Ex Parte Jeong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2016

12291276 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/291,276
23990 7590
DOCKET CLERK
FILING DATE
11/07/2008
02/25/2016
P.O. DRAWER 800889
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hye-Yeon Jeong
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.
SP8177-US
(SAMS06-08 l 77)
CONFIRMATION NO.
6186
EXAMINER
MCCARTHY, CHRISTOPHER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2113
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2016 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):
patents@munckwilson.com
munckwilson@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HYE-YEON JEONG, SUNG-WOOK PARK, and
JEONG-HOON PARK
Appeal2014-004456
Application 12/291,2 7 6
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--7, 11, 12, 14--16, and 20-28. Claims 3, 8-
10, 13, and 17-19 have been cancelled. (Claim App'x. 1--4). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2014-004456
Application 12/291,2 7 6
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
Automatic Repeat Request (ARQ) in a broadband wireless access system in
order to prevent unnecessary reset of data retransmission. (Spec. ,-r 2).
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ) at a transmitter
of a communication system, the method comprising:
driving a timer which operates by a preset period to synchronize
automatic repeat requests between the transmitter and a receiver when
receiving data from an upper stage or transmitting data to the receiver;
after transmitting data to the receiver without error, when a
driving time of the timer expires, checking whether there is data to
transmit to the receiver by checking whether there is data in an ARQ
transmission (TX) window, wherein a presence of data to transmit to
the receiver is determined \'l1hen there is data in the ii:\.RQ TX \'l1indo\'lv',
and wherein an absence of the data to transmit to the receiver is
determined when there is no data in the ARQ TX window; and
when there is no data to transmit to the receiver, stopping
the timer and transmitting an ARQ reset message to the receiver.
The Examiner's Rejections
Appellants seek our review of the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 4--7, 11, 12, 14--16, and 20-25 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Schaap et al. (US 2007/0277072 Al;
published Nov. 29, 2007).
2
Appeal2014-004456
Application 12/291,2 7 6
Claims 26-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Schaap and Kim (US 7,676,721 B2;
issued Mar. 9, 2010).
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding Schaap discloses "when a
driving time of the timer expires, checking whether there is data to transmit
to the receiver by checking whether there is data in an ARQ transmission
(TX) window," as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately
recited in independent claims 11 and 20?
Appellants contend Schaap does not disclose the disputed limitation
because Schaap discloses that the ARQ sync loss timer is deactivated after
the transmitter has transmitted its final currently-available data block. (App.
Br. 16; Reply Br. 3). Thus, according to Appellants, Schaap does not
disclose checking whether there is data in an ARQ transmission window
when the sync loss timer expires, as claimed. (Reply Br. 3). Appellants
further argue Schaap' s ARQ retry timer does not teach the timer recited in
the claims. (Reply Br. 3-6).
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. In order to anticipate
under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a prior art reference "must not only disclose all
elements of the claim within the four comers of the document, but must also
disclose those elements ... 'arranged as in the claim."' Net MoneyIN, Inc.
v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Connell v.
Sears, Roebuck& Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed.Cir.1983))
In the Final Action, the Examiner associates Schaap' s ARQ sync loss
timer with the claimed timer and the deactivation of the ARQ sync loss timer
with the claimed expiration. (Final Act 2-3, 7, citing i-fi-13, 13, and 34).
3
Appeal2014-004456
Application 12/291,2 7 6
Specifically, the Examiner points to the scenario described in paragraphs 34
and 35 of Schaap, which describes deactivating the ARQ sync loss timer
after sending final currently-available ARQ data blocks and sending a
"suspend ARQ reset" signal. (Final Act. 7). In this scenario, the "suspend
ARQ reset" signal is lost in transmission, so an ARQ retry timer reaches its
timeout value and resends the "suspend ARQ reset" signal, along with any
ARQ data blocks associated with the ARQ retry timer. (Schaap i-f 35). The
Examiner finds this fulfills the claim limitation "that the receiver determines
there are blocks to re-send/send following a previous timer expiration."
(Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 7-8).
We agree with Appellants that Schaap, as relied upon by the
Examiner, does not disclose the elements of Appellants' invention as
arranged in the claims. The claim requires "driving a timer ... after
transmitting data to the receiver without error, when a driving time of the
timer expires, checking whether there is data to transmit. .. " The Examiner
relies on two different timers (the ARQ sync loss timer and the ARQ retry
timer) to disclose the single timer claimed. Moreover, we agree with
Appellants that Schaap' s deactivating the ARQ sync loss timer after
transmission of the final currently-available ARQ data blocks does not
disclose checking whether there is data in an ARQ transmission window
when the ARQ sync loss timer expires.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 20. For the same reasons we do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2, 4--7, 12, 14--16,
and 21-28, which were not argued separately.
4
Appeal2014-004456
Application 12/291,2 7 6
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--7,
11, 12, 14--16, and 20-28 is reversed.
REVERSED
5