Ex Parte Kwon et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 201713925365 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 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. 13/925,365 06/24/2013 Young Hoon Kwon HW 83545909US02 8899 74365 7590 05/25/2017 Slater Matsil, LLP 17950 Preston Road, Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 75252 EXAMINER ANWAR, MOHAMMAD S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2463 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/25/2017 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): uspatent@huawei.com docketing @ slatermatsil. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YOUNG HOON KWON, YUNSONG YANG, and ZHIGANG RONG Appeal 2016-004931 Application 13/925,365 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JAMES R. HUGHES, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2016-004931 Application 13/925,365 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention allocates periodic resources in a communication system by determining if a station is in a list of stations allowed to use an access window, and exchanging data with an access point (1) within the access window if the station is in the list, and (2) using a resource not reserved for a periodic group resource if the station is not in the list. See generally Abstract; Spec. 124. Claims 1, 9, and 24 are illustrative: 1. A method for operating an access point, the method comprising: reserving, by the access point, resources for a periodic group resource; broadcasting, by the access point, reservation information for the periodic group resource; assigning, by the access point, a resource in the periodic resource to a first station; transmitting, by the access point, information about the resource in the periodic group resource assigned to the first station to the first station, wherein the transmitting occurs during one of an association procedure with the first station and a reconfiguration of a resource assignment for the first station; and exchanging, by the access point, data with the first station during the resource in the periodic group resource assigned to the first station. 9. A method for operating a station, the method comprising: receiving, by the station, reservation information for a periodic group resource; receiving, by the station, a list of allowed stations permitted to utilize an access window; determining, by the station, if the station is in the list of allowed stations permitted to utilize the access window; exchanging, by the station, data with an access point within the access window if the station is in the list of allowed stations permitted to utilize the access window; and 2 Appeal 2016-004931 Application 13/925,365 exchanging, by the station, data with the access point using a resource not reserved for the periodic group resource and not in the access window if the station is not in the list of allowed stations. 24. A method for operating an access point in an IEEE 802.11 compliant communications system, the method comprising: reserving, by the access point, resources of a communications channel for a periodic restricted access window; periodically broadcasting, by the access point, one of a Beacon frame, a short Beacon frame, and a Probe Response frame including reservation information about the periodic restricted access window; transmitting, by the access point, a management frame to a first station during one of an association procedure and a rescheduling of a resource assignment to the first station, the management frame including information about a resource in the periodic restricted access window assigned to the first station; and exchanging, by the access point, data with the first station during the resource in the periodic restricted access window assigned to the first station. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 9—11, 14—21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by So (US 2007/0298809 Al; Dec. 27, 2007). Final Act. 3-6.1 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed March 20, 2015 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed September 15, 2015 (“Br.”); and (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 20, 2016 (“Ans.”). 3 Appeal 2016-004931 Application 13/925,365 The Examiner rejected claims 1—8, 15—18, and 24—27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zheng (US 2011/0194538 Al; Aug. 11, 2011) and Montojo (US 2008/0233967 Al; Sept. 25, 2008). Final Act. 7-12. The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over So (US 8,213,948 B2; July 3, 2012) (“So ’948”)2 and Liu (US 8,768,323 B2; July 1, 2014). Final Act. 12-13. The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over So and Anderson (US 8,743,802 B2; June 3, 2014). Final Act. 13-14. THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION The Examiner finds that So discloses every recited element of independent claim 9 including a station receiving a list of allowed stations to utilize an access window, which the Examiner equates to a number of slots allocated to mobile stations for resource assignment. Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 2. Appellants argue that because So assigns each slot to only one mobile station, there is no list of allowed stations permitted to utilize an access window as claimed. Br. 4—6. ISSUES Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that So discloses: 2 Although the Examiner cites So’s U.S. Patent (US 8,213,948 B2; July 3, 2012) in rejecting claim 13 instead of So’s published application cited in the other rejections (see Final Act. 12), this distinction is undisputed. Therefore, we treat any error associated with this inconsistency as harmless. 4 Appeal 2016-004931 Application 13/925,365 (1) a station receiving a list of allowed stations to utilize an access window as recited in claim 9? (2) a processor configured to reserve resources for a periodic group resource as recited in claim 15? ANALYSIS Claims 9—11, 14, 19—21, and 23 We begin by construing the key disputed limitation of claim 9 which recites, in pertinent part, an “access window.” Appellants’ Specification does not define this term, unlike at least one other term that leaves no doubt as to its meaning. See, e.g., Spec. 134 (defining “management procedure”). Under its plain meaning in the art, a “window” is “[a] time interval during which an activity may take place.” Steven M. Kaplan, Wiley Electrical & Electronics Engineering Dictionary 863 (2004) (“Wiley EE Dictionary”). This definition reasonably comports with the restricted access window (RAW) 210 in Figure 2 of Appellants’ disclosure that shows the RAW’S duration with slots 215 having a shorter duration. Given this temporal aspect of an access window, the Examiner’s mapping of a number of slots in So to the recited access window (Ans. 2) is reasonable. So explains that a base station (BS) (1) allocates downlink resources to an MS, and (2) transmits DownLink-MAP (DL-MAP) information to the MS. So|7. A slot is the basic unit of downlink resource allocation, and the amount of resources is represented as the number of slots. So 17. Notably, symbol-based downlink resources are defined in time. So 1 7. 5 Appeal 2016-004931 Application 13/925,365 As Appellants indicate, So’s Figure 10 shows resources allocated to four MSs, where each particular slot is assigned to a particular MS designated by its corresponding hatching. Br. 5—6. But Appellants’ contention that So does not assign more than one MS to one access window (Br. 6) is unavailing. Even assuming, without deciding, that the recited list requires more than one station, So’s slots fully meet the recited access window. To the extent that Appellants contend that an access window is limited to only one slot in So’s Figure 10, such a contention is not germane to the Examiner’s equating a number of slots to that window. See Ans. 2. Notably, a number of consecutive slots, such as those shown along the horizontal symbol axis in So’s Figure 10, at least represent a time interval during which an activity may take place under the term’s plain meaning noted above. That Appellants’ Figure 2 shows six consecutive slots collectively constituting the RAW only bolsters the Examiner’s equating plural slots in So’s Figure 10 to the recited access window. Appellants’ arguments to the contrary, then, are unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9, and claims 10, 11, 14, 19-21, and 23 not argued separately with particularity.3 3 Although Appellants nominally argue claims 19-21 and 23 separately, the arguments are the same as those for claim 9. See Br. 7. Accordingly, we group these claims together. 6 Appeal 2016-004931 Application 13/925,365 Claims 15—18 For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 15 reciting, in pertinent part, a processor configured to reserve resources for a periodic group resource. Despite Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (Br. 6—7), Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reliance on So’s slots allocated to plural MSs as explained above and by the Examiner. See Ans. 3 (citing So 48—53). Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15, and claims 16—18 not argued separately with particularity. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ZHENG AND MONTOJO The Examiner finds that Zheng discloses many recited elements of claim 1 including an access point reserving resources for a periodic group resource. Final Act. 7—8; Ans. 3. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Zheng’s transmission does not occur during resource assignment reconfiguration as claimed, the Examiner cites Montojo as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Appellants argue that because Zheng assigns one resource to one MS in Figure 2, Zheng’s access point does not reserve resources for a periodic group resource as claimed. Br. 7—9. Appellants argue other recited limitations summarized below. ISSUES Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Zheng and Montojo collectively would have taught or suggested: 7 Appeal 2016-004931 Application 13/925,365 (1) an access point reserving resources for a periodic group resource as recited in claim 1 ? (2) an access point periodically broadcasting one of (a) a Beacon frame; (b) a short Beacon frame; and (c) a Probe Response frame including reservation information about a periodic RAW as recited in claim 24? ANALYSIS Claims 1—8 and 15—18 We begin by noting that the Examiner’s reliance on the secondary reference to Montojo for teaching reconfiguring a first station’s resource assignment is undisputed. Nevertheless, the recited transmission need only occur during one of the two recited processes, namely the recited (1) association procedure, and (2) resource assignment reconfiguration. Because the Examiner cites Zheng for teaching the first alternative (Final Act. 8), the Examiner’s reliance on Montojo for teaching the second alternative (Final Act. 8) is technically cumulative to Zheng given the “one of’ language in claim 1. Nevertheless, the Examiner’s reliance on these references for either alternative is undisputed. But what is disputed is the Examiner’s reliance on Zheng for teaching reserving resources for a periodic group resource. On this record, however, we see no error in the Examiner’s rejection in this regard, particularly given the scope and breadth of the term “periodic group resource.” Appellants’ Specification does not define the term “resource,” unlike at least one other term that leaves no doubt as to its meaning. See, e.g., Spec. 134 (defining “management procedure”). Under its plain meaning in the art, a “resource” is “[a] means utilized to perform 8 Appeal 2016-004931 Application 13/925,365 one or more operations, or to accomplish a given task.” Wiley EE Dictionary 659. As Appellants acknowledge, Zheng’s Figure 2 shows an uplink (UL) subframe 212 that allocates resources to one or more MSs, for example, (1) UL resources for MS#1 in field 226, and (2) UL resources up to and including MS#K in field 228.4 Zheng 126. Although Appellants are correct that each field assigns UL resources to one MS in Zheng’s Figure 2 (Br. 8), nothing in the claim precludes a “periodic group resource” from including all such resources collectively, including those in fields 226 and 228, as well as any other resources for MSs between MS#1 and MS#K. This collective resource, then, is a “periodic group resource,” for it is not only used periodically to perform one or more operations or accomplish a given task under the term’s plain meaning, but it also pertains to a group of MSs, namely those from MS#1 to MS#K. Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (Br. 7—9) are unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2—8 and 15—18 not argued separately with particularity.5 4 Although not shown in Zheng’s Figure 2, the ellipsis in Zheng’s paragraph 26 indicates that there are additional MSs between MS#1 and MS#K. 5 Although Appellants nominally argue claims 15—18 separately, the arguments are the same as those for claim 1. See Br. 9. Accordingly, we group these claims together. Despite the Examiner inartfully addressing Appellants’ arguments with respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 15 by referring to the anticipation rejection of that claim over a different prior art reference, namely So (Ans. 4), the Examiner nonetheless finds that Zheng teaches claim 15’s periodic group resource limitation in the rejection. See Final Act. 9. Therefore, we treat the Examiner’s error in referring to So in the Answer’s response to arguments for claim 15 as harmless. 9 Appeal 2016-004931 Application 13/925,365 Claims 24—27 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24 reciting, in pertinent part, an access point periodically broadcasting one of {1) a Beacon frame; (2) a short Beacon frame; and (3) a Probe Response frame including reservation information about a periodic RAW. Final Act. 11—12. Our emphasis underscores that only one of the three alternatives need be taught or suggested by the prior art to satisfy this limitation, and it is alternative (1) that the Examiner finds is taught by Zheng’s UL/DL subframes in paragraphs 24 to 28. Ans. 4. Appellants refer to paragraph 29 of the Specification in connection with the recited beacon and probe response frames. Br. 9—12. Moreover, short beacon frames 205 and 207 bound the beacon interval in which RAW 210 is defined. See Spec. 128. But neither these passages nor or any other passage in the Specification defines the term “beacon frame,” unlike at least one other term that leaves no doubt as to its meaning. See, e.g., Spec. 134 (defining “management procedure”). Under its plain meaning, a “beacon” is defined, in pertinent part, as “anything that warns or signals.” Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary 58 (2d ed. 1993). Given this broad definition, the Examiner’s finding that Zheng’s UL/DL subframes are “beacon frames” is reasonable, particularly in light of the Examiner’s finding that these frames are part of a broadcast message that is transmitted periodically. See Ans. 4. Notably, this broadcast and its constituent subframes is at least something that signals, thus reasonably comporting with the above-noted definition of “beacon.” Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (Br. 9—12) are unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim. 10 Appeal 2016-004931 Application 13/925,365 Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 24, and claims 25—27 not argued separately with particularity. THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 12, 13, and 22. Final Act. 12—14. Because these rejections are not argued separately with particularity, we are not persuaded of error in these rejections for the reasons previously discussed. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting (1) claims 9—11, 14—21, and 23 under § 102, and (2) claims 1—8, 12, 13, 15—18, 22, and 24—27 under § 103. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—27 is affirmed. 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 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation