Ex Parte Miya et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 8, 2012

10069480 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2012)

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.
10/069,480 02/27/2002 Kazuyuki Miya L9289.02130 3434
24257 7590 11/09/2012
Dickinson Wright PLLC
James E. Ledbetter, Esq.
International Square
1875 Eye Street, NW., Suite 1200
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
LAZARO, DAVID R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2455
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/09/2012 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 KAZUYUKI MIYA and TOYOKI UE
_____________

Appeal 2010-011154
Application 10/069,480
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-011154
Application 10/069,480

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 38 through 50.

We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed a system for communicating packets
between a plurality of base stations and a terminal. See pages 9 and 10 of
Appellants’ Specification. Claim 38 is representative of the invention and
reproduced below:
38. A fast packet transmission system comprising a
communication terminal and a plurality of base stations,
wherein:
the communication terminal comprises:
an error detector that detects an error in a received
packet;
a determiner that determines a packet number of the
received packet;
a selector that selects a base station to communicate a
packet in a next transmission unit according to channel states
between the communication terminal and base stations; and
a terminal transmitter that communicates
acknowledgment or negative acknowledgment information
indicating whether an error is detected in the received packet,
request packet number information indicating the packet
number of a packet that is requested to be communicated in the
next transmission unit, and base station selection information
indicating the selected base station, to the base stations; and
each base station comprises:
a determiner that determines whether to communicate the
packet in the next transmission unit based on the base station
selection information;
a controller that determines a transmission target packet
based on the acknowledgment or negative acknowledgment
information and the request packet number information when
Appeal 2010-011154
Application 10/069,480

3

the base station communicates the packet in the next
transmission unit; and
a base station transmitter that communicates the
transmission target packet determined in the controller to the
communication terminal.

REFERENCES

Nakajima US 5,940,769 Aug. 17, 1999
Parkvall US 6,542,736 B1 Apr. 1, 2003
Mohebbi US 6,889,046 B2 May 3, 2005

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 38, 39, 42, 43 through 47 and 50
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Mohebbi in view of Nakajima.
Answer 3-6.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 40, 41, 48 and 49 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Mohebbi in view of Nakajima and Parkvall. Answer
6-7.2
ISSUE
Appellants argue on pages 7 through 17 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 38 is in error.3 These arguments

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
March 31, 2010.
2 Though Examiner’s statement of the rejection on page 6 does not identify
claims 4 and 49 as included in the rejection, the Examiner’s statements on
page 7 of the Answer make it clear the Examiner intended to include claims
48 and 49 in the rejection.
Appeal 2010-011154
Application 10/069,480

4

present us with the issue: did the Examiner error in finding that the
combination of Mohebbi in view of Nakajima teaches a communication
affirmatively or negatively acknowledging whether an error is detected in a
packet, and which provides the packet number of a packet in the next
transmission unit?4
Appellants’ arguments directed to independent claims 43, 44 and 46
present us with the same issue as claim 38.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments.
We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Mohebbi in view of Nakajima teaches a communication
affirmatively or negatively acknowledging whether an error is detected in a
packet, and which provides the packet number of a packet in the next
transmission unit. The Examiner finds that Nakajima teaches sending an
acknowledge (ACK, affirmative response of no error) or non-acknowledge
(NAK non-acknowledge of no error) which meets the limitation as these
communications “will inherently have the packet number of the erroneous
packet in it.” Answer 7-8. The Examiner reasons that it is the only way that
the sender will know which packets were not transmitted correctly. Answer
8. While the ACK and NACK signals, of Nakajima ‘s system are used by

3 Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief dated
January 4, 2010 and Reply Brief dated October 21, 2009.
4 We note Appellants’ arguments present additional issues which we do not
reach as this issue is dispositive.
Appeal 2010-011154
Application 10/069,480

5

the receiving base station to determine which packet to send next, we find
that the Examiner has not cited sufficient evidence to show the
communication inherently includes the packet number of the next packet to
be sent. As discussed by Appellants on page 2 of the Reply Brief, the
determination of the number of the next packet to be sent could be
determined by the sending base station. As such we do not find that the
Examiner has presented sufficient evidence to support a finding of inherency
(that the ACK/NACK signal includes the packet number of the next packet).
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejections, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), of independent claims 38, 43, 44 and 46 or the claims which
depend thereupon.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 38 through 50 is
reversed.

REVERSED

ke