Ex Parte Khan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2013

11344298 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte FAROOQ KHAN and JOSEPH R. CLEVELAND
____________________

Appeal 2011-000595
Application 11/344,298
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before: DAVID M. KOHUT, JASON V. MORGAN, and TREVOR M.
JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000595
Application 11/344,298
2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 4-10, 13-15, 18 and 20.2 Claims 2-3, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 19 were
deemed allowable if rewritten in independent form including all limitations
of the base claim and any intervening claims. Ans. 7. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Introduction
The claims are directed to a system and method for subcarrier
allocation in a wireless multihop relay network by dividing the total
available frequency band of a first node and allocating portions of the band
to allow a first node to communicate simultaneously with second and third
nodes. Spec., ¶ [0003], Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed
limitation in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for use by a first node in a communications
system, the method comprising:
dividing a total available frequency band of the first node
into a plurality of subcarriers using orthogonal frequency
division multiplexing (OFDM);
allocating a first portion of the plurality of subcarriers to
a first link coupling the first node with a second node; and
allocating a second portion of the plurality of subcarriers
to a second link coupling the first node to a third node, wherein
the first node can simultaneously receive communications from
the second and third nodes using the first and second portions
of the plurality of subcarriers, respectively.

1 Throughout the decision, we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Jun. 21, 2010), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sep. 22,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jul. 27, 2010).
2 The Real Party in Interest is SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
Appeal 2011-000595
Application 11/344,298
3
Rejections
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 5-10, and 14-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Sartori (US 2005/0232183 A1, Oct. 20, 2005). Ans. 3-
6.
Claims 4, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sartori and Kim (US 6,172,993 B1,
Jan. 9, 2001). Ans. 6.
Claim 183 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sartori, Kim and Huh (US
2005/0094550 A1, May 5, 2005). Ans. 6-7.

OPINION
Independent Claim 1 – 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Appellants contend that Sartori fails to disclose that the relay resource
(first node) “can simultaneously receive communications from the second
and third nodes using the first and second portions of the plurality of
subcarriers” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 14. The Examiner errs,
Appellants contend, because Sartori shows only that a relay resource (15 and
16) receives bearer data (24) from a remote unit (14) and transmits the
bearer data (25) to a base site (10). Id. Appellants argue that the control

3 The Examiner inadvertently referred to claim 14, instead of claim 18, in the
statement of the rejection and the body of the rejection with respect to claim
18. Ans. 6-7. However, the body of the rejection refers solely to a
recitation—allocating a pilot subcarrier to the first link—found in claim 18,
not in claim 14. Thus, it is clear from the analysis that the Examiner
intended to reject claim 18, not claim 14. Moreover, Appellants
acknowledge that Examiner intended to apply this analysis (id.) to reject
claim 18. App. Br. 23
Appeal 2011-000595
Application 11/344,298
4
“information” shown in Fig. 2, that the Examiner relies on, is transmitted on
a dedicated control signaling channel and not on a first or second portion of
a subcarrier as recited in the claims. App. Br. 16 (citing Sartori, ¶ [0064]
and Fig. 6-11). Appellants also contend, Sartori expressly teaches that the
first portion of the subcarrier is used to receive bearer data from a remote
site and a second portion of the subcarriers is used to transmit bearer data to
the base site. App. Br. 16-17 (citing Sartori ¶¶ [0033] and [0064]). Thus,
Appellants argue that Sartori fails to disclose that first node (or relay
resource) “can simultaneously receive communications from the second and
third nodes using the first and second portions of the plurality of
subcarriers” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added) because the control
information received from the base site is not communicated on a first
portion of a plurality of subcarriers. App. Br. 16, 17.
The Examiner responds that the control and bearer data shown in
Fig. 2 of Sartori read on simultaneously received communications. Ans. 7-8.
The Examiner relies on the finding that “Sartori teaches that the relay unit
1200 receives information from a first remote unit on a first set of
frequencies (e.g., a first set of OFDM sub-carriers) . . . ; and the relay unit
1200 relays data to a base station, the data is transmitted using a second set
of frequencies or OFDM sub-carriers.” Ans. 10 (see ¶¶ 0026, 0037 and
0093-0094). Thus, the Examiner finds that Sartori teaches that the control
information received from the base site is sent using a first portion of the
plurality of subcarriers and that the bearer data is received using a second
portion of subcarriers. Ans. 10.
We disagree with the Examiner’s findings regarding the carriers for
the bearer and control data. The Examiner has failed to show that Sartori
discloses the base site communicating control information using either of the
Appeal 2011-000595
Application 11/344,298
5
identified first and second set of frequencies. Discussing the apportioned
carriers, Sartori states that the relaying device “receive[s] data to be relayed
on a first set of frequencies and relay the data on a second set of
frequencies.” Sartori ¶ [0026]. We agree with the Examiner that “Sartori
teaches that the relay unit 1200 receives information from a first remote unit
on a first set of frequencies … and the relay unit 1200 relays data to a base
station, the data is transmitted using a second set of frequencies or OFDM
sub-carriers.” Ans. 10 (emphases added). Thus, we find that Sartori
discloses that the relay resource or first node receives information from a
remote unit and transmits data to a base site using different sets of
frequencies. See id..
In contrast, claim 1 recites that the “simultaneously receive[d]
communications from the second and third nodes” are transmitted “using the
first and second portions of the plurality of subcarriers.” However, the
Examiner’s findings only support that the relay resource or unit uses a
different set of frequencies to receive and transmit data, not simultaneously
receiving data on a plurality of subcarriers as the claim requires. Thus, we do
not find that Sartori discloses that a first node “can simultaneously receive
communications from the second and third nodes using the first and second
portions of the plurality of subcarriers” as claimed.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Because independent claims 10 (which
recites that “the first and second subcarriers can be used to receive
communications simultaneously”) and 14 (which recites “receiving, by the
first node, from the second and third nodes using the allocated first and
second subcarriers, respectively, wherein the receiving from the second and
third nodes can occur simultaneously”) contain similar limitations to claim
Appeal 2011-000595
Application 11/344,298
6
1, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Finally, dependent claims 5-9 ultimately depend from
independent claim 1 and claim 15 depends from claim 14 (App. Br. 19-22).
Thus, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-9 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. §102(e).

Dependent Claims 4, 13, 18 and 20 – 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Dependent claims 4 and 13 respectively depend from independent
claims 1 and 10 and dependent claims 18 and 20 depend from independent
claim 14. App. Br. 23. Based on the foregoing discussion applicable to
claims 1, 10 and 14, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
dependent claims 4, 13, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 5-10,
and 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and claims 4, 13, 18 and 20 under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) are reversed.

REVERSED

tj