Ex Parte KWON et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 9, 201712431457 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2017) 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. 12/431,457 04/28/2009 Hwan-Joon KWON 678-1379 CON 5186 66547 7590 03/13/2017 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2643 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/13/2017 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 @ farrelliplaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HWAN-JOON KWON, DONG-HEE KIM, and YOUN-SUN KIM Appeal 2014-003351 Application 12/431,457 Technology Center 2600 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2014-003351 Application 12/431,457 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 12—14, 16, 17, 19, and 20. Claims 6 and 11 are indicated to be allowable. Claims 3, 5, 8, 10, 15, and 18 are canceled. We have jurisdiction over the rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to controlling a reverse traffic rate in a mobile communication system. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation emphasize in italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for controlling an uplink Traffic-to-pilot Power Ratio (TPR) in a mobile station of a mobile communication system, the method comprising: receiving TPR control information over a downlink control channel; determining, by the MS, an allowed maximum TPR of uplink data to be transmitted in a second transmission interval, the allowed maximum TPR being determined by applying a used TPR in a first transmission interval to a value indicating to increase or decrease the used TPR in the first transmission interval according to the TPR control information; and controlling a TPR of the uplink data to be transmitted in the second transmission interval based on the determined allowed maximum TPR, wherein the first transmission interval and the second transmission interval are included in a same Hybrid Automatic Retransmission reQuest (HARQ) process. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: 2 Appeal 2014-003351 Application 12/431,457 Hwang You Alin US 2002/0060997 A1 May 23, 2002 US 2003/0063595 A1 Apr. 3, 2003 US 7,143,330 B2 Nov. 28, 2006 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 12—14, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Hwang, and Ahn. Final Act. 4—7. Claims 16 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Hwang, Ahn, and You. Final Act. 7—8. Appellants contend the requirement of “a same Hybrid Automatic Retransmission reQuest (HARQ) process” should be interpreted as depicted in Figure 9 to include each time interval corresponding to the same Automatic Repeat request Channel Indicator (ACID) consistent with Technical Specification 3GPP TS 25.319 V10.1.0, section 9.2.1.1 rather than the broader interpretation used by the Examiner in rejecting the independent claims. App. Br. 5—12. We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—8) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—8) and concur with the APPELLANTS’ CONTENTION ANALYSIS 3 Appeal 2014-003351 Application 12/431,457 conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. This appeal turns on the interpretation of “included in a same [HARQ] process.” Claim 1. Appellants argue “the recitation ‘the first transmission interval and the second transmission interval are included in a same Hybrid Automatic Retransmission reQuest (HARQ) process,’ is clearly illustrated in FIG. 9 of the present application and the description thereof.” App. Br. 7. According to Appellants, as shown in the figure, “each time interval corresponding to a same ACID1 would be considered as being in ‘the same HARQ process’ [recited by the independent claims].” App. Br. 8. Appellants argue this interpretation is supported by a related 3 GPP Technical Specification2 and “is terminology known to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” Id. The Examiner finds Appellants’ “claim does NOT define what the first/second interval can/can’t be nor does it define what is/isn’t involved in the ‘same HARQ process.’” Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds the claims do not require the transmission intervals be defined by the 3GPP Technical Specification. Ans. 6. Accordingly, the Examiner rejects Appellants’ proffered narrow interpretation and, instead, interprets the limitation to mean “wherein [the] transmissions are part of the SAME data transmission, [e.g.,] are in the same transmission interval of an on-going HARQ process.” Final Act. 3; Ans. 3 (emphasis omitted). Therefore, the Examiner finds Hwang’s 1 ARQ (Automatic Repeat reQuest) Channel Indicator 2 3GPP TS 25.319 V10.1.0 (2010-06) 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Enhanced uplink; Overall description; Stage 2 (Release 10) (Uploaded June 18, 2010) (Available for download at http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/25_series/25.319/25319-al0.zip). 4 Appeal 2014-003351 Application 12/431,457 data packet transmissions are included in the same HARQ process or interval when a data packet is retransmitted at a higher power level in response to a negative acknowledgement (NAK) message received in connection with an earlier transmission. Ans. 5. Accordingly, the Examiner finds Hwang teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Id. The Examiner further finds “Ahn[’s] . . . power control in a mobile/cellular network using an ACK/NAK protocol in a HARQ environment [also teaches or suggests the disputed] claim limitations.” Id. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Appellants’ arguments are based on an unduly narrow interpretation of the meaning of “included in a same Hybrid Automatic Retransmission reQuest (HARQ) process.” When construing claim terminology during prosecution before the Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Neither Appellants’ claims nor Specification define what is meant by included in a same HARQ process. Instead, Appellants direct attention to a disclosed example, arguing “each time interval corresponding to a same ACID would be considered as being in ‘the same HARQ process.’” App Br. 8. However, the Specification merely describes a non-limiting example of “a common HARQ operation,” and does not limit “a same HARQ process” to Appellants’ interpretation. Appellants’ reliance on an illustration found in the 3GPP Technical Specification is also unpersuasive because there is neither a claim requirement for the transmission intervals to comply with that or any other specification nor does the 3GPP Technical Specification provide a clear 5 Appeal 2014-003351 Application 12/431,457 definition of what is meant by in the same HARQ process. Furthermore, we note the referenced 3 GPP Technical Specification appears to be dated June 2010,3 over one year after the filing date of Appellants’ application and, therefore, is not persuasive evidence of what one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have understood to be meant by included in the same HARQ process. Therefore, we find no error in the Examiner’s broad but reasonable interpretation of what is meant by being included in a same HARQ process and agree the applied combination including Hwang teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of the independent claims. For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of independent claim 1 and, for the same reasons, independent claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over AAPA, Hwang, and Ahn together with the rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, 9, 12—14, 17, and 20 which were not argued separately with particularity. We further sustain the rejection of dependent claims 16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over AAPA, Hwang, Ahn, and You, as these dependent claims also not argued separately. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 12— 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20. 3 The cover page of 3GPP Technical Specification TS 25.319 version 10.1.0 indicates a date of “2010-06”; the 3GPP website indicates TS 25.319 was uploaded on June 18, 2010 (see https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/ Specifications/SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=l 174) and revised on December 1, 2016 (see https://portal.3gpp.org/ChangeRequests.aspx?q= l&versionId=36593&release=184). 6 Appeal 2014-003351 Application 12/431,457 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation