Ex Parte Li et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

12741846 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121741,846 08/10/2010
48116 7590
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
02/29/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dong Li
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.
LUTZ 201132US01 1343
EXAMINER
MURPHY, RHONDA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2016 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 DONG LI, LIYU CAI, and HONGWEI YANG
Appeal2014-005203
Application 12/7 41,846 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--10, 12, and 13. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to "wireless networks that
allocate uplink and downlink resources to mobile/user equipment, and
particularly relate[ s] to associating acknowledgement messages or lack
thereof to a particular radio resource/subframe granted to a mobile/user
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Alcatel Lucent. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005203
Application 12/741,846
equipment by the network when there are multiple resource[s] granted in a
frame." Spec. i-f 1. Of the claims on appeal, claim 9 is illustrative of the
subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below, with emphasis added
to highlight disputed limitations.
9. An apparatus for scheduling resources between a first
time division duplex (TDD) system and a second TDD system
is provided, comprising:
a resource allocation and schedule unit configured to
allocate time and frequency resources for service data of the
first TDD system and the second TDD system based on service
parameters of the first TDD system and service parameters of
the second TDD system, wherein frames required for
transmission by the first TDD system include a preamble
sequence, an up-link subframe and a down-link subframe, the
resource allocation and schedule unit including:
a frame processor configured to divide a frame of the
second TDD system into a preamble sequence and multiple
mini-frames including up-link sub[-]miniframes and down-link
sub-miniframes,
a subcarrier processor configured to locate the subcarrier
of the first TDD system at the middle, one side or some other
place of the allocated spectrum of the second TDD system, and
an allocation processor configured to allocate a coded
modulation data stream of the first TDD system and the second
TDD system to corresponding time and frequency resources,
and
a resource mapping unit configured to map the coded
modulation data stream of the first TDD system and the second
TDD system onto corresponding allocated time and frequency
resources.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Talukdar
et al. (US 2009/0067377 Al; Mar. 12, 2009) (hereinafter "Talukdar") and
Gao et al. (US 2009/0046649 Al; Feb. 19, 2009) (hereinafter "Gao").
2
Appeal2014-005203
Application 12/741,846
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Talukdar,
Gao, and Koorapaty et al. (US 2009/0116435 Al; May 7, 2009) (hereinafter
"Koorapaty").
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We disagree with Appellants' arguments and we incorporate herein
and adopt as our own for these claims: (1) the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the May 8, 2013 Final Office Action (Final Act. 2-7)
and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer (Ans.
2-3). We incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by
reference unless otherwise noted. We, however, highlight and address
specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
(1) Gao 's Provisional Support for a Frame Processor
Appellants contend Gao can only be prior art if the Examiner cited
portions of Gao are also disclosed in the provisional application (App.
No. 60/964,633, filed August 13, 2007) (hereinafter "Gao provisional") to
which Gao claims priority. See App. Br. 5---6. Appellants then contend Gao
provisional fails to disclose Gao' s paragraph 81, which the Examiner cites
for disclosing a frame processor dividing a frame, because (i) paragraphs
78-85 of Gao were added to Gao provisional and (ii) Gao's paragraph 81
"presents new matter that was not disclosed in Gao provisional." See App.
Br. 6; Reply Br. 2-3.
3
Appeal2014-005203
Application 12/741,846
Specifically, Appellants argue Gao provisional fails to disclose "a
frame processor for dividing frames." See Reply Br. 3 (citing Gao
provisional i-fi-132 (arguing the downlink being divided into subframes is
disclosed, but not a processor), 35 (arguing dividing the downlink subframes
into N groups is disclosed, but not a processor), 45 (same), 48 (arguing
embodiments are disclosed that can be implemented by computer software
executable by a base station's data processor, but not a frame processor for
dividing a frame), Figs. 2 (arguing base station 12 having data processor
12A is disclosed, but not a frame processor), 8 (arguing dividing the
downlink subframes into N groups is disclosed, but not a processor).
The Examiner's rejection cites Gao for its disclosure of "a frame
processor dividing a frame," which the Examiner also finds is disclosed by
Gao provisional. See Ans. 2 (citing Gao i-f8 l; Gao provisional i-fi-1 32
(disclosing dividing frames into subframes), 35, 45, 48 ("disclos[ing]
embodiments of the invention executable by a data processor 12A"), Figs. 2,
8); see also Ans. 2 (finding "to perform frame division, there must be a
frame processor to divide the frames" and data processor DP12A is for
dividing frames).
We are not apprised by Appellants of any error in the Examiner's
findings and reasoning. We agree with the Examiner that Gao provisional
discloses a frame processor dividing a frame. See, e.g., Gao provisional
i-fi-132 (disclosing dividing frames into subframes), 35, 45, 48 (embodiments
can be implemented as software executed by a data processor), Figs. 2
(disclosing data processor DP12A), 8).
Accordingly, the Examiner correctly concluded Gao' s paragraph 81 is
prior art here. See ln re Giacomini~ 612 F.3d 1380~ 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
4
Appeal2014-005203
Application 12/741,846
(finding for a patent to be prior mi as of the effective date of its underlying
provisional application, "the provisional application must provide written
description support for the claimed invention."); Ex parte Yamaguchi, 88
USPQ2d 1606, 1609 (BP AI 2008) (precedential).
(2) Dividing a frame into a preamble sequence and up-link
sub-miniframes and down-link sub-miniframes
Appellants argue the combination fails to teach or suggest "a frame
processor configured to divide a frame ... into a preamble sequence and
multiple mini-frames including up-link sub[-]miniframes and down-link
sub-miniframes," as recited in claim 9. See App. Br. 7. Specifically,
Appellants argue Talukdar does not teach or suggest a frame processor
dividing frames. See id. at 8. Appellants also argue that instead of the
disputed limitation, Talukdar teaches (i) "divid[ing] a frame into sub-frames
that are further divided into sub-blocks" and (ii) super-frames that include
multiple frames, each frame having multiple uplink or downlink regions.
See App Br. 8.
The Examiner finds the combination of Gao and Talukdar teaches or
suggests this disputed limitation. See Ans. 2-3. For example, the Examiner
finds Gao discloses a frame processor for dividing frames. See Ans. 2-3
(citing Gao i-f 81 ). Furthermore, the Examiner finds Talukdar teaches
dividing a frame into a preamble sequence and multiple mini-frames,
including up-link sub-miniframes and down-link sub-miniframes. See Ans.
2 (citing Talukdar i-fi-1 41 (describing a superframe of a TDD system
including a plurality of frames (mini-frames) wherein each frame (mini-
frame) includes at least two regions (uplink and downlink sub-miniframes),
46 (teaching a downlink lead sub-block can contain a legacy preamble),
5
Appeal2014-005203
Application 12/741,846
Figs. 5, 11 (illustrating sub-frames further including sub-uplink and sub-
downlink blocks).
We are not apprised by Appellants of any error in the Examiner's
findings and reasoning. We agree with the Examiner that the combination
teaches or suggests this disputed limitation. See Gao i-f 81, Talukdar i-fi-1 41,
46, Figs. 5. For example, Talukdar teaches dividing data into at least three
levels (e.g., superframe, frame, and block) and having a preamble sequence
and multiple frames, which can have multiple up-link and down-link blocks.
See id. Although the specific words used to describe the units differ,
Talukdar still teaches this disputed limitation. See In re Bond, 910 F .2d 831,
831 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("These elements must be arranged as in the claim
under review but this is not an 'ipsissimis verbis' test.").
Additionally, we also find Appellants did not explain substantively
why the combination, and Talukdar in particular, allegedly fails to disclose
this disputed limitation. See App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 4 (stating simply that
Talukdar's teachings are "different than the arrangement defined in the
'frame processor' subelement"); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require 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.").
CONCLUSION
Our above findings and reasoning also apply to Appellants' arguments
directed to claim 1. Further, Appellants did not separately argue the
6
Appeal2014-005203
Application 12/741,846
patentability of the dependent claims 2, 4--8, 10, 12, and 13. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner's rejections of the claims on appeal.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--10, 12, and 13.
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
7