Ex Parte Ishii et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2015

12525557 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MINAMI ISHII, ANIL UMESH, and
SADAYUKI ABETA
____________________

Appeal 2015-002552
Application 12/525,557
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2015-002552
Application 12/525,557

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 31–39. Claims 1–30 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a mobile communications system. Abst.
Claim 31, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter
with a disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
31. A radio access network apparatus configured to
communicate with a mobile station using a downlink shared
data channel, and a downlink signaling control channel,
wherein the mobile station is configured to access the radio
access network apparatus via a random access channel, the
radio access network apparatus comprising:
a dedicated uplink channel allocating unit configured to allocate a
dedicated preamble to the mobile station which starts
communication, when the dedicated preamble is available,
wherein the dedicated uplink channel allocating unit allocates
the dedicated preamble to the mobile station by a handover
command, and the dedicated preamble is to be used by the
mobile station to access the radio access network apparatus via
the random access channel, a dedicated channel reception
detecting unit configured to detect reception of the dedicated
preamble transmitted from the mobile station via the random
access channel;
a downlink transmitting unit configured to transmit a response to the
mobile station using the down link shared data channel and the
downlink signaling control channel, when the reception of the
dedicated preamble transmitted from the mobile station via the
random access channel is detected; and
a reporting unit configured to report to the mobile station that a
random access preamble is to be used for the random access
Appeal 2015-002552
Application 12/525,557

3
channel, when the dedicated preamble is not available, wherein
the reporting unit is configured to report to the mobile station
that the random access preamble is to be used for the random
access channel by a signal.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Moulsley US 6,611,514 B1 Aug. 26, 2003
Fischer
1
US 2008/0188219 A1 Aug. 7, 2008
“3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group
Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-
UTRA) and Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-
UTRAN); Overall description; Stage 2 (Release 8)”, 3GPP
STANDARD; 3GPP TS 36.300, 3RD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP
PROJECT (3GPP), no. V0.3.1, 1 November 2006, pages 1–64,
XP050380377 (hereinafter “3GPP TS 36.300.”)

REJECTIONS
2

The Examiner rejected claims 31–39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fischer and Moulsley. Final Action. 3–11.

Appellants seek our review of the following rejections:

1
Although the Examiner cites to Fischer in rejecting the claims, the cited
portions appear in 3GPP TS 36.300. Because Appellants do not contend
error in connection with the Examiner’s reliance on Fischer in rejecting
claims 31–39, we consider any error in citation to be harmless and waived.
2
Appellants collectively argue the rejection of independent claims 31, 35,
and 39. Separate patentability is not argued for claims 32–34 and 36–38.
Therefore, based on Appellants’ arguments, we decide the appeal of claims
31–39 based on claim 31 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2015-002552
Application 12/525,557

4

APPELLANTS’ CONTENTION
Moulsley discloses, “when the dedicated signaling transmissions are
unavailable, the proportion of the frames 202 allocated to dedicated
signaling transmissions is increased . . . ,” contrary to the Examiner’s
finding, “that, when the dedicated signaling transmissions are unavailable,
the whole channel depicted in FIG. 5 is used for the random access
transmission.” App. Br. 15. (emphasis omitted).

ISSUE ON APPEAL
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 11–15)
the issue presented on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in finding
Moulsley’s partitioning of frame 202 between random access and dedicated
transmissions includes an allocation entirely to random access transmission
making dedicated signaling transmission unavailable and selection by
MS110 of a random signature thereby teaching or suggesting the disputed
limitation of claim 31.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Action 3–
11) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer
in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 3–12) and concur with the
Appeal 2015-002552
Application 12/525,557

5
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
The Examiner finds Moulsley discloses, in addition to a mixture of
random access and dedicated signaling, the whole of frame 202 may be
allocated to either random access or dedicated signaling transmissions. The
Examiner reasons “MS 110 receives the partitioning of frames 202, in
detecting a dedicated signature is not available if whole of the frame 202 is
allocated to random access, MS 110 randomly selects and transmits a
random access preamble to BS 100, a reporting unit is required.” Ans. 6.
Appellants argue Moulsley discloses adjusting the proportion of frames
allocated between (i) random access and (ii) dedicated signaling
transmissions in dependence on the respective loads. App. Br. 14. That is,
“the partitioning varies depending on the ratio of random access loading to
dedicated signaling loading.” Id. Therefore, Appellants argue, contrary to
the Examiner’s finding, “it is not true that, when the dedicated signaling
transmissions are unavailable, the whole channel depicted in FIG. 5 is used
for the random access transmission.” App. Br. 15. The Examiner responds
by finding
Moulsley teaches that when significantly heavy load on the random
access transmissions, the entire frame 202 may be allocated to the
random access transmission, which indicating that the dedicated
signalling transmission is not available and instructing the mobile
station that the random access preamble is to be used for the random
access channel. It is clear that when the dedicated signalling
transmission is not available, the appropriate predetermined dedicated
signature is also not available. Thus, when receiving the frames 202
entirely allocated to random access transmission, which indicating the
dedicated signalling transmission and the dedicated signature are not
available, MS 110 selects a signature at random from the set of
Appeal 2015-002552
Application 12/525,557

6
available signatures and transmits the random access preamble to BS
100.
Ans. 8. Therefore, the Examiner concludes Moulsley teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation of claim 31. Id.
We agree with the Examiner. Appellants’ argument is premised on
Moulsley’s demand-based allocation of slots 204 of frame 202 will foreclose
a situation wherein there will be no slots allocated to dedicated signaling.
See App. Br. 14–15. Therefore, the situation will not arise wherein
dedicated signaling transmission is unavailable such that “the whole channel
depicted in FIG. 5 is used for the random access transmissions.” App. Br.
15. However, the Examiner finds, based on demand, Moulsley’s partitioning
of frame 202 includes an exclusive allocation to random access
transmissions to the exclusion of dedicated signaling. See Ans. 10.
Therefore, under such conditions, dedicated signaling transmissions are
unavailable. Id. In the absence of Appellants’ reply rebutting the
Examiner’s rationale, we find the Examiner’s conclusion to be reasonable
and agree Moulsley teaches or suggests demand conditions preferring
random access transmissions to the exclusion of dedicated signaling
transmissions thereby making the latter unavailable.
For the reasons supra, we find Appellants’ contention unpersuasive of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim
31 and, for the same reasons, the rejection of independent claims 35 and 39
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fischer and Moulsley
together with the rejection of dependent claims 32–34 and 36–38, which
were not separately argued.

Appeal 2015-002552
Application 12/525,557

7
CONCLUSIONS
Appellants have failed to provide sufficient evidence or argument to
persuade us of error in the Examiner’s finding Moulsley’s partitioning of
frame 202 between random access and dedicated transmissions includes an
allocation entirely to random access transmission making dedicated
signaling transmission unavailable and selection by MS110 of a random
signature, thereby teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation of claim 31.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 31–39 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

kme