Ex Parte Grohn

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 7, 2004

09631474 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 7, 2004)

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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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