Ex Parte Lee et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201612813176 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/813,176 06/10/2010 66547 7590 02/26/2016 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR II Ho Lee 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. 1398-331 6409 EXAMINER FOUD, HICHAM B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2467 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 02/26/2016 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 IL HO LEE, YEON JU LIM, and HONG SIL JEONG1 Appeal2014-004235 Application 12/813, 176 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-11, 13, and 16-20. Claims 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, and 15 have been canceled. App. Br. 11, 13. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-004235 Application 12/813, 176 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' invention is directed to "provid[ing] broadcast services via a plurality of successive frames." Spec. 1. In one embodiment, a transmitter "insert[ s] scheduling information, as inband signaling, into a serving broadcast packet ... , wherein the scheduling information includes timing information regarding next target broadcast packets." Spec. 4. According to the Specification, this allows a receiver unit to enter a sleep mode, thereby conserving power, until the next broadcast transmission packet is to be transmitted. Spec. 3. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics: 1. A broadcast service method of a transmitter in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: inserting scheduling information, as inband signaling, into a serving broadcast packet, and transmitting the serving broadcast packet via one of a plurality of frames, wherein the scheduling information includes timing information regarding next target broadcast packets; and transmitting the target broadcast packets according to the timing information, wherein the timing information comprises: a frame interval between a serving frame transmitting the serving broadcast packet and each target frame transmitting the target broadcast packets; a start time point of the target broadcast packet in the each target frame; and a size of the each target broadcast packet. 2 Appeal2014-004235 Application 12/813, 176 The Examiner's Rejection Claims 1, 3, 6-11, 13, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kwon (US 2010/0128679 Al; May 27, 2010 (PCT filed Aug. 24, 2007)); Mahany et al. (US 2006/0280140 A9; Dec. 14, 2006) ("Mahany"); and Zhang et al. (US 8,072,980 B 1; Dec. 6, 2011 (filed May 11, 2009)) ("Zhang"). Final Act. 2-6. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Kwon, Mahany, and Zhang teaches or suggests the disputed limitations recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS2 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Kwon teaches or suggests "inserting scheduling information, as inband signaling, into a serving broadcast packet, and transmitting the serving broadcast packet via one of a plurality of frames," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5---6. In particular, Appellants assert Kwon teaches a coordinator-capable device that can start a new wireless network by transmitting a beacon packet as part of LRP (low-rate physical layer) channel. App. Br. 6. Appellants argue the beacon of Kwon is not scheduling information and, further, is not transmitted through one of a plurality of frames as inband signaling. App. Br. 6. Appellants further argue the beacon packet of Kwon is not a serving 2 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed September 19, 2013 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief filed February 4, 2014 ("Reply. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed on December 4, 2013 ("Ans."); and the Final Office Action mailed on April 22, 2013, from which this Appeal is taken ("Final Act."). 3 Appeal2014-004235 Application 12/813, 176 broadcast packet into which scheduling information is inserted as inband signaling. Reply Br. 2-3. Instead, Appellants assert the beacon of Kwon is transmitted by a control channel. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2-3. The Examiner finds Kwon teaches or suggests inserting scheduling information, as inband signaling, into a serving broadcast packet, and transmitting the serving broadcast packet via one of a plurality of frames. Final Act. 2 (citing Kwon i-fi-130 and 31, Figs. 3 and 7). The Examiner further finds Kwon teaches or suggests the scheduling information includes timing information. Final Act. 2-3 (citing Kwon i-fi-130, 31, and 78). We agree with the Examiner's findings and adopt them as our own. As the Examiner explains, Kwon's beacon packet corresponds to the claimed "serving broadcast packet" and the beacon packet contains information that reads on scheduling information inserted as inband signaling. Ans. 6-7. 4 Appeal2014-004235 Application 12/813, 176 Figure 7 of Kwon is illustrative and is reproduced below: {Fig. 7] ' BfACON HEAOO! BfACtm llfO'IWtATIOfl ... !§f{JF;MAJIDN PCS cmimot fLemlT 1 EU=MOO fl · .. 730 ' ----- _ .. A-----""---_..~ .... ~...... "''- '"\ octets: 1 1 rn '" HI INFORMA.r!Otl mmm SCHUIUU BUJC& 1 "" St!iEnllll BLOCK n rLEMENT IN!'JU: ~- i I ,. I , •' Bits: 6 SOUR~!IJ \ \ / 731~ \ ') 731 ~- ; .i , - .. \ ' .. 1 ,,. , 720 130-1 < .. )"-,, -~~;- 132 733 6 l 1 f~RGET ID STATIC ?llY r.tOl.lE 10011;ATICW \ 73lb 73H:: ' ' ,, ... ·- ~ "'-·- ......... ' 734 l &AM FtJRM!NO , i "· \ } 735 - 1 PMRED !.:TBS l "> 73H l \.) / 736 Figure 7 of Kwon depicts a beacon packet (700). Kwon i-f 75. As shown, beacon packet (700) comprises a beacon header (701 ), a beacon control field (702), at least one information element field (703), and a PCS 5 Appeal2014-004235 Application 12/813, 176 (Packet Check Sequence) field (704 ). Id. Information element 703-1 is expanded and is shown to include, inter alia, at least one schedule block (730), which further includes, inter alia, schedule information (731 ). Kwon i-fi-179-81. Kwon further teaches "[t]he coordinator 110 regulates the communication timing in the wireless network using the beacon."3 Kwon i130. Additionally, the "beacon [packet] includes channel-time-allocation information and is broadcast to the wireless network by the coordinator 110." Kwon i131. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the beacon packet of Kwon teaches or suggests information containing scheduling information inserted as inband signaling. See Ans. 6-7. 3 We note that Kwon refers to the "beacon packet" as a "beacon." Kwon i129. 6 Appeal2014-004235 Application 12/813, 176 Figure 3 of Kwon is illustrative of how a beacon packet is included in communication by a wireless network coordinator and is reproduced below: HRP CHAflNEl IRP CHANNEl 310 321 [Fig. 3J 300 (-....) SUPIRfRAME SOPHfRAME StJPERfRAMf SUPfl!FRAMf ~=---- =--·-r:-~=---1 U.·~~,~-.. JJ.......... --·· ... .J . . ......... : T2 324 T1 325 Figure 3 of Kwon shows communication timing from a coordinator, referred to as a "superframe." Kwon i-f 30. As shown, a superframe (300) may include a beacon period (310) and reserved and unreserved channel time blocks (CTBs) (e.g., 321, 322, 323, 324, 331, 332, 333, and 334). Kwon i-fi-130-32. Reserved CTBs may be used for data transmission between the coordinator and a station (i.e., another device). Kwon i-f 33. A collection of associated reserved CTBs is referred to as a "schedule." Kwon i-f 3 5. Kwon further teaches "[ t ]he beacon period 310 indicates the time when the beacon was transmitted" so that a station "can know the communication timing." Kwon i-f 31. 7 Appeal2014-004235 Application 12/813, 176 Additionally, we do not find Appellants' argument that Kwon's beacon packet is not a "serving broadcast packet" persuasive. As set forth in the Specification, a serving broadcast packet "refers to data that is provided by the serving frame [ (a frame that provides a current broadcast service in a wireless broadcast communication system)] via a particular broadcast channel." Spec. 8. Under a broad yet reasonable interpretation, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the beacon packet of Kwon teaches or suggests data provided by a frame that further provides a current broadcast service in a wireless broadcast communication system. Final Act. 2; Ans. 6- 7; see In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359; 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004 ). Further, as the Examiner finds and as shown supra, the beacon packet of Kwon is transmitted via one of a plurality of frames. See Final Act. 2; Kwon, Figs. 3 and 7. Appellants additionally argue the Examiner erred in relying on Mahany to teach or suggest "the scheduling information includes timing information regarding next target broadcast packets or a frame interval between a serving broadcast packet and each target frame transmitting the target broadcast packets." App. Br. 7. In particular, Appellants assert the beacons in Mahany are "typically frames that include information about network time, dwell time and next beacon time." App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3--4. Thus, Appellants contend Mahany's beacon contains scheduling information regarding "the timing information of scheduling information of the target broadcast packet" (i.e., when the next beacon will be transmitted), rather than timing information of the transmission time of the target broadcast packet. Reply Br. 4 (emphasis omitted, italics added). 8 Appeal2014-004235 Application 12/813, 176 We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because the Examiner finds, and we agree, the beacons in Mahany include timing information regarding next beacon time, which the Examiner finds teaches or suggests the claimed target broadcast packet. Ans. 7 (citing Mahany i-f 64 ("The beacons are typically frames that include information about ... next beacon time.")). As set forth in Appellants' Specification, a target broadcast packet "refers to data that the target frame [ (another successive frame to the serving frame in a wireless broadcast communication system)] provides via the same broadcast channel as the serving frame that provides the serving broadcast packet." Spec. 8. Under a broad yet reasonable interpretation, consistent with Appellants' Specification, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Mahany's beacon including information regarding the next beacon time (i.e., data provided in a successive frame on the same broadcast channel) teaches or reasonably suggests to a person of ordinary skill in the art "the scheduling information includes timing information regarding next target broadcast packets," as recited in claim 1. Appellants further argue "there is no equivalence between the 'beacon interval' of Mahany and a frame interval between a serving frame transmitting the serving broadcast packet and each target frame transmitting the target broadcast packets." App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 5. As an initial matter, 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) requires more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art. See In re Lovin, F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the 9 Appeal2014-004235 Application 12/813, 176 Examiner's findings, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. See Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 7-8. For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and, for similar reasons, the rejection of independent claims 6, 11, and 16, which recite similar limitations and which were argued together with claim 1. App. Br. 8. Additionally, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 3, 7-10, 13, and 17-20, which were not argued separately. See App. Br. 9. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 6-11, 13, and 16-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation