Ex Parte Jia et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 16, 201411547073 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/547,073 10/02/2006 Ming Jia 30134/14515 (P15869US2) 8477 114746 7590 12/16/2014 Apple Inc. -- FKM 150 Broadway Suite 702 New York, NY 10038 EXAMINER FOTAKIS, ARISTOCRATIS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2633 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/16/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MING JIA, WEN TONG, JIANGLEI MA, PEIYING ZHU, and DONG-SHENG YU ____________ Appeal 2012-002992 Application 11/547,073 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6–17, 19, 20, 55–57, 59, 60, 62, and 70–73. Claims 2, 5, 18, 21-54, 58, 61, and 63–69 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Exemplary Claims Exemplary claims 1 and 13 under appeal read as follows (emphasis added): Appeal 2012-002992 Application 11/547,073 2 1. A method for mapping a rate one space-time block code for a 2n antenna transmitter where n >=2, the method comprising transmitting 2n transmission symbols in each of a plurality of transmission periods by: mapping 2n transmission symbols to the 2n antennas using at least two different patterns for different transmission periods of the plurality of transmission periods, each transmission period comprising n pairs of consecutive transmission intervals; during the n pairs of consecutive transmission intervals, transmitting a respective Alamouti code block containing two transmission symbols on a respective pair of antennas such that all antennas are used during the n pairs of consecutive transmission intervals and only one pair of antennas is active during a given transmission interval. 13. A method for mapping a rate one space-time block code for a 2n antenna transmitter where n>=2, the method comprising transmitting 2n transmission symbols on each sub-carrier of a plurality of sub-carriers in an OFDM spectrum by: for each transmission interval: mapping 2n transmission symbols to the 2n antennas using at least two different patterns for different pairs of adjacent OFDM sub-carriers of the plurality of sub-carriers; on each of n pairs of adjacent OFDM sub-carriers, transmitting a respective Alamouti code block containing two transmission symbols on a respective pair of antennas such that all sub-carriers are used and only one pair of antennas is active during a given transmission interval for a given sub-carrier. Appeal 2012-002992 Application 11/547,073 3 Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, 7, 56, and 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Nir (US 2005/0041751 A1; published Feb. 24, 2005).1 The Examiner rejected claims 13–17, 19, 20, 55, 60, and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nir and Kenji Suto and Tomoaki Ohtsuki, Performance Evaluation of Space-Time- Frequency Block Codes over Frequency Selective Fading Channels, Tokyo University of Science (IEEE 2002) (hereinafter “Suto”).2 The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 8–12, and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nir and Onggosanusi (US 2003/0147343 A1; published Aug. 7, 2003).3 The Examiner rejected claims 70 and 71 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nir and Suto.4 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 6, 7, 56, and 59. Instead, the arguments directed to these claims merely reference the arguments for claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, claims 6, 7, 56, and 59 are not discussed further herein. 2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 14–17, 19, 20, 55, 60, and 62. Instead, the arguments directed to these claims reference the arguments for claim 13. Except for our ultimate decision, claims 14–17, 19, 20, 55, 60, and 62 are not further discussed herein. 3 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 3, 4, 8–12 and 57. Instead, rejection of these claims turns on our decision as to the underlying § 102 rejection of claim 1 Except for our ultimate decision, claims 3, 4, 8–12, and 57 are not further addressed herein. 4 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 70 and 71. Instead, rejection of these claims turns on our decision as to the § 103 rejection as to claim 13. Except for our ultimate decision, claims 70 and 71 are not further addressed herein. Appeal 2012-002992 Application 11/547,073 4 The Examiner rejected claims 72 and 73 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nir, Suto, and Hottinen (US 2005/0105629 A1; published May 19, 2005).5 Appellants’ Contentions 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Nir because: There is no indication that both patterns disclosed in Nir are used in a transmission over multiple transmission periods as claimed in claim 1. Without identically disclosing such a limitation, Nir cannot be said to anticipate claim 1. Therefore, Applicants submit that Nir does not disclose “mapping the 2n transmission symbols to the 2n antennas using at least two different patterns for different transmission periods of the plurality of transmission periods, each transmission period comprising n pairs of consecutive transmission intervals” (emphasis added) as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 14 (emphasis in original).) 2. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nir and Suto because “Claim 13 recites ‘mapping 2n transmission symbols to the 2n antennas using at least two different patterns for different pairs of adjacent OFDM sub-carriers of the plurality of subcarriers’, which Applicants submit is not disclosed in either of the cited references.” (App. Br. 16.) Specifically, Appellants contend: 5 Separate patentability is not argued for claim 73. Instead, rejection of this claim turns on our decision as to the § 103 rejection as to claim 72. Except for our ultimate decision, claim 73 is not further addressed herein. Appeal 2012-002992 Application 11/547,073 5 As depicted in Figure 3 of Suto, ST is a mapping pattern for transmitting on one sub carrier f0, and STF is a mapping pattern for transmitting on two subcarriers f0 and f1. There are no “n pairs of adjacent OFDM sub-carriers”, wherein n>=2, as claimed in claim 13. As such, Suto does not disclose “mapping the 2n transmission symbols to the 2n antennas using at least two different patterns for different pairs of adjacent OFDM sub- carriers of the plurality of sub-carriers”. On page 16 of the Office Action, in the Response to Arguments section, the Examiner submits that “Suto teaches of all three systems (ST, SF and STF)”. However, in Figure 3 of Suto there are only three symbols, S0, S1 and S2 in any of ST, SF and STF. Therefore, neither Nir nor Suto disclose “2n transmission symbols on each sub-carrier of a plurality of sub-carriers in an OFDM spectrum”, wherein n is greater than or equal to 2, as recited in claim 13. (App. Br. 17.) 3. Further, Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nir and Suto because: Applicants submit that there is no suggestion of a desirability of the claimed invention in the references that would serve as a reason for one skilled in the art to combine the references. While it may be argued that Nir discloses a rate one space time block code, Suto does not disclose a rate one space time block code, as discussed on page 1467 (section III) of Suto, a STBC (space time block code) of transmission rate ¾ is used. Applicants submit that the difference in the rate code means that at least one of the two references would not operate in the manner intended if the references were combined. For instance, if a code rate one STCB was used, Suto would not operate the in the manner described and if a code rate ¾ STBC was used, then Nir would not operate in the manner described. (App. Br. 18–19.) Appeal 2012-002992 Application 11/547,073 6 4. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nir, Suto, and Hottinen because, in addition to contentions 2 and 3 above, “if one were to combine Hottinen with Nir and Suto, Applicants submit the differences between at least Suto and Hottinen, i.e. use of three transmission symbols in Suto versus eight symbols in Hottinen, are so great that one would not arrive at the claimed invention of claim 72.” (App. Br. 22–23.) Issues of Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Nir fails to describe the argued limitation? Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nir and Suto because Nir and Suto fail to describe the argued limitation? Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nir and Suto because the Examiner failed to identify a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references? Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nir, Suto, and Hottinen because the Examiner failed to identify a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. Appeal 2012-002992 Application 11/547,073 7 As to Appellants’ above contention 1, we disagree. Claim 1 recites “mapping 2n transmission symbols to the 2n antennas using at least two different patterns for different transmission periods of the plurality of transmission periods, each transmission period comprising n pairs of consecutive transmission intervals.” Resolution of contention 1 requires us to construe “using at least two different patterns for different transmission periods of the plurality of transmission periods” to determine whether this limitation requires that only one pattern may be used in each transmission period or whether the “at least two different patterns” can be used across the same transmission period (as well as other different transmission periods of the plurality of transmission periods). Specifically, Appellants argue that Figures 7a and 7b of Nir each disclose only a single pattern because each discloses only a single transmission period (where n=2, claim 1 defines a “transmission period” as comprising 2 pairs or 4 consecutive transmission intervals). In other words, according to Appellants, claim 1 requires at least two different patterns that are each used in different transmission periods. (App. Br. 14–15.) The Examiner, in contrast, found that Nir discloses two different patterns (s1s2 and s3s4) and further found that the mapping disclosed in the table in paragraph 81 of Nir is identical to the mapping recited in the first table of claim 7, which depends from claim 1. (Ans. 18.) We give a disputed claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation during patent prosecution. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In addition, “[b]ecause claim terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate Appeal 2012-002992 Application 11/547,073 8 the meaning of the same term in other claims.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Appellants’ construction—that only one pattern may cover n pairs of transmission intervals—is inconsistent with the usage of “mapping” in dependent claim 7 and would render claim 7 unpatentable. Claim 7 discloses three tables, any one of which is “the mapping,” and each table discloses four antenna transmitters (i.e., n=2). Under Appellants’ construction, where n=2, for “the mapping” to include “at least two different patterns,” those patterns would need to cover eight transmission intervals (two transmission periods). Each table of claim 7, however, covers only four transmission intervals. Thus, Appellants’ construction is inconsistent with the use of “mapping” in claim 7. We conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the argued limitation is that the “at least two different patterns” may occur within the same transmission period. Under that construction, Nir discloses two different patterns (s1s2 and s3s4) within the meaning of claim 1. As to Appellants’ above contention 2, we disagree. Appellants first argue that the Examiner erred by relying on the ST and STF portions of Figure 3 of Suto, which disclose less than the “n pairs of adjacent OFDM sub-carriers” required by claim 13. In the Final Rejection, however, the Examiner expressly cited the SF portion of Figure 3 of Suto, which discloses two pairs of adjacent sub-carriers (f0, f1 and f2, f3). (Ans. 19.) Appellants next argue that the SF portion of Figure 3 in Suto discloses only three transmission symbols, which is less than “2n” symbols “wherein n is greater than or equal to 2” required by claim 13. The Examiner, however, did not rely on Suto for the disclosure of 2n symbols. Rather, the Appeal 2012-002992 Application 11/547,073 9 Examiner found that four symbols were disclosed by Nir and the technique of mapping symbols using space-frequency was taught by Suto. (Ans. 20– 21.) Based on these disclosures, we find that the combination of Nir and Suto disclose the argued limitation. As to Appellants’ above contention 3, we disagree. In the Final Rejection, the Examiner identified a reason to combine Nir and Suto: “to perform a better error rate performance under large Doppler spread conditions.” (Ans. 8–9.) On appeal, Appellants do not challenge this reason but instead argue that because Nir and Suto disclose different transmission rates, “at least one of the two references would not operate in the manner intended if the references were combined.” (App. Br. 18–19.) In analyzing obviousness, we “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also id. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). In addition to failing to address the rationale of the Examiner, Appellants have failed to assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not combine the teachings of the references even though they disclose different transmission rates. As to Appellants’ above contention 4, we disagree. In the Final Rejection, the Examiner identified reasons to combine Nir, Suto, and Hottinen. Specifically, the Examiner found that the reason to combine Hottinen’s “antenna mapping of rate 2” as having “a faster transmission,” and Suto’s “space-time-frequency transmission block” based on “considering both delay spread and Doppler spread.” (Ans. 16.) On appeal, as with contention 3, Appellants do not challenge these reasons but instead Appeal 2012-002992 Application 11/547,073 10 argue that the difference in the number of transmission symbols in Suto and Hottinen “are so great that one would not arrive at the claimed invention of claim 72.” (App. Br. 22–23.) For the same reasons that we reject Appellants’ contention 3, we also reject contention 4. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 56, and 59 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 13–17, 19, 20, 55, 60, and 62 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 8–12, and 57 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 70 and 71 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 72 and 73 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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 rwk Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation