Ex Parte Jöngren et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2016

13292790 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/292,790 11/09/2011
47391 7590 05/25/2016
THOMAS L CRISMAN
PanOptis Patent Management, LLC
P.O. Box 250649
Plano, TX 75025
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
George JOngren
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
HE602US2 1738
EXAMINER
SCHEIBEL, ROBERT C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2016 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):
docketing@panoptis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEORGE JONGREN and ARI KANGAS
Appeal2014-009635
Application 13/292,790
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 15-24. Claims 1-14 are cancelled. 1 Claims 25-27 are
"objected to" by the Examiner.2 (See Amendment filed July 1, 2013). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 The Examiner notes "the terminal disclaimer was disapproved as it did not
include a statement according to 37 [C.F.R. §] 3.73(b)." (Ans. 2). However,
the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims
1-14 (Non-Final Office Action, mailed Feb. 1, 2013) is moot, because
claims 1-14 are canceled. (See Amendment filed July 1, 2013).
2 The Examiner indicates " [ c] laims 25-2 7 are objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
Appeal2014-009635
Application 13/292,790
Invention
The disclosed and claimed invention relates to "mechanisms and
techniques for codeword to layer mapping" associated with radio
communications systems. (Spec. i-f 2).
Representative Claim
15. A method for transmitting an information signal on a radio
channel using hybrid automatic retransmission request (HARQ)
codewords comprising:
[L 1] transmitting or retransmitting a single codeword
using a codeword-to-layer mapping where the single codeword
is mapped to at least two layers,
[L2] and the single codeword is mapped to a number of
layers corresponding to the current transmission rank.
(Bracketing and emphasis added regarding the contested limitations, labeled
as LI and L2).
Rejections
A. Claims 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Samsung, "Considerations on codewords to layers mapping
for downlink MIMD" 3GPP TSG RAN WGI Meeting #47bis, 1-8 (Jan.
2007) ("Samsung").
independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims." (Final Act. 7). Therefore, claims 25-27 are not before
us on appeal.
2
Appeal2014-009635
Application 13/292,790
B. Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Samsung and Khan
et al. (US 2008/0186934 Al, publ. Aug. 7, 2008) ("Khan").
Grouping of Claims
Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 15-
21, rejected under§ 102 Rejection A, on the basis of representative
independent claim 15. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We address§ 103
Rejection B of dependent claims 22-24 separately, infra.
ISSUE
Issue: Under § 102(b ), did the Examiner err by finding the cited
Samsung reference discloses the contested limitations:
[L 1] "transmitting or retransmitting a single codeword using a
codeword-to-layer mapping where the single codeword is mapped to at least
two layers," and
[L2] "and the single codeword is mapped to a number of layers
corresponding to the current transmission rank,"
within the meaning of representative claim 15? (emphases added).
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence
presented. We disagree with Appellants' arguments and we adopt as our
own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action
from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in
3
Appeal2014-009635
Application 13/292,790
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding independent
claim 15 for emphasis in our analysis below.
Representative Claim 15, Limitation LI
Appellants contend: "there is no single codeword being transmitted or
retransmitted where the single codeword is mapped to two layers because as
shown in Figure 8, there are in fact two codewords (i.e., CWl and CW2),
where each codeword is mapped to two layers." (App. Br. 7-8).
We find Samsung's CWl and CW2 are each "a single codeword."
(See Ans. 3-5, citing Samsung, Fig. 8 and p. 7). We find, as depicted in
Figure 8 of Samsung (reproduced below), the retransmission of single
codeword CW2 in the fifth 1 ms time interval uses two layers (layers 3
and 4):
.....
Layer-2
Samsung Figure 8: Codeword to Layer mapping
1ms
CW'J
ACi'~ NACK
\(:Vi-~} {CW·:?}
4
ON2.
CVV2
•
C'