Ex Parte Lee et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 1, 201713491941 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 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. 13/491,941 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation