Ex Parte Kahtava et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 201611801965 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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. 11/801,965 05/11/2007 Jussi Kahtava 859.0009.U1 (US) 5887 10948 7590 12/22/2016 Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC 4 Research Drive, Suite 202 Shelton, CT 06484 EXAMINER SHEN, QUN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2643 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2016 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): USPTO@hspatent.com Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUSSI KAHTAVA, MIKA RINNE, and OLAY TIRKKONEN Appeal 2015-006513 Application 11/801,965 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOYCE CRAIG, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-14, 16—20, 22, 24—29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 39-54, and 67—72, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2015-006513 Application 11/801,965 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention The claimed invention relates generally to wireless communications systems, methods, computer program products, and devices, and more specifically relates to techniques for downlink signaling between a network node and user equipment. Spec. 12.2 A method according to one aspect of the invention includes, for each of multiple resource allocations, partitioning an allocation table into a first fixed length partition and into at least one second variable length partition. Id. 110. The partitioned allocation tables are transmitted on a downlink shared control channel to a population of users. Id. Exemplary Claim Independent claim 1 exemplifies the subject matter of the claims under consideration and reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: for each of multiple resource allocations by a network node, partitioning an allocation table into a first, fixed length partition and into at least one second, variable length partition; mapping the first partition to a first plurality of non-contiguous sets of subcarriers; mapping the at least one second partition to a second plurality of non-contiguous sets of subcarriers; and transmitting the allocation table partitions from the network node to a population of users using a transport format 2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the Specification, filed May 11, 2007; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action, mailed April 18, 2014; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed December 22, 2014; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed April 21, 2015; and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed June 22, 2015. 2 Appeal 2015-006513 Application 11/801,965 at least for the first partition that is known a priori by the population of users, wherein the first partition is located at a predetermined resource position known to the population of users of a physical shared channel sub-frame in which the allocation table partitions are transmitted. App. Br. 47 (Claims App.). The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following prior art: Seo et al. (“Seo”) US 2003/0039217 Al Feb. 27, 2003 Berezdivin et al. (“Berezdivin”) US 6,847,678 B2 Jan. 25, 2005 Song et al. (“Song”) US 2005/0107036 Al May 19, 2005 Stolpman et al. (“Stolpman”) US 2006/0013181 Al Jan. 19, 2006 Eom US 2006/0116080 Al June 1,2006 Zhang et al. (“Zhang”) US 2007/0171864 Al July 26, 2007 Das et al. EP 1,427,245 A2 Sept. 6, 2004 (“Das”) Motorola, E-UTRA Downlink Control Channel Design and TP, 3GPP TSG RANI #43 (Nov. 2005) (“Motorola”) Taesoo Kwon et al., Design and Implementation of a Simulator Based on a Cross-Layer Protocol Between MAC and PHY Layers in a WiBro Compatible IEEE 802.16e OFDMA System, IEEE Communications Magazine 136-A6 (Dec. 2005) (“IEEE”) Ericsson, E-UTRA Downlink Control Signaling - Overhead Assessment, TSG-RAN WG1 #44 (Feb. 2006) (“Ericsson”) 3 Appeal 2015-006513 Application 11/801,965 The Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 19, 31, 47, and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over IEEE, Song, and Motorola. Final Act. 4—7. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 17, 19, 20, 22, 2A-26, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 43, 45, 47—50, 53, and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Song, Motorola, and Berezdivin. Final Act. 7—15. Claims 16 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Song, Motorola, Berezdivin, and Ericsson. Final Act. 15—16. Claims 9, 10, 27, 39, 40, and 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Song, Motorola, Berezdivin, and Stolpman. Final Act. 16—19. Claims 11, 28, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Song, Motorola, Berezdivin, and Eom. Final Act. 19—21. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Song, Motorola, Berezdivin, and Das. Final Act. 21—22. Claims 14, 18, 29, 42, 46, and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Song, Motorola, Berezdivin, and Seo. Final Act. 22-24. Claims 67—72 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Song, Motorola, Berezdivin, and Zhang. Final Act. 24—27. ANAFYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-14, 16—20, 22, 24—29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 39-54, and 67—72 in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we 4 Appeal 2015-006513 Application 11/801,965 disagree with Appellants’ assertions regarding error by the Examiner. We adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action and Answer and add the following primarily for emphasis. The Rejection of Claims 1, 19, 31, 47, and 53 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based on IEEE, Song, and Motorola Motorola’s Applicability to Claim 1 ’s Wherein Clause Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because “Motorola is not an enabling reference for the subject matter of’ claim 1 ’s wherein clause. App. Br. 10, 19-20; see Reply Br. 6, 8. In particular, Appellants contend that “one skilled in the art could not practice” the “subject matter of Motorola without undue experimentation.” App. Br. 14—15, 17, 20. Appellants base that contention on the assertions that (1) a user equipment (UE) does not “know whether its data is or is not” in a particular adaptive modulation and coding (AMC) region disclosed in Motorola and (2) the “UE has to search through all the [AMC] regions” to locate the assigned AMC region. Id. at 15—16. To demonstrate undue experimentation, Appellants present an example that assumes “AMC region 1 from Motorola can support 4 UEs.” Id. at 15. Appellants also contend that “Motorola is a concept” that “may or may not be completely thought through and may not-... be implementable.” Id. at 18; Reply Br. 7. In response, the Examiner notes that “a non-enabling reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.” Ans. 26 (emphasis omitted) (citing Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Symbol Techs. Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). In addition, the Examiner determines that “some assertions made by Appellant are not based on facts.” Id. at 27 (emphasis 5 Appeal 2015-006513 Application 11/801,965 omitted). The Examiner points out, for example, that Appellants’ assertion that a UE does not “know whether it is assigned to a particular AMC region” conflicts with Motorola’s explicit teaching that “the regions are fixed and known to the UE[s].” Id. (emphasis omitted) (citing Motorola 3). Moreover, the Examiner determines that the assumption in Appellants’ example that “Motorola can support 4” UEs “clearly suggests] that Motorola is enabled for a predetermined” number of UEs. Id. (emphasis omitted). Further, the Examiner finds that “Motorola was presented to a RANI group meeting with an inten[t] of modifying a proposed standards specification . . . [and] would have been well thought through and enabling for it to be submitted before professional peers with an anticipation] of being included in a proposed standards specification.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Thus, the Examiner concludes that “Motorola is indeed enabled.” Id. at 28. Appellants respond by arguing that Motorola’s statement that “the regions are fixed and known to the UEs” is not enabled. Reply Br. 2. Appellants also argue that “Motorola still must be enabling in that it must tell one skilled in the art how to make and use the part it discloses relative to the claims herein.” Id. at 3; see id. at 6. Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of reversible error. “While a reference must enable someone to practice the invention in order to anticipate under § 102(b), a non-enabling reference may qualify as prior art for the purpose of determining obviousness under § 103.” Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In particular, “a reference ... is prior art for all that it teaches.” Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The prior 6 Appeal 2015-006513 Application 11/801,965 art must enable an ordinarily skilled artisan to make and use the claimed subject matter to render the claimed subject matter obvious. See In re Kumar, 418 F.3d 1361, 1368—69 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Beckman Instruments, 892 F.2d at 1551; see also Reply Br. 4. But that does not mean that any one reference must enable the claimed subject matter within the reference’s four comers. It is enough that the combined teachings of the references render the claimed subject matter obvious when the teachings are considered together with the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-81 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Cited references do not have to explain every detail to render a claimed invention obvious because the references speak to those skilled in the art. See id. at 1480. “A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art.” Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc., 827 F.2d 1524, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Here, the obviousness rejection rests on IEEE, Song, and Motorola. Final Act. 4—7. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that “Motorola teaches that a first partition is located at a predetermined resource position known to the population of user[s] of a physical shared channel sub-frame in which the allocation table partitions are transmitted.” Final Act. 6 (citing Motorola 3); Ans. 5 (citing Motorola 3). Appellants do not address that teaching in combination with the teachings of IEEE and Song but instead seek to disqualify Motorola as prior art due to non-enablement. App. Br. 10-20; Reply Br. 2—10. Further, Appellants do not address the Examiner’s finding that “Motorola was presented to a RAN 1 group meeting with an inten[t] of modifying a proposed standards specification . . . [and] would have been 7 Appeal 2015-006513 Application 11/801,965 well thought through and enabling for it to be submitted before professional peers with an anticipation] of being included in a proposed standards specification.” Reply Br. 2—10. The Burden of Proving Enablement/Non-Enablement Appellants argue that (1) “[t]he Examiner has not provided any evidence to support the assertion that Motorola enables” the subject matter of claim 1 ’s wherein clause and (2) “the Examiner has not met his burden.” Reply Br. 6—7. But the Examiner’s rejection put the burden of proving non-enablement on Appellants. See In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that an examiner is not required to show that a cited reference is enabling, and that the burden shifts to the applicant to submit rebuttal evidence of non-enablement). Instead of submitting affidavits or declarations to shoulder that burden, Appellants elected to rely on attorney arguments because Appellants maintain that “it is easy to see that Motorola is not enabled for the subject matter” of claim 1 ’s wherein clause. Reply Br. 9. For the reasons discussed above, however, those arguments have not persuaded us of Examiner error. Motivation to Combine Appellants assert that (1) “[o]ne skilled in the art would not combine Motorola and IEEE/Song” and (2) “[t]here is no reason what so ever to combine exactly these two or three references (out of a hundred proposals) . . . .” App. Br. 24—25; see Reply Br. 9—10. We disagree with Appellants’ assertions. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the motivation to combine comes from the references themselves, i.e., from Song’s teaching regarding increasing resource efficiency and Motorola’s teaching regarding 8 Appeal 2015-006513 Application 11/801,965 decreasing user equipment (UE) complexity. Ans. 29 (citing Song 134; Motorola 3); see Final Act. 5—7. Thus, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have combined Motorola and IEEE/Song, including identifying advantages achieved with the combination. Ans. 29; see Final Act. 5—7. “[A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining” references. KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). “[T]he desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal. . . .” DyStar Textilfarben GmbHv. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An “implicit motivation to combine” may result from a desire to make a product or process “stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient.” Id. Arguments Presented for the First Time in the Reply Brief Appellants argue that Motorola “is also not an enablement” for claim 1 ’s transmitting step. Reply Br. 8. In addition, Appellants argue that “if teaching was present in Motorola . . . about how the Motorola reference works, this teaching would teach away from the instant claimed subject matter.” Id. at 10. Those arguments do not, however, respond to any arguments in the Answer. See Ans. 27—28. Appellants present those arguments for the first time in the Reply Brief. Such arguments “will not be considered by the Board” unless an appellant shows good cause. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); see also Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1475 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (discussing procedural difficulties with belated 9 Appeal 2015-006513 Application 11/801,965 arguments). Here, Appellants have not shown good cause for belatedly presenting the arguments regarding claim 1 ’s transmitting step and Motorola’s alleged teaching away. Thus, we decline to consider them. Summary for Claims 1,19,31,47, and 53 For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness based on IEEE, Song, and Motorola. Appellants identify claim 1 as representative and do not argue independent claims 19, 31, 47, and 53 separately. App. Br. 6. Hence, we sustain the rejection of claims 1,19, 31, 47, and 53 based on IEEE, Song, and Motorola. The Rejection of Claims 1, 19, 31, 47, and 53 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based on Song, Motorola, and Berezdivin The Prior Art Teaches Each Limitation in Claim 1 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because (1) Song and Berezdivin do not teach the subject matter of claim 1 ’s wherein clause and (2) Motorola “is not enabling” for the wherein clause. App. Br. 26—27; see Reply Br. 11. In particular, Appellants contend that Berezdivin “has nothing to do with transmitting allocation table partitions” according to claim 1. App. Br. 26. Appellants also contend that Berezdivin teaches away from a known “predetermined resource position” for the first partition because Berezdivin discloses multiple rake receivers that “search for information in received signals.” Id. at 27—28. Appellants assert that rake receivers are initially “used to search for” code division multiple access (CDMA) signals that “can take different paths” and subsequently used to “combine those signals into one signal for analysis.” Reply Br. 11. Appellants further assert that rake receivers “are not used to find a control 10 Appeal 2015-006513 Application 11/801,965 channel partition” because “CDMA as a signal reception technique has no control channel structure” according to claim 1. Id. In addition, Appellants argue that the combination of Motorola’s fixed-size signaling resources with Song’s variable-size signaling resources “will not lead to anything functional.” App. Br. 28—29. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. As explained above, Motorola “is prior art for all that it teaches.” See Beckman Instruments, 892 F.2d at 1551. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Motorola teaches the subject matter of claim 1 ’s wherein clause. Final Act. 8—9; Ans. 7—8. In addition, the Examiner determines that “Motorola is indeed enabled.” Ans. 28, 30. Further, as the Examiner points out, Appellants attack the references individually. Ans. 31; see App. Br. 26—30; Reply Br. 11. Where a rejection rests on a combination of references, an appellant cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In response to Appellants’ teaching-away argument based on Berezdivin, the Examiner notes that the “disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching] away from any alternative because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution” claimed. Ans. 31—32 (emphasis omitted); see In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants do not identify where Berezdivin criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the subject matter claimed. App. Br. 26—30; Reply Br. 11. Thus, Appellants’teaching-away argument does not apprise us of error. In response to Appellants’ nonfunctional-combination argument, the Examiner notes that “the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a 11 Appeal 2015-006513 Application 11/801,965 secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” Ans. 31 (emphasis omitted); see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). Rather, “the test for combining references is not what the individual references themselves suggest but rather what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Appellants do not address what the Song-Motorola combination “taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art” and, therefore, have not established Examiner error. App. Br. 26—30; Reply Br. 11. Motivation to Combine Appellants assert that (1) “one skilled in the art would not combine Song, Motorola, and Berezdivin” and (2) “[tjhere is no reason what so ever to combine exactly these two or three references (out of a hundred proposals). . . .” App. Br. 28—29. We disagree with Appellants’ assertions. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the motivation to combine comes from the references themselves, i.e., from Song’s teaching regarding increasing resource efficiency, Motorola’s teaching regarding decreasing user equipment (UE) complexity, and Motorola’s teaching regarding deriving diversity benefit from distributing subcarriers, e.g., distributing across non-contiguous subcarriers according to Berezdivin. Ans. 29, 32 (citing Song 134; Motorola 2—3; Berezdivin 10:14—16); see Final Act. 6—7, 9—10; see also Berezdivin 10:9-12 (explaining advantage of “combat[ting] 12 Appeal 2015-006513 Application 11/801,965 fading and interference”). Appellants do not address those findings. Reply Br. 11. Thus, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have combined Song, Motorola, and Berezdivin, including identifying advantages achieved with the combination. Ans. 29, 32; see Final Act. 6—7, 9-10. Summary for Claims 1,19,31,47, and 53 For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness based on Song, Motorola, and Berezdivin. Appellants identify claim 1 as representative and do not argue independent claims 19, 31, 47, and 53 separately. App. Br. 26. Hence, we sustain the rejection of claims 1,19, 31, 47, and 53 based on Song, Motorola, and Berezdivin. The Rejection of Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 17, 20, 22, 24-26, 32, 34, 36,37, 43, 45, 48, 49, 50, and 54 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based on Song, Motorola, and Berezdivin Appellants do not articulate any patentability arguments for dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 17, 20, 22, 2A-26, 32, 34, 36, 37, 43, 45, 48, 49, 50, and 54 beyond the arguments regarding the associated independent claims. App. Br. 30; Reply Br. 11—12. Because Appellants do not argue these dependent claims separately, they stand or fall with the associated independent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Hence, we sustain the rejections of claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 17, 20, 22, 2A-26, 32, 34, 36, 37, 43, 45, 48, 49, 50, and 54. 13 Appeal 2015-006513 Application 11/801,965 The Rejection of Claims 16 and 44 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based on Song, Motorola, Berezdivin, and Ericsson Claims 16 and 44 require that the allocation table include “a bit field of fixed length indicating a number of uplink only entries and a number of downlink only entries in the allocation table.” App. Br. 49, 53 (Claims App.). Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 16 and 44 because Ericsson’s bitmap or table approach refers to “resource blocks and not to ‘a bit field ... in the allocation table’” as recited in the claims. App. Br. 32—33. Appellants also argue that Ericsson’s bitmap or table approach applies “only for downlink and not uplink.” Id. at 33. Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of reversible error because the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Ericsson and other references to reject claims 16 and 44. Ans. 33. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that “Song teaches a bit field indicating a number of uplink only entries and a number of downlink only entries” and “Ericsson teaches using a fixed length field (first index, second index) to identify a resource location/block.” Id. (emphasis omitted) (citing Song || 66—67; Ericsson § 2). Appellants focus on Ericsson and attack it individually instead of addressing what the combination as a whole would suggest to an ordinarily skilled artisan. App. Br. 30—33. Further, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that “Ericsson teaches allocation for downlink and uplink via a downlink control channel.” Ans. 33 (emphasis omitted) (citing Ericsson § 1). In particular, Ericsson explains that “downlink control signaling” includes “scheduling information for downlink data” and “scheduling grants for uplink transmission . . . .” Ericsson § 1. 14 Appeal 2015-006513 Application 11/801,965 Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 16 and 44 for obviousness based on Song, Motorola, Berezdivin, and Ericsson. Hence, we sustain the rejection. The Rejection of Claims 9, 10, 27, 39, 40, and 52 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based on Song, Motorola, Berezdivin, and Stolpman Claims 9, 10, 27, 39, 40, and 52 require “different transmit power” for different information. App. Br. 48, 51—54 (Claims App.). Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims because (1) Song “does not disclose transmitting information at different powers”; (2) Berezdivin fails to disclose that “different information” in a “partition can be transmitted using at least different transmit power”; (3) “Stolpman selects power levels on a subcarrier-by-subcarrier basis” and “has nothing to do with modifying transmit power” for different information; and (4) Motorola discloses modifying power levels “on a per-UE or per-group of UEs basis” rather than a per-information-element basis. App. Br. 34—37. Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of reversible error because the Examiner relies on the “combination of references to teach” the limitations in these claims. Ans. 34 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that “Song teaches transmitting each partition with a different modulation rate” and “Stolpman teaches transmitting modulation level (rate) at a different power level.” Id. (emphasis omitted); see Final Act. 17—18 (citing Song 171; Stolpman || 11, 13, 16). The Examiner reasons that “in combination, at least one [information element] IE in the first partition is transmitted [at] a different power than one [information element] IE in a second partition given that the power levels and modulation rate are different in Song.” Ans. 34 (emphasis omitted). Appellants attack 15 Appeal 2015-006513 Application 11/801,965 the references individually instead of addressing what the combination as a whole would suggest to an ordinarily skilled artisan. App. Br. 33—37. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9, 10, 27, 39, 40, and 52 for obviousness based on Song, Motorola, Berezdivin, and Stolpman. Hence, we sustain the rejection. The Rejection of Claims 11, 28, and 41 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based on Song, Motorola, Berezdivin, and Eom Claims 11, 28, and 41 require transmitting different information “using different outer repetition coding.” App. Br. 48, 51, 53 (Claims App.). Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims because “the repetition coding in Eom is applied to a ‘fast feedback channel region’” of an upload transmission from a mobile station to a base station and “NOT to information elements in an allocation table.” App. Br. 38—39. Appellants also argue that “Song, Motorola, and/or Berezdivin” contain “no mention of repetition coding applied to information elements in an allocation table.” Id. at 39. Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of reversible error because the Examiner relies on the “combination of references to teach” the limitations in these claims. Ans. 34 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that “Song teaches transmitting an allocation table and Eom teaches repetition coding” performed on an information element. Id. (emphasis omitted); see Final Act. 19-20 (citing Song 168; Eom 114 Table 2). Appellants attack the references individually instead of addressing what the combination as a whole would suggest to an ordinarily skilled artisan. App. Br. 33—37. 16 Appeal 2015-006513 Application 11/801,965 Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11,28, and 41 for obviousness based on Song, Motorola, Berezdivin, and Eom. Hence, we sustain the rejection. The Rejection of Claim 13 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based on Song, Motorola, Berezdivin, and Das Claim 13 specifies that “the first partition comprises ... a fixed number of entries for the users and the second partition comprises a variable number of entries for others of the users.” App. Br. 48 (Claims App.). Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 because (1) the Part 1 and Part 2 information in Das relates to “a single [user equipment] UE”; (2) the different sections in Song each have “a variable number of entries” for users; and (3) Motorola and Berezdivin do not disclose the limitations in claim 13. App. Br. 41^44. Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of reversible error because the rejection of claim 13 rests on Das “in combination with” other references. Ans. 35. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that (1) Das “discloses a resource allocation scheme using a table having a first part and second part” as well as the “moving/dividing of information among” the first and second parts; and (2) Song “teaches . . . transmitting some of the user entries” in the first partition using “the same transport format.” Final Act. 21—22 (citing Das ^fl[ 62—63; Song || 9, 71); Ans. 35. The Examiner reasons that Das in combination with Song’s teaching of using “the same transport format” for user entries in the first partition would make it obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to move the “fixed number of entries” that share “the same transport format” from “the second partition to the first partition so as to make” Song’s modulation and coding scheme more 17 Appeal 2015-006513 Application 11/801,965 efficient. Final Act. 22; Ans. 35. Appellants do not address the Examiner’s reasoning regarding the Song-Das combination but instead attack the references individually. App. Br. 40-44; Reply Br. 11. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 for obviousness based on Song, Motorola, Berezdivin, and Das. Hence, we sustain the rejection. The Rejections of Claims 14, 18, 29, 42, 46, 51, and 67—72 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Appellants do not articulate any patentability arguments for dependent claims 14, 18, 29, 42, 46, 51, and 67—72 beyond the arguments regarding the associated independent claims. App. Br. 44-45; Reply Br. 11—12. For instance, Appellants say nothing about Seo or Zhang, which the Examiner relied on when rejecting these dependent claims. App. Br. 44-45; see Final Act. 22—27. Because Appellants do not argue these dependent claims separately, they stand or fall with the associated independent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Hence, we sustain the rejections of claims 14, 18, 29, 42, 46, 51, and 67-72. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-14, 16-20, 22, 24—29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 39-54, and 67-72. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 18 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation