et al. (US 2013/0263201 Al, pub. Oct. 3, 2013) (hereinafter
“Chung-How”). (Final Act. 3.)
The Examiner rejected claims 4—6, 8—17, 19-23, 25—30, 33—36, 46—
48, 50-59, 61-65, 69-71, 73-82, 8^U88, 92-94, 96-105, 107-111, 113-118,
122-124, 127-138, and 141-152 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
2
Appeal 2017-006448
Application 13/594,454
unpatentable over Chung-How, in view of Chung et al. (US 2010/0166051
Al, pub. July 1, 2010). (Final Act. 4.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue:3
Whether the Examiner erred in finding Chung-How discloses the
independent claim 1 limitations,
determining a number (n) of application symbols
received in the file and a total number (k) of applications
symbols transmitted in the file;
generating a metric based on the number (n) of
application symbols received in the file and the total number (k)
of applications symbols transmitted in the file,
and the commensurate limitations recited in independent claims 24, 43, 66,
89, 112, 126, and 140. (App. Br. 14.)
ANALYSIS
In finding Chung-How discloses the claim limitations at issue, the
Examiner relies on the disclosure in Chung-How of a video system that
performs content analysis and statistical multiplexing of input video streams
to maximize FEC (forward error correction) rate for the transmitted data.
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Oct. 12, 2016) (herein, “App.
Br.”); the Reply Brief (filed Mar. 9, 2017) (herein, “Reply Br.”); the Final
Office Action (mailed Mar. 17, 2016) (herein, “Final Act.”); and the
Examiner’s Answer (mailed Jan. 19, 2017) (herein, “Ans.”) for the
respective details.
3
Appeal 2017-006448
Application 13/594,454
(Final Act. 3; Chung-How Ull 1—112, Fig. 5.) The Examiner further relies
on the disclosure in Chung-How of (1) data generated periodically by each
client device that provides FEC decoder loss rate, (2) a decoder unit that
extracts and buffers received FEC symbols, (3) a quality of service
extraction unit that computes FEC decoder block error, (4) analysis by the
processing unit of required cross packet FEC, and (5) feedback data
provided by a group of active clients. (Final Act. 3; Chung-How H 120,
126, 132, 135, 137.) However, although identifying the relevant portions of
the cited reference, the Examiner does not provide any analysis of the
correspondence between the claim limitations and the cited paragraphs of
Chung-How. See Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 4—5, 8—11.
Appellants argue that while the “Examiner relies on paragraph 0126
and Fig. 5 of CHUNG-HOW et al. to allegedly disclose the claimed
‘determining’” (App. Br. 9), “the mere disclosure of buffering symbols and
using a subset of packets to recover a block does not teach or suggest that
any determination of a number of received ‘application symbols’ in
combination with a total number of ‘applications symbols transmitted in the
file’ is performed.” (App. Br. 10.) Regarding Figure 5, Appellants further
contend “the Examiner provides no analysis or comments regarding how (n)
and (k) in CHUNG-HOW et al. could be interpreted as corresponding to the
claimed ‘number (n) of application symbols received in the file’ and ‘a total
number (k) of applications symbols transmitted in the file.’” (App. Br. 12.)
We agree with Appellants. Regarding Figure 5, the Examiner finds
that “Chung-How’s teachings of (k) and (n) correspond to limitations (n) and
(k) of the claim 1 respectively” (Ans. 8—9), but provides no further
explanation. Similarly, we can find no identification by the Examiner of
4
Appeal 2017-006448
Application 13/594,454
what in Chung-How corresponds to Appellants’ claimed “file”, or an
explanation regarding how use of a file is inherent in Chung-How. Thus, we
are persuaded that Chung-How does not teach “determining a number (n) of
application symbols received in the file and a total number (k) of
applications symbols transmitted in the file,” as claimed.
Therefore, on the record before us, we are constrained to find the
Examiner errs in rejecting independent claims 1, 24, 43, 66, 89, 112, 126,
and 140.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the anticipation
rejection of claims 1—3, 24, 37, 43—45, 66—68, 89-91, 112, 125, 126, 139,
140, and 153. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 4—
6, 8-17, 19-23, 25-30, 33-36, 46-A8, 50-59, 61-65, 69-71, 73-82, 8^U88,
92-94, 96-105, 107-111, 113-118, 122-124, 127-138, and 141-152, which
claims depend from claims 1, 24, 43, 66, 89, 112, 126, or 140.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—6, 8—17, 19—30, 33—37,
43—48, 50-59, 61-71, 73-82, 8A-94, 96-105, 107-118, and 122-153 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5