Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 1, 2017

13491941 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2017)

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.
13/491,941 06/08/2012 Woo-Yong LEE 022080.0004C1 3556
89980 7590
NSIP LAW
P.O. Box 65745
Washington, DC 20035
EXAMINER
SHIVERS, ASHLEY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2017 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@nsiplaw.com
pto.nsip@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WOO-YONG LEE and SOK-KYU LEE
Appeal 2016-000173
Application 13/491,941
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EVANS, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 seek our review3 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of Claims 15 and 16. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1, 2, 5—7, 10, 11, and 13 are allowed and Claims 3,
4, 8, 9, 12, and 14 are canceled.4
1 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed May 26, 2015
(“App. Br.”); Appellants’ Reply Brief filed September 25, 2015 (“Reply
Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 27, 2015 (“Ans.”); and the Final
Office Action mailed November 4, 2014 (“Final Act.”).
2 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is ELECTRONICS AND
TELECOMMUNICTIONS RESEARCH INSTITUTE. App. Br. 2.
3 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4 App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000173
Application 13/491,941
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to methods of configuring a preamble of a downlink
frame for synchronization. Abstract. An understanding of the invention can
be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 15, which is reproduced
below with disputed limitations italicized and some formatting added:
15. A method to configure a frame in a wireless network system,
the method comprising:
arranging a short preamble used for synchronization in a
receiver at a starting point of a burst,
wherein arranging the short preamble comprises:
arranging S symbols at the starting point, and
arranging an IS symbol after the S symbols, wherein the IS
symbol has the same length as the S symbol and is 180°-phased with
respect to the S symbol; and
arranging a channel estimation preamble used for channel
estimation in the receiver after the short preamble, wherein:
arranging the channel estimation preamble comprises arranging
L symbols after the short preamble,
the L symbols include a first symbol and a second symbol,
the channel estimation preamble further includes a third
symbol,
the length of the first symbol is equal to the length of the
second symbol,
the length of the third symbol is shorter than half of the length
of the first symbol, and
an S symbol of the S symbols is repeated 16 times.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Garrett et al. US 2003/0161428 A1 Aug. 28, 2003
(“Garrett”)
2
Appeal 2016-000173
Application 13/491,941
Zhu et al. US 2004/0004933 A1 Jan. 8, 2004
(“Zhu”)
Bohnke et al. US 7,154,975 B1 Dec. 26, 2006
(“Bohnke”)
The claims stand rejected as follows:
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Garrett, Zhu, and Bohnke. Ans. 2—6.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Bohnke does not explicitly teach “an S symbol of
the S symbols is repeated 16 times,” as recited in independent Claims 15 and
16.5 App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4—5. Bohnke states “[i]t is to be noted, that the
reference symbol 14 can have more or less than 9 repetition patterns and that
each repetition pattern can have more or less than 16 samples.” App. Br. 7
(quoting Bohnke col. 6,11. 22—25); Reply Br. 4. Appellants also contend the
Examiner has not shown how the particular number of symbol repetitions
improves Garrett’s system. App. Br. 7.
The Examiner responds that Bohnke does not teach the recited
number of symbol repetitions. Ans. 8—9. The Examiner further explains
that the range in Bohnke of more or less than 9 repetition patterns is
sufficient to teach the recited symbols repeated 16 times. Ans. 8—9. The
Examiner also finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
5 We do not reach the merits of Appellants’ further arguments regarding the
Examiner’s rejection of independent Claims 15 and 16 because we find this
issue to be dispositive.
3
Appeal 2016-000173
Application 13/491,941
been motivated to repeat the symbol 16 times “in order to optimize the
frequency offset estimations.” Final Act. 4, 6. We disagree with the
Examiner. The Examiner has not shown how 16 repetitions would optimize
the frequency offset estimations such that optimization would have
motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Garrett to use 16
repeated patterns of the more or less than 9 repeated patterns taught in
Bdhnke. Final Act. 4, 6; Ans. 8—9. We agree with Appellants that the
Examiner’s findings, in this regard, are not supported by the evidence.
Therefore, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 15 and 16.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 15 and 16 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
4