Ex Parte Malladi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2017

11775198 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 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.
11/775,198 07/09/2007 Durga Prasad Malladi 061555 4582
23696 7590 02/17/2017
OTTAT mMM TNmRPORATFD
EXAMINER
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
HAMMONDS, MARCUS C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2017 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DURGA PRASAD MALLADI
and BYOUNG-HOON KIM
Appeal 2016-007018
Application 11/775,1981
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of
claims 1—55. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to frequency hopping in a single carrier
frequency division multiple access transmission (SC-FDMA). Abstract, Spec. 1—3.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below (emphasis added):
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is QUALCOMM Incorporated.
App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2016-007018
Application 11/775,198
1. A method for performing frequency hopping in a single
carrier frequency division multiple access (SC-FDMA) transmission,
comprising:
receiving information related to a transmission allocation unit
that spans at least two time based slots comprising first and second
slots and a plurality of frequency sub-divisions comprising first and
second frequency sub-divisions;
determining a first set of contiguous subcarriers for the first
frequency sub-division in the first slot based on the received
information;
determining the second frequency sub-division in the second
slot based on the first frequency sub-division in the first slot and
further in accordance with mirror frequency hopping as a function of
a transmission bandwidth, or cyclic shift frequency hopping as a
function of the transmission bandwidth, or both to obtain a second set
of contiguous subcarriers for the second frequency sub-division; and
sending data on the first set of contiguous subcarriers in the first
frequency sub-division of the first slot and on the second set of
contiguous subcarriers in the second frequency sub-division of the
second slot.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1—50, 52, 53, and 55 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ma (US 2008/0219235 Al; Sept. 11, 2008) and Kim
(US 2009/0303938 Al; Dec. 10, 2009). Final Act. 3-15.2
The Examiner has rejected claims 51 and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ma, Kim, and Fong (US 2008/0273493 Al; Nov. 6, 2008).
Final Act. 15—16.
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed February 24, 2016,
Reply Brief filed June 28, 2016, Final Action mailed September 3, 2015, and the
Examiner’s Answer mailed June 3, 2016.
2
Appeal 2016-007018
Application 11/775,198
ISSUES
Independent claim 1
Appellants argue, on pages 15—17 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2—\ of the
Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 is in error.
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err
in finding that the combination of Ma and Kim teaches or suggests “determining
the second frequency sub-division in the second slot based on the first frequency
sub-division in the first slot and further in accordance with mirror frequency
hopping as a function of a transmission bandwidth, or cyclic shift frequency
hopping as a function of the transmission bandwidth, or both to obtain a second set
of contiguous subcarriers for the second frequency sub-division”
Dependent claim 3
Appellants argue, on pages 17—18 of the Appeal Brief and pages 4—6 of the
Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 3 is in error.
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err
in finding that the combination of Ma and Kim teaches or suggests the claim
limitation directed to cyclic frequency hopping as a function of the transmission
bandwidth where the second frequency sub-division is shifted from the first
frequency sub-division by one half of the transmission bandwidth?
Dependent claim 4
Appellants argue, on pages 18—19 of the Appeal Brief and pages 6—7 of the
Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 4 is in error.
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err
in finding that the combination of Ma and Kim teaches or suggests a centerline
3
Appeal 2016-007018
Application 11/775,198
frequency of a transmission bandwidth where frequency sub-divisions are
equidistant from the centerline before and after frequency hopping?
Dependent claim 9
Appellants argue, on pages 19—20 of the Appeal Brief and pages 7—8 of the
Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 9 is in error.
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err
in finding that the frequency sub-bands of Ma are at opposite edges of the
transmission bandwidth?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We concur with the Examiner.
Independent claim 1
Appellants argue that Ma fails to teach frequency hopping as a function of a
transmission bandwidth. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue that Ma’s
“assigning sub[-]bands within a bandwidth is not [the] same as determining a sub[-
]band as a function of transmission bandwidth” and assert that ‘“y is a function of
x’ means that a value of y depends on a value given of x.” App. Br. 16; Reply Br.
3. Additionally, Appellants argue that dividing a total transmission bandwidth
does not mean that a particular sub-band assigned within the transmission
bandwidth will vary with the transmission bandwidth. Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants’
arguments on pages 2-4 of the Answer. We have reviewed the Examiner’s
response and the evidence relied upon by the Examiner, and concur with the
4
Appeal 2016-007018
Application 11/775,198
Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Specifically, the Examiner finds that a
function is a variable that depends on and varies with another variable and finds
that the transmission bandwidth of Ma is divided into frequency division sub-bands
so that communication is based on an assigned sub-band, and that the assigned
sub-bands depend upon and will vary with the transmission bandwidth. Ans. 2;
Ma 14. The Examiner cites to Ma’s Figure 13 and paragraph 70, finding that
cluster 90 is transmitted in first sub-band 102 in the first transmission time interval
and then hops to second sub-band 104 at the second transmission time interval.
Ans. 3; Ma Fig. 13,170.
We concur with the Examiner’s findings because the sub-bands are within
the total bandwidth, they will be dependent upon the transmission bandwidth (i.e.
size and number of sub-bands is related to total bandwidth). Ans. 1—3. As the
hopping, is between the sub-bands, hopping is also a function of the bandwidth.
Id. We note that the claim does not recite the function which relates frequency
hopping and bandwidth, just that one is a function of the other. Thus, we consider
the disputed claim limitation to be met by Ma. Accordingly, Appellants’
arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claim 3
Appellants argue that the combination of Ma and Kim do not teach or
suggest the claim limitation directed to cyclic frequency hopping as a function of
the transmission bandwidth where the second frequency sub-division is shifted
from the first frequency sub-division by one half of the transmission bandwidth.
Appellants agree that Kim teaches cyclic shift frequency hopping, as the Examiner
finds, but disagree that Kim teaches the determination of the second frequency sub­
division in accordance with that cyclic shift frequency hopping as a function of a
5
Appeal 2016-007018
Application 11/775,198
transmission bandwidth. Specifically, Appellants argue that the second frequency
sub-division is shifted in frequency from the first frequency sub-division by one
half of the transmission bandwidth. App. Br. 16—17. Further, Appellants argue
that there is no suggestion in Kim that shifting by one half the transmission
bandwidth will improve frequency diversity or provide a more optimal result.
Reply Br. 6.
The Examiner finds that Kim teaches that frequency hopping schemes can
be based on a predetermined pattern and used to reduce interference and increase
frequency diversity gains. Ans. 4—5. The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated to combine the system of Ma with the cyclic
frequency hopping scheme of Kim to select a frequency hopping pattern which
achieves optimum frequency diversity. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that
shifting frequency by half of a transmission bandwidth is shifting based on a
predetermined pattern and would improve frequency diversity. Ans. 5. We agree
with the Examiner, as further evinced by Ma Figure 13 and paragraph 70, where
cluster 90, cluster hops to support frequency diversity and shifts in frequency by
half of the transmission bandwidth (i.e., two sub-bands in the transmission
bandwidth where the clusters hop between the two sub-bands) from the first
transmission time interval to the second transmission time interval. Final Act. 5;
Ans. 5; Ma Fig. 13,170. We find that combining the references to use Kim’s
teaching the cyclic shift frequency hopping in a predetermined pattern, in place of
the cluster hopping of Ma, to teach the disputed limitation. Accordingly,
Appellants’ argument has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 3.
6
Appeal 2016-007018
Application 11/775,198
Dependent claim 4
Appellants argue that Ma does not teach a centerline frequency of a
transmission bandwidth, nor does it teach that a cluster is equidistant from the
centerline frequency before and after cluster hopping. App. Br. 18.
As the Examiner provides explanations coupled with citations to specific
figures and paragraphs in the references, we do not find the Examiner’s response to
Appellants’ argument to be conclusory and unsupported. The Examiner finds that
Ma shows frequency hopping equidistantly mirrored over a centerline in Figure 13.
Final Act. 7. In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner finds Ma teaches
that between the two sub-bands shown in Figure 14, lies the centerline frequency
with the clusters being equidistant above and below the centerline before and after
hopping. Ans. 6 (citing Ma Figure 14, and 171). Further, the Examiner states that
the centerline frequency is not predetermined before creating the mirror frequency
hopping pattern, but only to be equidistant between the sub-divisions. Id. We
agree with the Examiner. As discussed above, Ma contemplates a situation where
there are two sub-bands in Figures 13 and 14. In the localized FDMA transmission
depicted in the Figures, two-sub-bands for frequency hopping are provided where
there is a two cluster hop in each time interval. The center of the frequency sub­
band would be between those two sub-bands and, thus, the clusters would be
equidistant from that centerline before and after the cluster hopping. See also Ma
1170-71. Accordingly, Appellants’ argument has not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
Dependent claim 9
Appellants’ arguments directed to claim 9 assert that Ma is silent regarding
the position of the sub-bands within the transmission bandwidth. App. Br. 19.
7
Appeal 2016-007018
Application 11/775,198
As the Examiner provides explanations coupled with citations to specific
figures and paragraphs in the references, we do not find the Examiner’s response to
Appellants’ argument to be conclusory and unsupported. The Examiner cites to
Figure 14 and finds the user data of Ma is transmitted on frequency sub-bands 102
and 104, which are at opposite ends of the carrier frequency some unspecified
distance apart. Ans. 6. We agree with the Examiner. There is no indication in Ma
that the uplink cluster definition shown in Figure 14 is not a closed transmission
bandwidth. The Examiner’s findings are reasonable and supported by the
disclosure of Ma. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9.
Dependent claims 51 and 54
Appellants argue, on pages 15—17 of the Appeal Brief and pages 8—9 of the
Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 51 and 54 is in
error. Appellants argue that Fong fails to overcome the alleged shortcomings of
the combination of Ma and Kim as noted above with regard to claims 1 and 33
from which claims 51 and 54 depend, respectively. As discussed above, we concur
with the Examiner that the combination of Ma and Kim teaches cyclic shift
frequency hopping as a function of transmission bandwidth as recited in claims 1
and 33. Appellants presented no further arguments for claims 51 and 54.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 51 and 54.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—55 is affirmed.
8
Appeal 2016-007018
Application 11/775,198
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
9