Ex Parte Julian et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 11, 2013

11020583 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID JONATHAN JULIAN, AVNEESH AGRAWAL, and
EDWARD HARRISON TEAGUE

___________

Appeal 2010-008259
Application 11/020,583
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and JOHN G. NEW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008259
Application 11/020,583

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-55, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to transmission of information in a
multiple access communication system. The information is transmitted
using incremental redundancy and a determination is made as to whether
reverse link performance drops below a predetermined threshold.
(Abstract.)
Claims 1 and 14 are exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method for transmission of information in a multiple
access communication system, the method comprising:
transmitting information on a forward link using incremental
redundancy;
determining if reverse-link performance drops below a
predetermined threshold, the predetermined threshold being used to
determine channel degradation on a reverse link; and
determining whether to respond to messages received on the
reverse link for the information transmitted on the forward link if the
reverse-link performance drops below the predetermined threshold.

14. In a wireless communication system, a method of
determining whether a communication channel has degraded, the
method comprising:
receiving a message indicative of an acknowledgment (ACK) or
indicative of a not-acknowledgment (NACK) via the communication
channel;
measuring quality of the received message; and
determining whether the communication channel has degraded
as a function of the measured quality of the received message.
Appeal 2010-008259
Application 11/020,583

3
Claims 1-6, 10, 13-16, 18, 21-26, 29, 31, 33-37, 39, 42, 43-47, 54, and
55
1
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Kim
(U.S. Patent No. 7,200,789 B2; Apr. 3, 2007).
Claims 7 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Kim and Tsunoda (U.S. Patent No. 6,675,346 B2; Jan. 6,
2004).
Claims 8 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Kim and Sayeed (U.S. Patent No. 5,828,677; Oct. 27, 1998).
Claims 9, 17, 30, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Kim and Haartsen (U.S. Patent No. 6,021,124; Feb. 1,
2000).
Claims 11, 12, 19, 20, 32, 33, 40, and 41 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Kim and Gopalakrishnan (U.S. Patent
No. 7,227,851 B1; June 5, 2007).
Claim 43 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Kim and Hetherington (U.S. Patent No. 6,859,456; Feb. 22, 2005).
Claims 48-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Kim and Ketseoglou (U.S. Patent No. 6,138,260; Oct. 24,
2000).
Claims 52 and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Kim, Ketseoglou, and Hetherington.

1
Both the Examiner and Appellants have inadvertently omitted dependent
claims 23 and 44 from the statement of the rejection. (Ans. 3; App. Br. 7.)
Appeal 2010-008259
Application 11/020,583

4
ANALYSIS
§ 102 Rejection – Kim
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 9-11) that Kim
does not describe the limitation “determining whether to respond to
messages received on the reverse link,” as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner found that step 305 in Figure 3A of Kim, in which the
mobile station retransmits the traffic data according to the received traffic-
to-pilot power ratio (TPR) value, corresponds to the limitation “determining
whether to respond to messages received on the reverse link.” (Ans. 5, 16.)
We do not agree.
Claim 1 recites a “determining” step. One relevant plain meaning of
“determine” is “to settle or decide by choice of alternatives or possibilities.”
MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 315 (10th ed. 1999).
Accordingly, the multiple access communication system of claim 1 chooses
between either responding or not responding, conditional upon whether “the
reverse-link performance drops below the predetermined threshold.” Such
an interpretation of the “determining” step is consistent with the explanation
in the Specification that “[u]pon recognition of channel degradation, the
access point may stop responding 412 to the ACK messages sent from the
access terminal, and then switch 416 to transmission of data not using
incremental redundancy.” (Spec. ¶ [0044].)
Kim relates to “transmitting data in a mobile communication system
supporting hybrid automatic retransmission request (HARQ).” (Col. 1,
ll. 23-26.) In one embodiment, Figure 3A of Kim illustrates a signal flow
diagram during reverse data transmission in a mobile communication
system. (Col. 5, ll. 8-11.) In step 302 of Kim, a base station determines if
Appeal 2010-008259
Application 11/020,583

5
there is an error in traffic data transmitted over a supplemental channel 105.
(Col. 6, ll. 13-16.) The base station calculates an Eb/Nt (ratio of energy to
interference per bit) value additionally required to retransmit traffic data
over the supplemental channel 105 and also determines a traffic-to-pilot
power ratio (TPR) value the mobile station (MS) should transmit traffic data,
using the required Eb/Nt value. (Col. 6, ll. 30-38.) “[T]he mobile station
receives the NACK signal and the new TPR value transmitted by the base
station in step 304” and “[u]pon receiving the new TPR value, the mobile
station proceeds to step 305 where it retransmits the traffic data over the
supplemental channel 105 according to the received TPR value.” (Col. 6,
ll. 43-49.)
Although the Examiner cited Kim for the disclosure of a mobile
station that receives a new TPR value with a NACK signal (i.e., step 304)
and retransmits traffic data using the new TPR value, the Examiner has
provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that Kim discloses
“determining whether to respond to messages received on the reverse link.”
In other words, Kim provides no express disclosure that the mobile station
chooses between either responding or not responding to the base station.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Claims 2-6, 10, 54, and 55 depend from
independent claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-6, 10, 54,
and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for the same reasons discussed with respect
to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 21 and 45 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the
Appeal 2010-008259
Application 11/020,583

6
rejection of claims 21 and 45, as well as dependent claims 22-26, 29, 31, 33,
46, and 47, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
We are also persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Reply Br. 3-4) that
Kim does not describe the claim limitations “receiving a message indicative
of an acknowledgment (ACK) or indicative of a not-acknowledgment
(NACK) via the communication channel” and “measuring quality of the
received message,” as recited in independent claim 14.
The Examiner found that the Cyclic Redundancy Code (CRC) check
of Kim corresponds to the claimed “receiving a message indicative of an
acknowledgment (ACK) or indicative of a not-acknowledgment (NACK) via
the communication channel” and “measuring quality of the received
message.” (Ans. 17.) We do not agree.
In an embodiment, Figure 4B of Kim illustrates a flowchart for
controlling retransmission of a reverse link by a base station. (Col. 10,
ll. 15-16.) “[I]n step 412, the base station performs CRC [Cyclic
Redundancy Code] check on the decoded data” such that “[t]he data can be
either traffic data or control data.” (Col. 10, ll. 19-22.)
In another embodiment, Figure 5A of Kim illustrates a flowchart for
controlling retransmission of a reverse link by a mobile station. (Col. 11,
ll. 24- 25.) Kim explains that “the mobile station determines in step 502
whether the decoded control information includes an ACK signal indicating
that there is no error in the traffic data transmitted over the supplemental
channel or a NACK signal indicating that an error has occurred in the
transmitted traffic data.” (Col. 11, ll. 33-38.)
Although the Examiner cited the Figure 4B embodiment for the
disclosure of a CRC check of decoded data (i.e., traffic data or control data)
Appeal 2010-008259
Application 11/020,583

7
and the Figure 5A embodiment for disclosure of ACK/NACK signals, the
Examiner has provided insufficient evidence from a single embodiment to
support a finding that Kim discloses “measuring quality of the received
message” such that the “message [is] indicative of an acknowledgment
(ACK) or indicative of a not-acknowledgment (NACK).” In other words,
Kim provides no express disclosure that the CRC check is performed on an
ACK signal or a NACK signal.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Claims 15, 16, and 18 depend from claim 14.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 15, 16, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e), for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 14.
Independent claims 35 and 42 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 14. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 35 and 42, as well as dependent claims 36, 37, 39, and
44, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 14.

§ 103 Rejection – Kim and Tsunoda
Claims 7 and 27 depend from claims 1 and 21. Tsunoda was cited by
the Examiner for teaching additional features of claims 7 and 27. (Ans. 7-8.)
However, the Examiner’s application of Tsunoda does not cure the above
noted deficiencies of Kim.

§ 103 Rejection – Kim and Sayeed
Claims 8 and 28 depend from claims 1 and 21. Sayeed was cited by
the Examiner for teaching additional features of claims 8 and 28. (Ans. 8.)
Appeal 2010-008259
Application 11/020,583

8
However, the Examiner’s application of Sayeed does not cure the above
noted deficiencies of Kim.

§ 103 Rejection – Kim and Haartsen
Claims 9, 17, 30, and 38 depend from claims 1, 14, 21, and 35.
Haartsen was cited by the Examiner for teaching additional features of
claims 9, 17, 30, and 38. (Ans. 9-10.) However, the Examiner’s application
of Haartsen does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Kim.

§ 103 Rejection – Kim and Gopalakrishnan
Claims 11, 12, 19, 20, 32, 33, 40, and 41 depend from claims 1, 14,
21, and 35. Gopalakrishnan was cited by the Examiner for teaching
additional features of claims 11, 12, 19, 20, 32, 33, 40, and 41. (Ans. 10-
11.) However, the Examiner’s application of Gopalakrishnan does not cure
the above noted deficiencies of Kim.

§ 103 Rejection – Kim and Hetherington
Claim 43 depend from claim 42. Hetherington was cited by the
Examiner for teaching additional features of claim 43. (Ans. 11-12.)
However, the Examiner’s application of Hetherington does not cure the
above noted deficiencies of Kim.

§ 103 Rejection – Kim and Ketseoglou
Independent claim 48 recites recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and claims 49-52 depend
from claim 48. Ketseoglou was cited by the Examiner for teaching
Appeal 2010-008259
Application 11/020,583

9
additional features of claim 49. (Ans. 12-13.) However, the Examiner’s
application of Ketseoglou does not cure the above noted deficiencies of
Kim.

§ 103 Rejection – Kim, Ketseoglou, and Hetherington
Claims 52 and 53 depend from claim 48. Hetherington was cited by
the Examiner for teaching additional features of claims 52 and 53. (Ans. 13-
14.) However, the Examiner’s application of Hetherington does not cure the
above noted deficiencies of Kim and Ketseoglou.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-55 is reversed.

REVERSED

ELD