Ex Parte NikaeinDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 28, 201613196752 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 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. 13/196,752 08/02/2011 Neda Nikaein 325377US 4436 27964 7590 PARKER JUSTISS, P.C. P.O. BOX 832570 RICHARDSON, TX 75083 12/30/2016 EXAMINER CORRIELUS, JEAN B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2633 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/30/2016 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): docket@pj-iplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NEDA NIKAEIN Appeal 2016-000761 Application 13/196,7521 Technology Center 2600 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, SHARON FENICK, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—8, 11, 22, 24, 26, and 28—30, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Technology The application relates to communication networks and more specifically to adapting a transport block size based on the current condition of the uplink channel. Abstract. Representative Claim Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below with the portions at issue emphasized: 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Icera Inc. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-000761 Application 13/196,752 1. A method of transmitting data at a physical layer of a network in transport blocks from a device on an uplink channel of the network, the transport blocks generated by a Medium Access Control layer of the network and sent to the physical layer of the network for transmitting, the method comprising: receiving a grant at the device indicating a maximum transport block size to be used at the physical layer on the uplink channel; determining information indicative of a current condition on the uplink channel; based on the determined information, adapting a transport block size for use in transmitting data on the uplink channel; and transmitting data from the device at the physical layer on the uplink channel in transport blocks having the adapted transport block size; wherein: the transport block size is adapted between a first size for use when a first condition is present on the uplink channel and a second size for use when a second condition is present on the uplink channel; the second size is equal to the indicated maximum transport block size; the first size is less than the second size; and every transport block having the adapted transport block size includes error correction code. Rejections Claims 1—4, 22, 24, 26, and 28—30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Chan et al. (US 2002/0089935 Al; July 11, 2002) and Jin et al. (US 2010/0303016 Al; Dec. 2, 2010). Ans. 3; Final Act. 6. Claims 5—8 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Chan, Jin, and Suzuki et al. (US 2008/0101312 Al; May 1, 2008). Ans. 5; Final Act. 8. The Examiner withdrew the rejections based on Kim et al. (US 2005/0108610 Al; May 19, 2005), finding Kim duplicative of Jin. Ans. 2. 2 Appeal 2016-000761 Application 13/196,752 ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding Chan teaches or suggests “the transport blocks generated by a Medium Access Control layer of the network and sent to the physical layer of the network for transmitting,” as recited in claim 1? 2. Does the combination of Chan and Jin change the principle of operation of Chan with respect to “error correction,” as recited in claim 1 ? 3. Does the combination of Suzuki with Chan and Jin change the principle of operation of Chan with respect to transmitting “on the uplink channel,” as recited in claim 5? 4. Did the Examiner err in finding reason to combine Suzuki with Chan and Jin in rejecting claim 5? ANALYSIS Claim 1 A) “transport blocks generated by a Medium Access Control layer ” Claim 1 recites “the transport blocks generated by a Medium Access Control layer of the network and sent to the physical layer of the network for transmitting.”2 Appellant contends “Chan is directed to adapting the size of an RLP packet” whereas claim 1 “recites that a size of the transport block is adapted.” App. Br. 7. According to Appellant, “one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would understand that an RLP packet... is at 2 This language appears in the preamble. “Generally, a preamble is not limiting.” Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Neither Appellant nor the Examiner address whether the preamble here is limiting. Solely for purposes of this appeal, we consider the language in our analysis without deciding whether such language may be properly relied upon in distinguishing claim 1 over the applied art. 3 Appeal 2016-000761 Application 13/196,752 a higher level of abstraction than the transport block generated by the MAC layer and sent to the physical layer.” Id. at 8. However, the Examiner finds “it is common practice to generate RLP packets in the MAC layer and forward the same to a physical layer.” Ans. 7. For example, the Examiner cites to Figure 7 of US 6,631,122, which “shows the radio packets (RLP) generated at a LAC/MAC layer and then forwarded to the physical layer.” Id. The Examiner explains “[o]ne reason for processing the data [in] that fashion is to shape the data in a format suitable for transmission. Hence, there is no apparent different between [the] radio ‘packet’ disclosed in the reference [Chan] and a transport ‘block’ recited in the claim.” Id. The Examiner also correctly notes that certain documents relied on by Appellant for support “do[] not appear to be on file.” Ans. 7 nn.2—3. In reply, “Appellant does not contest that U.S. Patent No. 6,631,122 . . . teaches generating radio link protocol (RLP) packets at a . . . media access control (MAC) layer and then forwarding the RLP packets to a physical layer” and instead argues “[t]here is no discussion in Chan of a MAC layer.” Reply Br. 6. However, such argument is not persuasive because the Examiner does not rely on Chan in isolation but instead relies on both “interrelated teachings of multiple [prior art] patents” and “the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Therefore, given the record before us, Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence or reasoned argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s finding a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known Chan’s RLP packet includes transport blocks generated by a Medium Access Control layer. 4 Appeal 2016-000761 Application 13/196,752 B) Principle of operation in “error correction ” Claim 1 further recites “every transport block having the adapted transport block size includes error correction code.” Appellant contends Jin—which the Examiner finds is duplicative of Kim (Ans. 2)—teaches “inclusion of an error correction code with every adapted transport block,” whereas Chan teaches “only one control RLP packet with error correction information for all of the RLP packets.” App. Br. 10 (emphases added). According to Appellant, this is a “principle of operation” of Chan, so modifying Chan with Jin’s error correction in every block “clearly would change the principle of operation of Chan.” Id. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Appellant has not shown that having one packet of error correction information for all packets is the “principle of operation” of Chan. Ans. 8—9. For example, claim 1 of Chan does not mention error correction, let alone how such error correction is implemented. Merely because a prior art reference teaches something does not elevate that teaching to a principle of operation. Because of this, combining two prior art references that “differ” will not necessarily affect any “principle of operation.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Thus, even though there may be a “difference” between the error correction of Chan and that of Jin, Appellant has not persuaded us that any principle of operation would be changed by their combination. Appellant further contends Chan’s principle of operation would be changed because “appending error correction information to each and every data RLP packet of Chan . . . would reduce the amount of data that could be included” (i.e., additional error correction information uses space that could otherwise be used for data). App. Br. 11. However, “a given course of 5 Appeal 2016-000761 Application 13/196,752 action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, we agree with the Examiner that the proposed modification is a straightforward and predictable trade-off known in the prior art. Ans. 8 (citing US 2004/0268206 Al, at Figs. 2A, 3, 6,47, 48, 99). Moreover, the Examiner correctly finds Jin “clearly suggests] that use of single CRC is insufficient and provides a solution by using a CRC to each block.” Ans. 9 (citing Jin 1110). Contrary to Appellant’s assertions, claim 2 of Chan claims “to balance a trade-off between the cyclic redundancy check and re-transmission overhead.” As the Supreme Court has found, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Here, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner’s combination is anything more than “the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement.” Id. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2—4, 22, 24, and 26, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 12; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 5 A) Principle of operation in “uplink” Claim 5 recites “determining a number of Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request retransmissions transmitted on the uplink channel.” 6 Appeal 2016-000761 Application 13/196,752 The Examiner relies on Suzuki for this limitation. Ans. 5—6. However, Appellant contends modifying Chan with Suzuki would change Chan’s principle of operation, which according to Appellant is checking conditions in a downlink channel rather than an uplink channel. Appellant has not persuaded us this is Chan’s principle of operation for the same reasons discussed above. For example, claim 1 of Chan does not specify whether the channel condition is for downlink or uplink, and we agree with the Examiner that Chan expressly teaches “the requestor is a device such as a mobile communication device [i.e., downlink] or a base station self device [i.e., uplink].” Chan 133; Ans. 9. B) Reasons to combine We also are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that there is no reason to combine Suzuki with Chan and Jin. Appellant argues Chan and Jin do not expressly teach a need for improving retransmission latency. See App. Br. 15. However, Appellant does not address the Examiner’s finding that “the result would have been predictable as it would have allowed the system to determine quality parameters associated with the transmission channel so as to allow efficient use of the channel as generally known in the art, see at least U.S. . . . 20100081443, para. [0003].” Ans. 6. Given this record of the Examiner providing with specificity both a reason and support, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s reasons to combine are “conclusory.” App. Br. 15. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5, and claims 6—8 and 11, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 15; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 7 Appeal 2016-000761 Application 13/196,752 DECISION For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—8, 11, 22, 24, 26, and 28—30. No time period for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation