Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 26, 2015

12328704 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/328,704 12/04/2008
23696 7590 10/28/2015
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jingyuan Liu
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.
071935 7413
EXAMINER
DUNCAN, MARC M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2113
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2015 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JINGYUAN LIU,
BHUPINDER S. PARHAR, and
VIKRAM R. ANREDDY
Appeal2013-007033
Application 12/328,704
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11-15, 17, 18, 21-25, 27, 29-33, and35. Claims 6, 10, 16,
20, and 26 were objected to as being dependent upon a rejected based claim,
but otherwise allowable. Claims 9, 19, 28, and 36 were canceled. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm Inc. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2013-007033
Application 12/328,704
We affirm. 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to hybrid automatic repeat request
(HARQ) encoding schemes with low memory requirements. Spec. i-f 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for hybrid automatic repeat request
(HARQ) encoding comprising:
re-encoding a subpacket from a plurality of
subpackets to obtain a codeword;
maintaining a set of state variables for each of the
plurality of subpackets;
initializing the set of state variables at HARQ
transmit start;
updating the set of state variables at HARQ
transmit end; and
using the set of updated state variables to
determine a portion of the codeword to be transmitted.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 21, 22, 29, and 30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Ramesh et al. (US 2005/0251721 Al, published
Nov. 10, 2005) (hereinafter "Ramesh"). Ans. 5---6.
2 Our Decision refers to the Appeal Brief filed Dec. 7, 2012 ("App. Br."),
the Examiner's Answer mailed Mar. 13, 2013 ("Ans."), the Reply Brief filed
May 2, 2013 ("Reply Br.), the Final Office Action mailed July 6, 2012
("Final Act."), and the Specification filed Dec. 4, 2008 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2013-007033
Application 12/328,704
Claims 3, 4, 13, 14, 23, 24, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Ramesh and "Microsoft Press" (Microsoft Press
Computer Dictionary, Third Edition, published 1997). Ans. 7-8.
Claims 5, 15, 25, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Ramesh and Giesberts et al. (US 2009/0141723 Al, published June
4, 2009) (hereinafter "Giesberts"). Ans. 8.
Claims 8, 17, 18, 27, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Ramesh and Kim et al. (US 2005/0073978 Al, published Apr. 7,
2005) (hereinafter "Kim"). Ans 8-9.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Re-encoding a Sub packet from a Plurality of Subpackets to
Obtain a Codeword
The Examiner finds Ramesh obtains a codeword by encoding Media
Access Control (MAC) packets and redundant data, and puncturing that data
to form sub-blocks. Final Act. 2 (citing Ramesh i-f 55). The Examiner
further finds Ramesh's retransmitted sub-block of data is sent through an
encoder a second time, thus Ramesh discloses "re-encoding a subpacket
from a plurality of subpackets to obtain a codeword." Final Act. 2, 7-8;
Ans. 14 (citing Ramesh i-fi-155, 84).
Appellants contend Ramesh divides out the data block into sub-blocks
after encoding, rather than re-encoding a sub-block at the transmit side to
obtain a codeword. App. Br. 8.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention. During
examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
3
Appeal2013-007033
Application 12/328,704
consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, Appellants' claims and
Specification do not preclude "re-encoding a subpacket" from being the
retransmission of a sub-block using a second encoding step, as disclosed by
Ramesh. Ans. 14.
Maintaining a Set of State Variables for Each of the
Plurality of Subpackets
The Examiner finds a state variable to be any variable that describes
the state of a system, and finds Ramesh's soft energy values (i.e., reliability
status) for each sub-block discloses the claimed state variables. Ans. 10-13
(citing Ramesh i-f 91; see also Ramesh i-f 94--95, describing the status data for
sub-block reliability).
Appellants contend Ramesh does not disclose state variables
maintained for each sub-block; because the soft energy characteristics of
Ramesh merely determine the priority of transmission, which is not the same
as state variables initialized at the start of the HARQ transmission and
updated at the end of the transmission. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 3--4.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention. As noted, during
examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification. See Am. A cad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., supra.
At the same time, care must be exercised not to import limitations into the
claims or to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written
description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the
embodiment. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(citing
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). While Appellants have
4
Appeal2013-007033
Application 12/328,704
provided specific examples of state variables (see Spec. i-f 48--49),
Appellants' claims and Specification do not preclude the "state variables"
from encompassing the reliability status of each sub-block, which is
initialized and then updated at the end of the transmission to determine if
any error occurred. Ans. 10-11.
Using the Set of Updated State Variables to Determine a Portion of the
Codeword to be Transmitted
Appellants contend Ramesh does not disclose the claimed state
variables, thus the reference cannot use state variables to determine a portion
of the codeword to be transmitted. App. Br. 7-8. We are not persuaded by
this argument, per the discussion supra regarding the state variables.
Appellants further contend Ramesh' s soft energy values are not used
to determine a portion of the codeword to be transmitted. App. Br. 8; Reply
Rr. 4. We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention. Per the discussions
regarding the codeword and the state variables supra, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Ramesh's soft energy values (i.e., state variables)
are used to determine which sub-blocks (i.e., which portions of the
codeword) are retransmitted. Ans. 13-14 (citing Ramesh i-f 91).
Claim 2
Performing a Radio Link Protocol (RLP) on a MAC Packet for Initial
Fragmentation to Generate the Subpacket
The Examiner finds Ramesh' s puncturing of the Radio Link
Control/Medium Access Control (RLC/MAC) block into sub-blocks
discloses performing a radio link protocol (RLP) on a MAC packet for initial
5
Appeal2013-007033
Application 12/328,704
fragmentation to generate the subpacket. Ans. 6 (citing Ramesh i-f 55).
Appellants contend Ramesh' s redundancy encoding and puncturing is
different conceptually from performing higher layer radio link protocol on a
media access control packet. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5.
Appellants offer no persuasive evidence to refute the Examiner's
finding. For example, Appellants offer no interpretation or definition to
explain what "performing a radio link protocol for initial fragmentation" is
(see Spec. i-f 43), and offer no evidence to show why Ramesh's puncturing of
the Radio Link Control/Medium Access Control (RLC/MAC) block is not
RLP fragmentation. As attorney argument alone is not evidence, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir.
1997); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).
Claims 3-5, 8, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 27, 29, 31-33, and 35
Appellants argue independent claims 11, 21, and 29 and dependent
claims 3-5, 8, 13-15, 17, 18, 23, 24, 27, 31-33, and 35 on the same basis as
claim 1. App. Br. 8-10. For the reasons stated with respect to claim 1, we
sustain the rejections of claims 3-5, 8, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 27, 29,
31-33, and 35.
Claims 7, 12, 22, and 30
Appellants argue dependent claims 7, 12, 22 and 30 on the same basis
as claim 2. App. Br. 9. For the reasons stated with respect to claim 2, we
sustain the rejections of claims 7, 12, 22, and 30.
6
Appeal2013-007033
Application 12/328,704
DECISION
TheExaminer'srejectionsofclaims 1-5, 7, 8, 11-15, 17, 18,21-25,
27, 29-33, and 35 are affirmed.
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
ELD
7