Ex Parte Noh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

12920533 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)

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.
12/920,533 09/01/2010 Taegyun Noh ES7-010USRCE 5811
959 7590 03/01/2017
NFT SON MTTT T TNN RTT FY Rr SF ARROROT TOUT T T P
EXAMINER
FLOOR 30, SUITE 3000 CHEN, JUNPENG
ONE POST OFFICE SQUARE
BOSTON, MA 02109 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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):
ipboston.docketing@nelsonmullins.com
chris. schlauch @nelsonmullins.com
ipqualityassuranceboston@nelsonmullins.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAEGYUN NOH, YOUNG JO KO, and JAE
YOUNG AHN
Appeal 2016-005408
Application 12/920,5331
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and JESSICA C.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 34—39. Claims 1—23 have been cancelled and claims 24—33 have
been withdrawn. (Br. 17—19). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Electronics And
Telecommunications Research Institute. (Br. 3).
Appeal 2016-005408
Application 12/920,533
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 34, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter with disputed limitations emphasized:
34. A method of transmitting data in a wireless
communication system, the method comprising:
obtaining information on a first physical resource block, a
first radio resource code and a second radio resource code for
transmitting a first data, wherein the first radio resource code and
the second radio resource code are different radio resource codes;
obtaining information on a second physical resource
block, a third radio resource code and a fourth radio resource
code for transmitting a second data, wherein the third radio
resource code and the fourth radio resource code are different
radio resource codes;
generating the second data from the first data;
generating a first signal by multiplying the first radio
resource code to the first data in a time domain and the second
radio resource code to the first data in a frequency domain;
generating a second signal by multiplying the third radio
resource code to the second data in a time domain and the fourth
radio resource code to the second data in a frequency domain;
and
transmitting the first signal by using the first physical
resource block through a first antenna and transmitting the
second signal by using the second physical resource block
through a second antenna,
wherein the second data is generated by multiplying a
constant value to the first data or by obtaining a conjugate
complex value of the first data, and
wherein, when the first physical resource block and the
second physical resource block are in a same position in a
frequency-time domain, the first signal and the second signal are
orthogonal.
2
Appeal 2016-005408
Application 12/920,533
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 34—39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Chae (US 2006/0093061 Al; published May 4, 2006). (Final
Act. 3-6).
ISSUES
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding Chae discloses “wherein the
second data is generated by multiplying a constant value to the first data or
by obtaining a conjugate complex value of the first data,” as recited in claim
34?
Issue 2\ Did the Examiner err in finding Chae discloses “generating a
second signal by multiplying the third radio resource code to the second data
in a time domain and the fourth radio resource code to the second data in a
frequency domain,” as recited in claim 34?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants’ argument that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants’ arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3—6), the findings and the reasons set forth in
the Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2), and the findings and the reasons set forth
in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 6—8). We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and
argument for emphasis as follows.
3
Appeal 2016-005408
Application 12/920,533
Issue 1
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Chae discloses
“wherein the second data is generated by multiplying a constant value to the
first data or by obtaining a conjugate complex value of the first data,” as
recited in claim 34. (Br. 11—13). Specifically, Appellants argue “none of
[the] scenarios” disclosed by Chae “generat[e] the second data from the first
data in the claimed fashion.” {Id. at 13).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Chae
discloses a space-time-frequency block coding (STFBC) wireless data
transmission scheme for transmitting data stream Matrix A. (Final Act. 3^4
(citing Chae H 71, 76—68, Fig. 6)). The Examiner also finds, and we agree,
Matrix A includes Si data, i.e., “first data,” and s*i data, i.e., “second data.”
(Ans. 7; Adv. Act. 2; see Chae Equation (9)). The Examiner further finds,
and we agree, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
notation s*i refers to the complex conjugate of si, i.e., Chae “generates]
[s*i] (second data) by obtaining a conjugate complex value of [si].” (Ans. 7;
Adv. Act. 2).
Appellants’ arguments, summarizing Chae’s STFBC embodiment and
then asserting that embodiment does not disclose the claimed limitations (Br.
12—13), do not persuasively address the Examiner’s finding that s*i data is
second data which is the complex conjugate of first data si. (Ans. 7; Adv.
Act. 2). Indeed, Appellants recognize that Chae generates data which is “the
conjugate of sf’ for transmission (Br. 13). To the extent Appellants argue
that generating the second data is limited to “equations (4) and (5)” in
Appellants’ Specification {see id.), we note that the Specification teaches
that those equations “may generate a second data stream” (Spec. 13—14
4
Appeal 2016-005408
Application 12/920,533
(emphasis added)), i.e., those equations are examples, rather than limiting
definitions precluding Chae’s generation of complex conjugate data from the
scope of the claim.
Furthermore, Appellants’ arguments directed to Chae’s space-time
block coding (STBC) embodiment (Br. 12—13 (citing Chae 174)) are
directed to an embodiment on which the Examiner does not rely, and do not
address the embodiment (i.e., Chae’s STFBC embodiment) on which the
Examiner does rely. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
in finding Chae discloses “wherein the second data is generated by
multiplying a constant value to the first data or by obtaining a conjugate
complex value of the first data,” within the meaning of claim 34.
Issue 2
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Chae discloses
“generating a second signal by multiplying the third radio resource code to
the second data in a time domain and the fourth radio resource code to the
second data in a frequency domain,” as recited in claim 34. (Br. 11, 13—14).
Specifically, Appellants argue “the scenarios in Chae are either based on the
Time resource codes [or] the Frequency resource codes,” rather than both “<2
time domain” and “a frequency domain.'1'’ Id. at 14.
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, the Examiner finds, and
we agree, Chae discloses an STFBC scheme for transmitting data stream
Matrix A. (Final Act. 3^4 (citing Chae ^fl[ 71, 76—68, Fig. 6)). The
Examiner further finds, and we agree, Chae teaches “the use of both [the]
Time resource code (i.e. time Tl) and the Frequency resource code (i.e.
frequency fl)” when transmitting Matrix A. (Ans. 8 (citing Chae 176)).
5
Appeal 2016-005408
Application 12/920,533
Appellants’ argument that Chae’s STFBC transmissions are only
“based on . . . the Frequency resources codes” (Br. 14) is not persuasive
because Chae discloses that its STFBC transmissions are based on both
frequency and time resources. Indeed, Chae discloses, in Matrix A, the
“data of the first two columns is transmitted at frequency fl[] and the data of
the last two columns is transmitted at frequency f2. The data of the first
column in each pair is transmitted at time tl and the data of the second
column at time t2.” (Chae 176; see Chae 177). That is, Chae transmits data
in both the time domain, i.e., at times tl and t2, and in the frequency domain,
i.e., at frequencies fl and f2.
Furthermore, Appellants’ arguments directed to Chae’s STBC
embodiment, which transmits data based only on time (Br. 14 (citing Chae
171); see Chae 174), are directed to an embodiment on which the Examiner
does not rely, and do not address the embodiment (i.e., Chae’s STFBC
embodiment) on which the Examiner does rely. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Chae discloses “generating a
second signal by multiplying the third radio resource code to the second data
in a time domain and the fourth radio resource code to the second data in a
frequency domain,” within the meaning of claim 34.
Remaining Claims 35—39
Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims
35—39, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 34. (See Br. 14). For
the reasons set forth above, therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting these claims. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule
6
Appeal 2016-005408
Application 12/920,533
41.37 to require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they
wish for individual claims to be treated separately.”). Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 35—39. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 34—39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Chae 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
7