Ex Parte GrohnDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesDec 7, 200409631474 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 7, 2004) Copy Citation The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board. Paper No. 14 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte OSSI ILARI GROHN Appeal No. 2004-1561 Application No. 09/631,474 ______________ ON BRIEF _______________ Before HAIRSTON, GROSS, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 45 through 54 and 56 through 88. In an Amendment After Final (paper number 8) claims 49 and 67 were canceled, and claim 61 was amended. After submission of the brief, the examiner indicated (answer, pages 2 and 3) that claims 48, 50, 56, 65, 66, 68, 81 and 88 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Accordingly, claims 45 through 47, 51 through 54, 57 through 64, 69 through 80 and 82 through 87 remain before us on appeal. Appeal No. 2004-1561 Application No. 09/631,474 2 The disclosed invention relates to a method and apparatus for sending control information between a control unit and at least one of a plurality of cascaded units. The control information is sent via a common control channel over a time- multiplexed communications link. The common control channel comprises a plurality of consecutive timeslots of a time- multiplexed frame. Claim 45 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows: 45. A method for sending control information between a control unit and at least one of a plurality of cascaded units (CU) comprising: generating an downlink message of a predetermined length comprising a CU identifier and control information, wherein said CU identifier corresponds to a designated CU; sending said downlink message to said designated CU using a common control channel over a time- multiplexed communications link, said common control channel comprising a plurality of consecutive timeslots of a time-multiplexed frame; and processing said downlink message at said designated CU. The references relied on by the examiner are: Widjaja et al. (Widjaja) 5,274,642 Dec. 28, 1993 Miya et al. (Miya) EP 0 948 221 A2 Oct. 6, 1999 (published European Patent Application) Appeal No. 2004-1561 Application No. 09/631,474 1 The examiner’s statement of the rejection (answer, page 6) does not include claims 75, 76 and 79. Since appellant has listed these claims (brief, page 3), we will do the same. 3 Ishii et al. (Ishii) EP 0 993 207 A2 Apr. 12, 2000 (published European Patent Application) Claims 45 through 47, 51 through 54, 57 through 60, 69 through 801 and 82 through 87 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishii in view of Miya. Claims 61 through 64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishii in view of Miya and Widjaja. Reference is made to the brief (paper number 11) and the answer (paper number 12) for the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner. OPINION We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 45, 51, 57, 69 through 76, 80 and 82 through 87, and reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 46, 47, 52 through 54, 58 through 64 and 77 through 79. Ishii discloses a method and system (Figure 4) for sending control information between a control unit (i.e., base station controller 20) and at least one of a plurality of cascaded units #0 through #2 (i.e., base stations 30 through 32). The base Appeal No. 2004-1561 Application No. 09/631,474 4 station controller 20 generates a downlink message of a predetermined length, and it comprises a base station/cascaded unit identifier that corresponds to a designated base station/cascaded unit (i.e., headers H0 through H2 for base stations 30 through 32, respectively) (Figure 9; column 3, line 54 through column 4, line 4; column 12, lines 17 through 30; column 13, lines 4 through 17; column 15, lines 26 through 37; column 19, lines 11 through 16) and control information (i.e., control time slot TS) (Figure 9; column 5, lines 20 through 27; column 10, lines 38 through 48). Ishii sends a downlink message (column 11, lines 15 and 16; column 13, lines 40 through 46) to the designated base station/cascaded unit using a common/shared control channel over a time-multiplexed communications link 60 through 62 (Figures 4 through 8; column 5, lines 20 and 21; column 10, lines 50 through 58; column 20, lines 1 through 11). The common control channel comprises a plurality of consecutive timeslots of a time-multiplexed frame structure of the multiplexed signal transmitted and received through the shared communications link 60 (Figures 4 and 9; column 8, lines 11 through 14; column 5, lines 20 through 27; column 10, lines 33 through 49; column 20, lines 1 through 11). Ishii specifically states (column 10, lines 38 through 44) that in the Appeal No. 2004-1561 Application No. 09/631,474 5 shared communications link 60, the frame data comprises 32 timeslots. Nothing in Figure 9 or the disclosure of Ishii indicates a break in the consecutive timeslots. Thereafter, the downlink message is processed by the designated base station/cascaded unit (column 13, lines 4 through 17). The timeslot teachings of Miya are merely cumulative to the teachings of Ishii. In view of the foregoing, the obviousness rejection of claims 45, 51, 57, 69 through 73, 80 and 84 through 86 is sustained. The obviousness rejection of claims 74 through 76 is sustained because appellant has not presented any patentability arguments for these claims apart from independent claim 69 (brief, pages 23 and 24). The obviousness rejection of claim 87 is sustained because Ishii alters the control message at the designated base station/cascaded unit by deleting the designated header before forwarding it to the next base station/cascaded unit (column 13, lines 4 through 17). The obviousness rejection of claims 46, 47, 52 through 54, 58 through 64, 77 and 78 is reversed because the applied references neither teach nor would have suggested to one of Appeal No. 2004-1561 Application No. 09/631,474 6 ordinary skill in the art the Link Access Procedure on D-channel (LAPD) format using High Level Data Link Control (HDLC) frames including a Service Access Point Identifier (SAPI) location. The examiner’s contentions (answer, pages 7 and 8) to the contrary notwithstanding, we agree with the appellant’s argument (brief, pages 13 and 14) that the examiner is relying on impermissible hindsight reconstruction to arrive at the conclusion that the conventional frame included an address field having a SAPI location. The obviousness rejection of claim 79 is reversed because the applied references neither teach nor would have suggested to the skilled artisan the specifically claimed length of the common control channel. The obviousness rejection of claims 82 and 83 is sustained because the appellant has not presented any patentability arguments for these claims. DECISION The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 45 through 47, 51 through 54, 57 through 64, 69 through 80 and 82 through 87 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed as to claims 45, 51, 57, 69 through 76, 80 and 82 through 87, and is reversed as to claims 46, 47, 52 through 54, 58 through 64 and 77 through 79. Appeal No. 2004-1561 Application No. 09/631,474 7 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) ) BOARD OF PATENT ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS AND Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES ) ) ) ) LANCE LEONARD BARRY ) Administrative Patent Judge ) KWH:hh Appeal No. 2004-1561 Application No. 09/631,474 8 DAVID E. BENNETT COATS & BENNETT 1400 CRESCENT GREEN STE. 300 CARY, NC 27511 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation