Ex Parte Maltsev et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2016

12215903 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/215,903 06/30/2008
47795 7590 06/21/2016
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
c/o CPA Global
900 2nd A venue South, Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alexander Maltsev
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.
ITL.1998US (P26696) 6832
EXAMINER
HSU,ALPUS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2016 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):
tphpto@tphm.com
Inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER MAL TSEV, SERGEY TIRASPOLSKY,
ANDREY PUDEYEV, and ALEXANDER MAL TSEV, JR.
Appeal2015-001859
Application 12/215,903
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, THU A. DANG, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to "relays or repeaters
that forward information from a transmitter to a remote receiver" (Spec. 1, 11.
5-7).
Appeal2015-001859
Application 12/215,903
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAHvI
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method comprising:
decoding a part of a received signal, to obtain information
about allocations of data that are to be retransmitted by a relay,
the information including a list of users communicating through
the relay and not decoding another part of the received signal;
amplifying only a portion of the received signal that
corresponds to a user communicating through the relay; and
transmitting the portion of the received signal that was
amplified.
C. PRIOR ART AND REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Armitage
Molnar
Doppler
Tsai
Charbit
Sakoda
WO 94/23504 Al
US 6,421,543 B 1
US 2008/0137581 Al
US 2008/0247350 Al
US 2008/0298474 Al
US 7,787,437 B2
Oct. 13, 1994
July 16, 2002
June 12, 2008
Oct. 9, 2008
Dec. 4, 2008
Aug. 31, 2010
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to
comply with the enablement requirement.
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the Appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, and 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Doppler, Tsai, and Charbit.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Doppler, Tsai, Charbit, and Sakoda.
2
Appeal2015-001859
Application 12/215,903
Claims 5, 6, and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Doppler, Tsai, Charbit, and Molnar.
Claims 7, 8, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Doppler, Tsai, Charbit, and Armitage.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Doppler, Tsai, Charbit, Molnar, and Sakoda.
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Doppler, Tsai, and Charbit teaches or suggests a
"decoding a part of a received signal, to obtain information about
allocations of data that are to be retransmitted by a relay" and "not decoding
another part of the received signal," as recited in claim 1 (emphases added).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Char bit
Charbit discloses a source that transmits a Low Density Parity Codes
(LDPC) encoded data block to a relay and the destination at a first interval in
a slot, wherein at the relay, the received data block is partially decoded, such
as a few decoding iterations that stop short of verging to a full/ original
solution. During a second time interval of the slot, the relay sends the
partially decoded data block to the destination while the source transmits
additional parity for the data block to the destination. Thus, the destination
receives three pieces of information: 1) the original encoded data block sent
3
Appeal2015-001859
Application 12/215,903
from the source during the first time interval, 2) the particularly decoded
message sent from the relay during the second time interval, and 3) the
additional parity sent from the source during the second time interval (i-f 52).
IV. ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The Examiner rejects claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as
containing "subject matter which was not described in the specification in
such a way as to enable one skilled in the art ... to make and/or use the
invention" (Final Act. 2). In particular, the Examiner finds that, "there is
nowhere in the original disclosure describes the features of [independent
claims 1 and 9]" (Ans. 3--4). In addition, the Examiner finds, "the original
disclosure also fails to describe as to how the subsequent data is
communicating from the base station to the subscriber station via relay
station after the map field is decoded from the received signal for the
enablement" (Final Act. 4; Ans. 4).
However, Appellants point to the Specification and contends that the
limitations at issue are supported (App. Br. 9-10). Although the Examiner
finds that the disclosure "fails to describe ... how the subsequent data is
communicating" (Final Act. 4), Appellants contend that "this is simply a
detail which is not in any way essential to the claimed invention" (App. Br.
10).
Upon review of the record, we agree with Appellants. In particular,
we agree with Appellants that the Specification does have sufficient support
for the features of claims 1 and 9. Further, we are persuaded by Appellants'
argument that how the subsequent data is communicating "is not in any way
4
Appeal2015-001859
Application 12/215,903
essential to the claimed invention" (App. Br. l 0). In particular, we agree
that "there is no requirement that every detail be set forth in the claim" (App.
Br. 11) as long as one of ordinary skill would be able to make/use the
invention as claimed, the claim language will be sufficient to satisfy 3 5
U.S.C. § 112.
Based on the record before us, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
35 u.s.c. § 112(b)
The Examiner rejects claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as
"being indefinite" (Final Act. 4). In particular, as to independent claim 1,
the Examiner concludes that it is "confusing for reciting 'not decoding
another part of the received signal"' because it is unclear whether it is
"directed to just another part or the remaining part of the received signal"
(Ans. 5). Similarly, the Examiner concludes, "it is also confusing for
reciting 'amplifying only a portion of the received signal that corresponds to
a user communication through the relay"' (id.).
As to independent claim 9, the Examiner concludes, "it is unclear as
to how the information describing allocation of data is decoded from the
frame and whether the time slot is related to the decoded information or the
frame" (id.). The Examiner also concludes, "it is confusing and ambiguous
for reciting 'a device to control the transmission of the frame based on the
time slot"'; because "How can the transmission of the entire frame based on
a single time slot[]?" (id.).
However, we disagree with the Examiner's finding that the claims are
unclear. The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, is whether "those
skilled in the art would understand what is claimed." Orthokinetics, Inc., v.
5
Appeal2015-001859
Application 12/215,903
Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations
omitted). In particular, breadth is not indefiniteness provided the skilled
artisan is reasonably apprised of the meaning of the claim. Metabolite Labs.,
Inc. v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, 370 F.3d 1354, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
We agree with Appellants that "the issue is enablement cast as
definiteness issue" but "there is no requirement that every detail be set forth
in the claim" (App. Br. 11 ). Therefore, we are persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). We are similarly
persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8, 12, and 19 (id.).
However, since the proposed amendments to claims 3 and 18 have not been
entered (id.), and Appellants provide no arguments with respect to these
claims, we summarily sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b ).
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants contend "Charbit does not disclose decoding a part of the
received signal" but rather "Charbit discloses partial decoding" which "only
runs through a few iterations of the decoding process" (App. Br. 12).
According to Appellants, "you have partial decoding but you have not
decoded any part of the received signal" (id.). Appellants then contend
nothing in Tsai "suggests that only the DL map is decoded" (App. Br. 13).
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner's findings,
6
Appeal2015-001859
Application 12/215,903
and find no error with the Examiner's conclusion that the claims would have
been obvious over the combined teachings.
As an initial matter of claim interpretation, we give the claim its
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We begin by noting that
although Appellants contend that "partial decoding" is not "decoding [any]
part of the received signal" (App. Br. 12), the claims and the Specification
do not provide any definition for "decoding a part of the received signal"
that supports such contention. In particular, claim 1 does not preclude
"decoding" as encompassing "partial decoding" the signal or any part of the
signal.
We find no error in the Examiner's finding that Tsai discloses and
suggests, "decoding of the specific part of the received signal to obtain
specific information about allocations of data that are to be retransmitted by
a relay" (Ans. 7). We further agree with the Examiner's finding "Charbit,
also from the similar field of endeavor, teaches the feature of partial
decoding in relay" (Ans. 8).
In particular, Charbit discloses transmitting an encoded data block to a
relay and the destination at a first interval, wherein the data block received at
the relay is partially decoded (FF). During a second time interval, the relay
sends the partially decoded data block to the destination while the source
transmits additional parity for the data block to the destination (id.). Thus,
Charbit discloses the destination receiving three separate parts: 1) the
original encoded data block sent from the source during the first time
interval, 2) the particularly decoded message sent from the relay during the
second time interval, and 3) the additional parity sent from the source during
7
Appeal2015-001859
Application 12/215,903
the second time interval (id.). That is, Charbit discloses and suggests
receiving data at the destination device but only partially "decoding" the
encoded data block sent via the relay while "not decoding" the encoded data
block sent straight from the source and the additional parity sent during the
second time interval (id.).
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner's reliance on Charbit,
in combination with Doppler and Tsai, for teaching and suggesting
"decoding a part of a received signal [received at the relay during the first
time interval], to obtain information about allocations of data that are to be
retransmitted by a relay" and "not decoding another part of the received
signal," as recited in claim 1.
Based on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 9, and 13-16 falling
therewith (App. Br. 12) over Doppler, Tsai, and Charbit. Appellants do not
provide arguments for the other pending claims, accordingly, we also affirm
the rejections of claim 4 over Doppler, Tsai, and Charbit in further view of
Sakoda; of claims 5, 6, and 10-12 over Doppler, Tsai, and Charbit in further
view of Molnar; of claims 7, 8, 18, and 19 over Doppler, Tsai, and Charbit
in further view of Armitage; and of claim 17 stands over Doppler, Tsai, and
Charbit, in further view of Molnar and Sakoda.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a), and of claims 1, 2, 4--17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). We
affirm the rejection of claims 3 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Further,
we affirm the rejections of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
8
Appeal2015-001859
Application 12/215,903
Because we have affirm at least one ground of rejection with respect
to each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner's decision. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(a)(l).
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9