Ex Parte Kamuf et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2018

13382560 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/382,560 08/14/2012
6449 7590 03/21/2018
ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
607 14th Street, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
Matthias Kamuf
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.
3602-0390 4109
EXAMINER
JAIN, RAJK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2411
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2018 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):
PTO-PAT-Email@rfem.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHIAS KAMUF and BO LINCOLN
Appeal2017-007199
Application 13/382,560 1
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., JASON V. MORGAN, and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Invention
Appellants disclose a method that "comprises receiving a first
transmission of the packet, wherein the first transmission comprises a first
plurality of soft symbol values." Abstract.
1 Appellants identify Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-007199
Application 13/382,560
Illustrative Claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A method for an electronic receiver of processing a packet of a
hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) system, comprising:
receiving a first transmission of the packet, wherein the first
transmission comprises a first set of soft symbol values, said first set
of soft symbol values consisting of N soft symbol values, wherein
N> J·
'
determining whether the first set of soft symbol values meets a stop
criterion; and
in response to determining that the first set of soft symbol values does
not meet the stop criterion:
determining a subset of the first set of soft symbol values,
wherein the subset comprises a number of soft symbol values of
the first set of soft symbol values, the number being greater
than zero and less than N;
storing the subset of the first set of soft symbol values in a
HARQ buffer;
receiving a second transmission of the packet, wherein the
second transmission comprises a second set of soft symbol
values; and
combining the second set of soft symbol values with the stored
subset of the first set of soft symbol values to produce a third
set of combined soft symbol values.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as containing recitations that are not enabled. Final Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1 as not being enabled, the Examiner finds the
Specification "is completely silent with respect to" the recitation directed to
a first set of soft symbol values consisting of N soft symbol values, wherein
N > 1. Final Act. 2. Specifically, the Examiner finds "a 'set' is any
2
Appeal2017-007199
Application 13/382,560
collection of distinct entities or elements," where the set could "simply be
'1,"' but the Specification merely discloses a plurality of soft symbol values,
where a plurality "means more than one." Ans. 4 (emphasis added).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "while it is
theoretically possible that a 'set of soft symbol values' may contain only a
single soft symbol value, this theoretical possibility is not relevant because
the claims themselves expressly require that the set of soft symbol values
must have N number of soft symbol values." App. Br. 10; see also Reply
Br. 7-10. Thus, Appellants argue the Specification's disclosures directed to
"transmission compris[ing] a first plurality ofsoft symbol values" not only
enables, but also provides written description support for, the disputed
recitation. App. Br. 11 (citing Spec. 3, 11. 10-12).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. The claimed first
set of N soft symbol values is explicitly constrained to have more than one
soft symbol value (i.e., "wherein N > 1 "). That is, the claim is directed to a
plurality of soft symbol values, which we agree is explicitly disclosed in the
Specification. See, e.g., Abstract ("wherein the first transmission comprises
a first plurality of soft symbol values"); Spec. 21, 11. 5-6.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-22, which the Examiner rejects
for similar reasons.
3
Appeal2017-007199
Application 13/382,560
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22.
REVERSED
4