Ex Parte JonssonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 22, 201613509204 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/509,204 05/10/2012 102721 7590 09/26/2016 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson 1255 Crescent Green Suite 200 Cary, NC 27518 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Anders Jonsson 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. 1009-0159/P34271-US2 8566 EXAMINER KAMARA, MOHAMED A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2412 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2016 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): official@mbhiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDERS JONSSON Appeal2015-005289 Application 13/509,204 Technology Center 2400 Before CATHERINE SHIANG, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 34--36, 38, 40-44, 46-50, 52, 54--58, 60, and 61, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Claims 37, 45, 51, and 59 are not before us, because they are objected to, but are allowable if rewritten in independent form. See Final Act. 11. Appeal2015-005289 Application 13/509,204 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The present invention relates to wireless transmission systems. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 34 is exemplary: 34. A method in a radio network controller for transmitting data to a user equipment in a wireless communication system, which radio network controller is communicating over a Radio Link Control layer with the user equipment, said method comprising: assigning an extended sequence number to a packet data unit to be transmitted to the user equipment, said extended sequence number having an extended number space and comprising a first number of bits representing a sequence number in a smaller number space, and further comprising a second number of bits representing a sequence number extension that extends the sequence number into the extended number space; generating the packet data unit comprising a header with a first field of bits conveying the sequence number of the packet data unit, a third field of bits comprising the sequence number extension, and a second field of one or more bits indicating that a third field of the header comprises the sequence number extension; and transmitting the packet data unit to the user equipment. Beckmann Haraguchi Patel References and Rejections US 2004/0057423 Al US 2007/0072612 Al US 2009/0061820 Al Mar. 25, 2004 Mar. 29, 2007 Mar. 5, 2009 Claims 34--36, 38, 40, 42--44, 46, 48-50, 52, 54, 56-58, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beckmann and Patel. Claims 41, 47, 55, and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beckmann, Patel, and Haraguchi. 2 Appeal2015-005289 Application 13/509,204 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant's contention that the Examiner erred in finding Beckmann and Patel collectively teach assigning an extended sequence number to a packet data unit to be transmitted to the user equipment, said extended sequence number having an extended number space and comprising a first number of bits representing a sequence number in a smaller number space, and further comprising a second number of bits representing a sequence number extension that extends the sequence number into the extended number space, as recited in independent claim 34. 2 See App. Br 10-11. The Examiner cites Beckmann and Patel for the disputed claim limitation and finds: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the extended sequence number taught in Patel with the system taught in Beckmann in order to encode a hardware identifier of the mobile equipment associated with a subscriber [Patel: i-f 0015, lines 4-6]. Final Act. 4. Appellant argues: In Beckmann, communications are already established between the network and the user equipment, whereas the hardware identifiers at issue in Patel are used for authenticating the mobile equipment to the network (or vice versa) during an 2 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments. 3 Appeal2015-005289 Application 13/509,204 initial connection. Moreover, it would be counterproductive and counterintuitive to add a fixed, unchanging hardware identifier to the control signaling overhead carried in each RLC PDU sent from Beckmann's network to a user equipment. Indeed, adding Patel's hardware identifier to each PDU header would be a useless and repeated waste of signaling resources and would be recognized as a waste by a person having ordinary skill in the art. This motivation-to-combine argument is therefore not borne of any rational relationship between the teachings of Beckmann and Patel ... That type of conclusory obviousness rationale is precisely the type of argument that has been found to be insufficient to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. App. Br 10-11. The Examiner does not directly respond to Appellant's argument. Instead, the Examiner repeats the same reasoning for the proposed combination and elaborates that "it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to replace the sequence number extension bit of Beckmann with the hardware identifier of the mobile equipment taught in Patel." Ans. 18; see also Ans. 4--5. "[R ]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness[.]" KSR v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). We agree with Appellant that one skilled in the art would have not have "replace[ d] the sequence number extension bit of Beckmann with the hardware identifier of the mobile equipment taught in Patel" (Ans. 18) or combined the teachings "in order to encode a hardware 4 Appeal2015-005289 Application 13/509,204 identifier of the mobile equipment associated with a subscriber" (Final Act. 4--5), because such proposal does not serve any useful purpose and is wasteful. See App. Br. 10-11. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not provided articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See App. Br. 10-11; KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. As a result, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 34. Regarding independent claims 42, 48, and 56, the Examiner advances the same reasoning for combining the teachings of Beckman and Patel. See Ans. 7, 9, 11. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 42, 48, and 56. We also reverse the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent claims 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, and 61. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 34--36, 38, 40- 44, 46-50, 52, 54--58, 60, and 61. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation