Ex Parte KWUN et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 1, 201511779588 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2015) 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. 11/779,588 07/18/2007 Jong-Hyung KWUN 1235-509 (SP7096) 2493 66547 7590 06/01/2015 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2642 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JONG-HYUNG KWUN, CHEOL-WOO YOU, SUNG-HYUN CHO, SUNGHO JEON, and SANGHOON LEE ____________________ Appeal 2013-004315 Application 11/779,588 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–4, 6–19, and 21–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 5 and 20 have been canceled. We AFFIRM. 2 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed December 28, 2011 (“App. Br.”); Appellants’ Reply Brief filed February 5, 2013 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed December 5, 2012 (“Ans.”); and Final Office Action mailed July 29, 2011 (“Final Act.”). Appeal 2013-004315 Application 11/779,588 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims on Appeal Claims 1, 10, 14, and 23 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below (disputed limitation in italics): 1. A Base Station (BS) in a wireless communication system, comprising: a controller for generating a control signal to set a guard band for a frequency domain when a time offset occurs between BSs, wherein the guard band is set in a control channel interval; a mapper for mapping and outputting transmit data to a band, excluding the guard band, of a unique band of the BS according to the control signal; and an operator for multicarrier-modulating data fed from the mapper. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal: Chillariga et al. US 2002/0122406 A1 Sept. 5, 2002 (hereinafter “Chillariga”) Dolgonos et al. US 2002/0137464 A1 Sept. 26, 2002 (hereinafter “Dolgonos”) Boles et al. US 2004/0252801 A1 Dec. 16, 2004 (hereinafter “Boles”) Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 2, 6–17, and 21–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dolgonos and Chillariga. Final Act. 2–7. Claims 3, 4, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dolgonos, Chillariga, and Boles. Final Act. 7. Appeal 2013-004315 Application 11/779,588 3 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments the Examiner erred. See App. Br. 5–13; Reply Br. 1–2. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Dolgonos and Chillariga teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 1 reciting “a controller for generating a control signal to set a guard band for a frequency domain when a time offset occurs between BSs [base stations], wherein the guard band is set in a control channel interval.” See App. Br. 5– 13; Reply Br. 1–2. The Examiner found, and we agree, Dolgonos teaches using guard bands for a frequency domain to account for the differences in timing offsets between transmitters. Final Act. 3 (citing Dolgonos ¶ 24). In particular, Dolgonos teaches: In this embodiment, the sub-carriers assigned to each transmitter 18(i) are contiguous, with unused sub-carriers acting as guard bands between the sub-carrier subsets. . . . The timing synchronization must be such that at the OFDM demodulator the timing offset between symbols from different transmitters, and from different paths, is not greater than the symbol guard interval. Dolgonos ¶ 24. The Examiner also found, and we agree, Chillariga teaches using control signals sent in a control channel interval to adjust the guard band. Final Act. 4–5 (citing Chillariga ¶¶ 36, 70, 72). Chillariga teaches: “The base station controller 16 is an embodiment of a system timing control means for controlling the initial timing of bursts with initial timing advances Appeal 2013-004315 Application 11/779,588 4 that provide for initial guard bands between[]bursts.” Chillariga ¶ 70. Chillariga then teaches that various operations are controlled, using control channels, while the connection lasts, including “timing advance”: While the connection lasts, the BTS/BSC [base transceiver station/base station controller] controls the operation of the radio traffic channels, including power control, frequency hopping, and timing advance on dedicated control channels, while it continues to use the radio broadcast channel for operation, maintenance and signaling with all the other MSs [mobile stations] in the cell. Chillariga ¶ 72. Therefore, we find Chillariga teaches using control channels to control timing advance, which provides for guard bands, during the connection. Based on the combined teachings of Dolgonos and Chillariga, the Examiner concluded the subject matter of the disputed limitation would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Final Act. 3–5. We note that Appellants’ arguments, which we address below, largely attack the individual teachings of Dolgonos and Chillariga and fail to appreciate what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is “expressly suggested in any one or all of the references”; rather, “the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted). Appeal 2013-004315 Application 11/779,588 5 Appellants argue that the guard intervals in Dolgonos are not “for a frequency domain.” App. Br. 5. For the reasons given by the Examiner (Final Act. 3; Ans. 3–4), we are not persuaded. In particular, the Examiner explained Dolgonos’s disclosure of using sub-carriers as guard bands in an OFDM (orthogonal frequency division multiplexing) 3 system refers to a frequency domain. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3–4. Appellants also argue that “[i]n Dolgonos, transmitters refer to a plurality of mobile transmitter units,” not to base stations. App. Br. 5. However, as the Examiner found, a transmitter can be a base station. Final Act. 3. Furthermore, this argument is not persuasive because it does not appreciate what the combined teachings of Dolgonos and Chillariga would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In particular, as explained above, the Examiner relied on Dolgonos’s teaching of using guard bands for a frequency domain to account for the differences in timing offsets between transmitters in combination with Chillariga’s teachings related to base station functionality. Appellants further argue that “a base transreceiver [sic] in Chillariga does not set guard band intervals” and that Chillariga does not teach setting a guard band in a control channel interval. App. Br. 6. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons stated above in the discussion of the Examiner’s findings. In particular, Chillariga teaches that timing advances provide for guard bands (Chillariga ¶ 70) and further that, “[w]hile the connection lasts, the BTS/BSC [base transceiver station/base station controller] controls the operation of the radio traffic channels, including 3 Dolgonos refers to OFDM as “orthogonal frequency division modulation.” Dolgonos ¶ 2. Appeal 2013-004315 Application 11/779,588 6 power control, frequency hopping, and timing advance on dedicated control channels . . . .” (Chillariga ¶ 72 (emphasis added)). We note that Appellants argue the Examiner has relied on inherent disclosure of the use of “control channel intervals.” App. Br. 6–7. We disagree because the Examiner has relied on Chillariga’s express disclosure of using control channels. See Final Act. 5. We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the base station controller in Chillariga is separate from, and not internal to, the base station. See App. Br. 9. As the Examiner explained, the base station controller techniques taught by Chillariga can be applied to the teachings of Dolgonos. Ans. 4–5. Therefore, it is the combined teachings that must be considered in an obviousness rejection. See Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at 1097; Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Appellants also argue that “[t]he Examiner concludes, without providing adequate rationale, that because Chillariga discloses setting parameters in control intervals, and Dologos [sic] discloses setting guard bands, it would have been obvious to combine Dolgonos and Chillariga to set guard bands in control intervals.” App. Br. 9–10. However, this argument fails to appreciate Chillariga’s teaching of using a control channel to control timing advance, which provides for guard bands, as discussed above. See Chillariga ¶¶ 70, 72. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive of Examiner error. Finally, Appellants argue “the Examiner improperly applies Official Notice in supporting the obviousness rejections of the independent claims.” App. Br. 10–11. We disagree that the Examiner’s rejection relies on Official Notice for the reasons explained by the Examiner. See Ans. 5 (explaining Appeal 2013-004315 Application 11/779,588 7 that the language cited by Appellants was included to note for which aspects of the claim the Examiner relied upon Chillariga). Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as the rejections of claims 2–4, 6–19, and 21–25, which are not argued separately with sufficient particularity (App. Br. 11–12), under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–4, 6–19, and 21–25. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED rvb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation