Ex Parte Niemela et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 9, 201612866756 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/866,756 11/08/2010 Kari Juhani Niemela 863.0225.U1(US) 4242 29683 7590 12/09/2016 HARRINGTON & SMITH 4 RESEARCH DRIVE, Suite 202 SHELTON, CT 06484-6212 EXAMINER CROMPTON, CHRISTOPHER R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2463 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/09/2016 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 KARI JUHANI NIEMELA and OLLI JUHANI PIIRAINEN ____________ Appeal 2015-007481 Application 12/866,756 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2015-007481 Application 12/866,756 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–10, 13–19, 21–29, and 32–37, which are all the claims pending in the application. Claim 20 is canceled. The rejections of claims 11, 12, 30, and 31 have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Representative Claims 1. A method comprising: processing data comprising a plurality of resource units, wherein each resource unit comprises two portions of user data, and wherein, in a time domain, a plurality of users are associated with subsequent resources units and associated with an original combination of users in the resource units; and reordering or shuffling portions of user data relating to a particular user of the plurality of users between the subsequent resource units such that different combinations of user data relating to the particular user of the plurality of users are transmitted in the subsequent resource units, wherein the original combination of users in the resource units is not maintained over the time domain. Prior Art Ranta-Aho US 2008/0117873 A1 May 22, 2008 Tsai US 2012/0008617 A1 Jan. 12, 2012 Appeal 2015-007481 Application 12/866,756 3 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1–10 and 13–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Tsai. Claims 18, 19, 21–29, and 32–37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsai and Ranta-Aho. ANALYSIS We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner’s Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis. Section 102 rejection of claims 1–10 and 13–17 Claim 1 recites “each resource unit comprises two portions of user data.” The Examiner finds the scope of this term encompasses a time slot having at least two portions of user data. See Ans. 5. Appellants contend there is a difference between time slots and resource units. Reply Br. 7. According to Appellants, the claim term “resource unit,” when read in light of the Specification, means two portions of user data for each time period. Reply Br. 8. Appellants’ Specification discloses that each resource unit is, among other things, a slot or a frame. Spec. 5:1–9. Appellants’ Specification also discloses that “[f]or each radio resource unit (i.e. for each given frame or time period of the TDMA slot) two combinations of portions of user data . . . take turns.” Spec. 6:31–34. Thus, Appellants’ Specification discloses that, for each resource unit (or time period), two combinations of portions of user Appeal 2015-007481 Application 12/866,756 4 data take turns. We find the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term “resource unit comprises two portions of user data,” when read in light of Appellants’ Specification, encompasses at least a time slot comprising two or more portions of user data. The Examiner finds that Figure 4 of Tsai shows time slots, where each time slot contains portions of user data for multiple users. Ans. 5. We agree with the Examiner that this disclosure of Tsai describes “each resource unit comprises two portions of user data” within the meaning of claim 1. Claim 1 also recites “reordering or shuffling portions of user data relating to a particular user of the plurality of users between the subsequent resource units.” The Examiner finds the scope of reordering or reshuffling portions of user data between subsequent resource units encompasses assigning user data to time slots in a pseudo-random way, or assigning by utilizing different frequency hopping sequences. Ans. 7–8. Appellants contend the claimed shuffling is not the same as randomness. Reply Br. 9– 10. Appellants’ Specification does not provide a definition of “reordering or shuffling” that excludes a pseudo-random process of assigning user data to time slots, or that excludes frequency hopping. See Ans. 8 (citing Spec. 7:24–8:7). The Examiner finds Figure 4 and Paragraph 26 of Tsai disclose assigning portions of user data for each user to different time slots using frequency hopping in a pseudo-random way. Ans. 7–8. We agree with the Examiner that this describes “reordering or shuffling portions of user data relating to a particular user of the plurality of users between the subsequent resource units” within the meaning of claim 1. Appeal 2015-007481 Application 12/866,756 5 We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2, 3, 6–10, and 13–17, which fall with claim 1. Section 102 rejection of claims 4 and 5 Claim 4 recites “portions of user data are originally assigned to resource units according to an interleaving pattern.” Emphasis added. The Examiner finds the scope of this claim term encompasses sending data for a third user between data from a first user and a second user as shown by resource unit T0 in Figure 4 of Tsai. Ans. 9. Appellants contend Tsai does not consider interleaving, because Tsai is not considering an orthogonal sub channel concept which multiplexes two mobile stations on the same radio resource. Reply Br. 11. However, claim 4 does not recite an orthogonal sub channel multiplexing two mobile stations on the same radio resource. See Ans. 9. Appellants’ Specification discloses an example of assigning portions of user data to resource units according to an interleaving pattern, such as a multichannel interleaving pattern as “a pattern may define a half-rate (HR) sub-channel and/or an OSC sub-channel for each portion of user data.” Spec. 3:32–4:3. However, we do not read this non-limiting example into the claim, because a “claim construction must not import limitations from the specification into the claims.” Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Products Co., 717 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s finding that the scope of “portions of user data are originally assigned to resource units according to an interleaving pattern,” Appeal 2015-007481 Application 12/866,756 6 when read in light of the Specification, encompasses at least sending data for a third user between data from a first user and a second user in a resource unit as disclosed by Figure 4 of Tsai. Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claim 5 similar to those presented for claim 4 which we find unpersuasive. See Reply Br. 11–12. We sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Section 103 rejections of claims 18, 19, 21–29, and 32–37 Appellants present arguments for patentability for claims 18, 19, 21– 29, and 32–37 similar to those presented for claims 1–10 and 13–17 which we find unpersuasive. See Reply Br. 15–21. Appellants also contend that a person skilled in the art would not combine the teachings of Tsai and Ranta- Aho. Reply Br. 15–16. We disagree with Appellants’ contention for the reasons given by the Examiner on pages 8 and 9 of the Answer. We sustain the rejections of claims 18, 19, 21–29, and 32–37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–10, 13–19, 21–29, and 32–37 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)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation