Ex Parte NIWANO

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 4, 2018

14162522 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/162,522 01/23/2014 Kazuhito NIW ANO
22850 7590 05/08/2018
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
427793US20DIV 1084
EXAMINER
SHEN,QUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/08/2018 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):
patentdocket@oblon.com
oblonpat@oblon.com
tfarrell@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAZUHITO NIW ANO 1
Appeal2016-007144
Application 14/162,522
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-13, all the pending claims in the
present application (see Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral Hearing was held on April 24, 2018.
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to a mobile station and a base
station which communicate packet data with each other in a Code Division
Multiple Access (CDMA) mobile communication system (Spec., 1: 11-13).
1 Appellant names Mitsubishi Electric Corporation as the real party in
interest (App. Br. 1).
Appeal2016-007144
Application 14/162,522
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A mobile station comprising:
a radio link controller that outputs or inputs data that is
transmitted to or received from a base station via a radio channel to or
from a higher-level protocol layer;
a media access controller that outputs or inputs said data
via a logical channel to or from said radio link controller; and
a radio resource controller that controls the radio link
controller and the media access controller, wherein
the media access controller multiplexes report
information to be transmitted to the base station into a channel for
packet data transmission and transmits the report information to the
base station.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
RI. Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13
of U.S. Patent No. 8,149,765 (Final Act. 4);
R2. Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Peisa (US 6,826,193 Bl, Nov. 30, 2004), Choi (US
2003/0185193 Al, Oct. 2, 2003), and Samsung (Juho Lee, Uplink Signalling
of Scheduling Information, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG 1 #34 Meeting, Seoul,
Keora, Oct. 6-10 (2003)) (Final Act. 4--8);
R3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Peisa, Choi, Samsung, and Jiang (US 2003/0147348 Al,
Aug. 7, 2003); and
R4. Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Peisa, Choi, Samsung, and Kadaba (US 7,158,504 B2,
Jan. 2, 2007).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
2
Appeal2016-007144
Application 14/162,522
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
ANALYSIS
Double Patenting Rejection
At the outset, we observe that Appellant presents no arguments on
appeal regarding the Examiner's obviousness-type double patenting
rejection of claims 1-13. We note that arguments not made are considered
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(vii). Therefore, we proforma affirm
the Examiner's obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claim 1-13.
Rejection under§ 103 (a)
Claims 1 and 5-13
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited art collectively
teaches or suggests multiplexing report information into a channel for packet
data transmission, as set forth in representative claim 1?
Appellant contends that Choi "merely describes a process of mapping
the control channel data into a Dedicated Control Channel (DCCH) for
transmission ... [ and] does not teach or suggest multiplexing the control
channel data into the dedicated transport channel (DTCH) for transmission"
(App. Br. 7). Appellant further contends that "[ n Jone of the information
shown in Fig. 11 [of Choi], such as 'TB Size =100' is actually transmitted to
the base station," therefore such information is not information to be
transmitted to the base station as required by the claims (id.). Appellant also
contends that Samsung "fails to disclose that these reports are multiplexed
into a channel for packet data transmission" (id. at 8).
3
Appeal2016-007144
Application 14/162,522
In essence, Appellant appears to concede that although Samsung
teaches the claimed report information, neither Samsung nor Choi teach or
suggest multiplexing such information into a channel for packet
transmission. Appellant presents no arguments regarding Peisa.
The Examiner finds that "one of the primary functions of [the] MAC
layer ... are multiplexing and de-multiplexing the data packets ...
[because] [ s ]uch multiplexing and de-multiplexing functions handle both
uplink and downlink communications" (Ans. 4) and "are well understood in
the field and essentially textbook knowledge" (id. at 5). The Examiner
further finds that "the transport channel of Choi, including CPCH, DCCH, or
DTCH, is a channel for packet data transmission" (id.) and both Peisa and
Choi show "examples of report information being mapped or multiplexed in
the MAC entity" (id.). We agree with the Examiner.
For example, Peisa discloses "communicating with the mobile stations
via Base Transceiver Stations (BTS)" (1 :23-24), that "the MAC entity has to
decide how much data to transmit on each transport channel connected to it"
and that the transport channels "are later multiplexed onto a single physical
channel at the physical layer" (2:6-10). Similarly, Choi teaches "[t]he
UMTS channels can be classified into physical channels, transport channels,
and logical channels," including a Dedicated Control Channel (DCCH) and a
Dedicated Traffic Channel (DTCH) (i-f 7). In Choi, the "the MAC layer 115
receives a PDU from the RLC layer 113, divides the received PDU into TBs,
which are real units transmitted through the transport channel" (i-f 8) and "the
MAC layer 115 reads the PDUs stored in the DCCH/DTCH buffer 119 and
maps them onto the transport channel, generates TBs by multiplexing and
adding headers" (i-f 9). Choi further discloses that "a receiving-side of the
4
Appeal2016-007144
Application 14/162,522
communication entity, e.g., a UE, can decode and demultiplex the transport
channel by analyzing the TFCI of the transport channel" (i-f 14; see also
,r 120). Finally, Samsung discloses reporting information such as scheduling
information and buffer occupancy (Section 2).
In other words, the aforementioned combined teachings suggest
utilizing multiplexing techniques, in part on Transport Blocks (TBs ), i.e.,
report information, and transmitting the same through the transport channels
to a base station. As such, we agree with the Examiner that the combined
teachings of Peisa, Choi, and Samsung teach or suggest multiplexing report
information into a channel for packet transmission to a base station.
In part, Appellant's arguments do not take into account what the
collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art and are therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner's prima
facie case of obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981 )("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in
any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.") (citations omitted). Appellant's arguments fail to consider what
the combined teachings of all three references, i.e., Piesa, Choi, and
Samsung, would have suggested.
Further, although Appellant contends that "just as one of ordinary
skill in the art would appreciate the difference between control information
and payload data, this same distinction also applies to the difference between
the channels used to transmit this information" (Reply Br. 2) and "the
5
Appeal2016-007144
Application 14/162,522
channel for packet data transmission recited in claim 1 should be construed
as a channel ( e.g. DTCH) for transmission of payload packet data" (id.), we
note that claim 1 fails to recite any particular channel type or payload packet
data. Instead, claim 1 merely recites "report information" and "a channel for
packet data transmission" (see claim 1 ). While we interpret claims broadly
but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless must not import
limitations from the Specification into the claims. See Phillips v. A WH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005). As such, we find that
claim 1 does not necessarily require that "a channel for packet data
transmission" be construed as a DTCH or that the "report information" be
limited to payload packet data. In any case, we note that at least Choi
discloses a DTCH channel being used for data transmission (see ,r 7) and
Choi and Samsung both teach data that can be construed as payload packet
data (see Choi ,r 8 and Samsung section 2).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appellant's arguments regarding the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 11-13 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellant does
not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims, except as noted
below. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 5-
13.
Claim 2
Appellant contends that Choi "merely describes that adding headers
'according to the type of the mapped transport channel' and fails to teach or
suggest that report information from said mobile station is placed in a
header of data in a data format" (App. Br. 9).
6
Appeal2016-007144
Application 14/162,522
The Examiner finds that Choi "implicitly indicates the header includes
TBS (transport block set) size" (Ans. 6). We disagree with the Examiner.
For example, the portion of Choi cited by the Examiner merely
discloses that "the information updated in the TB info table 511 includes ...
MAC header sizes" (i-f 102). Therefore, we find persuasive Appellant's
contention that the Examiner fails to demonstrate that Choi teaches report
information being placed in a header, as set forth in claim 2, given that the
cited portion of Choi merely discloses a table including header size
information.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the
proposed combination of references set forth by the Examiner does not
support the obviousness rejection of claim 2.
Claim 3
Appellant contends that the Examiner's "reliance on design choice to
assert that report information could be included anywhere in the packet is
clearly misplaced since there is a clearly disclosed advantage to providing it
at the tail end in a data format" (App. Br. 10). For example, Appellant's
Specification discloses that "a parameter P is added to the tail end of the
report information ... the base station can carry out the scheduling more
efficiently by using the information for the scheduling" (Spec., 38:26-39:7).
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that "[t]he cited benefit
relates to the merit by including parameter P as a part of report information,
not the benefit of putting report information at the end of the data packet"
(Ans. 7). Therefore, we find unavailing Appellant's contention that the
Examiner's reliance on design choice is misplaced.
7
Appeal2016-007144
Application 14/162,522
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 3.
Claim 4
The Examiner finds that Choi' s "Uplink Logical Channel information
implies whether [the] channel contains report information" (Final Act. 7). In
response, Appellant contends that "[ w ]hile it may be true that a field might
be empty when it does not include any report information, this is not the
same as the existence of specific information area indicating presence or
absence of the report information" (App. Br. 10). The Examiner then finds
in the Answer that "Choi teaches setting transport block size to be zero,
indicating absence of the report information, [ w ]hile non zero value
indicating presence of the report information" (Ans. 7). Appellant fails to
rebut this new finding in the Reply Brief. When Appellant fails to present
arguments on a particular issue - or, more broadly, on a particular rejection
- the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those
uncontested aspects of the rejection. Ex Parte Frye, 94 at 1075 (citing, inter
alia, Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board
may treat arguments appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection
as waived)).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 4.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claim 2.
We affirm the Examiner's obviousness-type double patenting
rejection of claims 1-13.
We affirm the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections of claims 1 and 3-13.
8
Appeal2016-007144
Application 14/162,522
Since at least one rejection encompassing all claims on appeal is
affirmed, the decision of the Examiner is 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9