Ex Parte Nosley

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2017

12308719 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 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.
12/308,719 12/22/2008 Michael Nosley WN-3070P 4313
61755 7590 03/16/2017
Kunzler Law Group - Lenovo
50 W. Broadway
10th Floor
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101
EXAMINER
BEDNASH, JOSEPH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2017 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):
docket @ kunzlerlaw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL NOSLEY
Appeal 2016-006066
Application 12/308,719
Technology Center 2400
Before, JEREMY J. CURCURI, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 19, 22, 24, 25, and 28—30.1 Claims 2, 4—18,
20, 21, 23, 26, and 27 were cancelled previously. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 In this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” mailed
November 10, 2015), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” mailed May 24, 2016),
the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed April 14, 2014), the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 24, 2016), and the original
Specification (“Spec.,” filed December 22, 2008).
Appeal 2016-006066
Application 12/308,719
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. The Invention
Applicant’s invention relates to “a method and arrangement for
transmitting a broadcast channel... for a Long Term Evolution (LTE) cell
in order to accommodate User Equipment (UE) handsets offering different
capability levels.” Spec. 1. The broadcast channel transmission method
delivers “broadcast channel data as a series of blocks, each series being
provided in a segment of the system bandwidth, and distributing the
broadcast channel data within each series of blocks.” Id. at Abstract. The
UE “receives different blocks from different segments within a time period
which is a multiple of the time period for receipt of all blocks within one
segment.” Id.
Figure 4 of the Specification, is reproduced below.
20
Fig. 4
Figure 4 illustrates a recent proposal which supports a minimal source rate
for 1.25 MHz capable user equipment handsets. Spec. 4—5. System
bandwidth 20 is 20 MHz with distributed broadcast channels 30 each
separated by a 1.25 MHz band 32. Id. at 5. Handsets capable of more than
1.25 MHz will receive multiple copies of the broadcast information, wasting
system capacity. Id.
“Ideally a mobile with N x 1.25 MHz bandwidth capability would
acquire all of the system information within 1/N the time necessary for the
1.25 MHz capable UE handset.” Id. at 5. Thus, a handset operating at 1.25
MHz will acquire the whole broadcast cycle in a time (T) whereas a handset
2
Appeal 2016-006066
Application 12/308,719
operating at 20 MHz, sixteen times faster than 1.25 MHz, will acquire the
whole cycle in T/16. Id. at 6—7. The “complete system bandwidth divides
into sixteen 1.25 MHz segments such that the broadcast channel cycle then
be divided into sixteen blocks.” Id. at 7.
Figure 5 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below:
20
Fig 5
Figure 5 is an “illustration of a partial grid system of information blocks
against a 20 MHz system bandwidth 20 divided into 16 segments.” Spec. 7.
“In order to achieve the required acquisition times, the block types must be
distributed so that all blocks are present, and are ideally not repeated . . . .”
Id. “The ? symbols illustrate the uncertainty that the invention seeks to
overcome.” Id.
As seen in the claim language, the invention fills in the ? blocks with
adjacent blocks, i.e., in Figure 5 at segment 7, 8 the first pair in the first row
could be 1-2, or 3-4, or 5-6, etc. Claim 1; see also Spec. 8, Fig. 8 (a matrix
“which can be employed within the concept of the present invention”). If
the first pair is 1-2 or 2-1, the next pair may be 3-4, 5-6 but not 1-1 because
the next adjacent pair must be “a different respective one of said two
3
Appeal 2016-006066
Application 12/308,719
adjacent segments before any of different parts of said cumulative broadcast
channel data are repeated in either of said two adjacent segments.” Claim 1.
B. Illustrative Claim
Claims 1,3, 19, 22, 24, 25, and 28—30 are pending. Claim 1 is an
independent claim. Claims 3,19, 22, 24, 25, and 28—30 all depend from
claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A broadcast channel transmission method for a
communication system comprising a system bandwidth divided
into a number of segments, each segment having a same
respective bandwidth, the method comprising:
delivering broadcast channel data as a respective series of
blocks concurrently in each segment of the system bandwidth;
and
distributing broadcast channel data within each series of
blocks such that a user equipment capable of receiving more
than one segment receives cumulative broadcast channel data
within a time period, each different part of said cumulative
broadcast channel data being received in blocks of a different
respective segment,
wherein a total time period for receipt of said cumulative
broadcast channel data within blocks of one segment is a
multiple of said time period, and
wherein the broadcast channel data is distributed within said
each series of blocks such that a user equipment capable of
receiving only two adjacent segments of said bandwidth
receives each different part of said cumulative broadcast
channel data in the blocks of a different respective one of said
two adjacent segments before any of different parts of said
cumulative broadcast channel data are repeated in either of said
two adjacent segments.
4
Appeal 2016-006066
Application 12/308,719
C. The Rejections
1. Claims 1, 3, 22, 24, 25, and 28—30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a)2 as unpatentable over Siemens, “Considerations on E-UTRA Cell
Search and Initial Access” 3 GPP TSG-RAN WGI 44, Tdoc RI-060358,
Denver, USA, 13th—17th February 2006 (“DI”) and 3GPP TR 25.913 V7.3.0
(2006-04), u3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification
Group Radio Access Network; Requirements for Evolved UTRA (E-UTRA)
and Evolved UTRAN (E-UTRAN) (Release 7),” March 31, 2006 (“D3”).
Final Act. 2—9.
2. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Dl, D3, and Ericsson et al., “Text Proposal on Cell Search in Evolved
UTRA,” TSG-RAN WGI #43, Rl-051308, Seoul, Korea, November 7-11,
2005 (“D2”). Final Act. 9-10.
C. Issue
Appellant’s arguments present the following issue:
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Dl and D3 collectively would have taught or suggested:
“a user equipment capable of receiving only two adjacent segments of
said bandwidth receives each different part of said cumulative broadcast
channel data in the blocks of a different respective one of said two adjacent
segments before any of different parts of said cumulative broadcast channel
data are repeated” (the “two adjacent segment” limitation).
2 The Specification was filed on December 22, 2008, prior to the March 13,
2013, effective date of the America Invents Act (“ALA”). Public Law 112-
29, sec. 3(n)(l). Therefore, this case is governed by pre-AIA section 103.
5
Appeal 2016-006066
Application 12/308,719
ANALYSIS
We begin by construing the “two adjacent segment” limitation set
forth above. As discussed below, the Examiner concludes that “two adjacent
segments” result from a “2.5 MHz spectrum allocation.” Final Act. 6—7
(citing D3, 12, § 8.2 (“Spectrum flexibility”)); see also Ans. 3 (“the intent of
the claim is to allow for a user equipment which can receive only two
adjacent segments (e.g. 2.5 MHz).”). Appellant agrees with this
construction. See, e.g., App. Br. 7 (arguing D1 segments are staggered and
claim 1 requires two adjacent segments, “namely, aUE of 2.5 MHz”).
The Examiner finds the “two adjacent segment” limitation is not
expressly disclosed by D1 because “D1 is focused on a 1.25 MHz UE and a
5 MHz UE,” and not a UE of 2.5 MHz. Final Act. 6. However, the
Examiner contends that D1 and D3 are in the same field of endeavor, “3 GPP
(Evolved-UTRAN or E-UTRAN).” Id. The Examiner relies on D3’s
disclosure] that it was known at the time of the invention that
E-UTRAN systems were to sup [port [sic] more than merely
1.25MHz and 5 MHz bandwidths, but also 2.5 MHz spectrum
allocations of paired spectrum supporting diverse spectrum
arrangements supporting the delivery of same and different
content over an aggregation of resources including radio band
resources providing adaptive scheduling in the same and
different bands in the downlink.
Id. at 6—7 (citing D3, 12, § 8.2 (“Spectrum flexibility”)).
The Examiner finds the D1 teaches “the staggered time-frequency
BCH [broadcast channel] can be adapted to any operating bandwidth and to
any capacity of the BCH.” Final Act. 5 (citing D1 § 3.2, see Fig. 3).
Further, the Examiner finds D3 teaches “two adjacent segments (e.g. 2.5
MHz spectrum allocation).” Id. at 7. The Examiner finds “it would have
6
Appeal 2016-006066
Application 12/308,719
been obvious ... to consider such capabilities because D3 discloses such
allocations as a requirement of the E-UTRAN system.” Id.
Figure 3 of D1 is reproduced below.
—---------- ----------—-------—
Figure 3} l ime frequency staggered BCH
Figure 3 is “an example of the time-frequency staggered BCH in a 5 MHz
cell for the minimal UE bandwidth of 1.25 MHz and 4 BCH information
blocks (A, B, C, D).” Dl, 3, § 3.2 (emphasis added). Appellant argues
“there is nothing within Figure 3 to shows or suggests [sic] that adjacent
segments within the channel are parts of the cumulative broadcast channel
data.” App. Br. 7.
Appellant argues that D3 does not remedy this deficiency in D1
because
[t]he mere fact that D3 discloses that 2.5 spectrum allocations
does not overcome the deficiencies recited above for D3 not
showing what would be allocated to adjacent bandwidths. D3
only adjusts the bandwidth of different segments not what
happens in each segment.
7
Appeal 2016-006066
Application 12/308,719
Id. Appellant argues Figure 3 of D1 is “an example of the time-frequency
staggered BCH in a 5 MHz cell for the minimal UE bandwidth of 1.25 MHz
and 4 BCM information blocks (A, B, C, D).” Id. at 7—8 (emphasis added).
Appellant further contends that D1 teaches that “at least part of the BCH is
always repeated before a user equipment capable of receiving only two
adjacent segments of the bandwidth receives all the BCH data within those
two adjacent segments.” Id. at 8.
As noted above, the Examiner relies on D3 to show the “two adjacent
segment” limitation. Final Act. 7. We are persuaded that the Examiner has
shown rational underpinnings for combining D1 and D3. Id. at 6—7.
However, we also agree with Appellant that the “two adjacent segment”
limitation cannot be met by merely rearranging the staggered, not adjacent,
segments of Dl’s Figure 3. App. Br. 7—8; see Final Act. 5 (“Such
rearrangement would not change the basic principle of the example provided
by D1.”). We are not persuaded that the disclosure of 2.5 MHz by itself
would provide a motivation or reason for the person of ordinary skill in the
art to combine Dl’s and D3’s elements in the manner claimed. While the
invention relies on the 2.5 MHz spectrum to obtain the desired segment
adjacency, we agree with Appellant that there is nothing in D3 that suggests
that portion of the limitation that recites “each different part of the
cumulative broadcast channel data in the blocks of a different respective one
of the two adjacent segments before any of different parts of the cumulative
broadcast channel data are repeated in either of the two adjacent
segments.” App. Br. 8 (emphasis added).
8
Appeal 2016-006066
Application 12/308,719
The Examiner acknowledges that the “intent of the claim” is “to be
able to receive all of the blocks of data before any of the blocks of data are
repeated.” Ans. 3. The Examiner relies on D1 to show that the UE “is
capable of receiving 1.25 MHz will receive blocks C, D, A and B (all of the
information) in four consecutive time slots (BCH reading time for 1.25 MHz
UEs) before any of the broadcast channel data are repeated.” Id. at 4. But
the 1.25 MHz example does not include any adjacent segments, rather
uploading or downloading a segment at a time. This is the very problem
Appellant seeks so avoid by not repeating and uploading or downloading
only adjacent segments.
For the 5MHz user equipment of Dl, the Examiner argues “all four
blocks of data are received in a single time slot (BCH reading time for
5MHz UEs) before any of the broadcast channel data is repeated.” Ans. 4.
That a higher spectrum will handle more segments is not at issue. Neither
Dl nor D3 shows handling of adjacent segments in order to avoid uploading
or downloading one or more segments before all segments have been
uploaded or downloaded.
Neither example from Dl discloses two adjacent segments being
uploaded or downloaded in order to avoid repetition for any segment. And
the Examiner has not shown why the person of ordinary skill in the art
would combine the segments of Dl with the 2.5 MHz allocation of D3 in the
manner recited in the claim.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 19, 22, 24, 25, and 28—30
under § 103.
9
Appeal 2016-006066
Application 12/308,719
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1,3, 19, 22, 24, 25, and 28—
30 is reversed.
REVERSED
10