Ex Parte Novak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 12, 2016

12677438 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/677,438 11/12/2010
47743 7590
DOWNEY BRAND LLP
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. BOX569
Cupertino, CA 95015
02/17/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert Novak
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.
Pl6321 US1/19760US.l 1575
EXAMINER
SMITH, JOSHUA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2016 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):
IPDocketing@DowneyBrand.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT NOVAK, MO-HAN FONG, SOPHIE VRZIC, JUN
YUAN, DONG-SHENG YU, and JIANGLEI MA
Appeal2013-010266
Application 12/677 ,438 1
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 7, 120, 122-133, and 136. App. Br. 2. Claims 121,
134, 135, and 137 stand objected to for being dependent upon a rejected base
claim but are otherwise allowable. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple, Inc. (App.
Br. 1).
Appeal2013-010266
Application 12/677,438
REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 7, 120, 122-133, and 136 stand rejected as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Helmke (US 2004/0233885 Al,
Nov. 25, 2004) and Ji et al. (US 2007/0047495 Al, Mar. 1, 2007) ("Ji.").
Ans. 2.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention generally relates to "wireless communication,
and more specifically to methods and systems for requesting uplink
signalling." Spec. 1. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method. App. Br.
13.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method comprising:
assigning a respective set of at least one resource request
channel characteristics to each of a plurality of access terminals
for each access terminal to use to request uplink transmission
resources, each set of at least one resource request channel
characteristics being distinct from each other set of at least one
resource request channel characteristics;
rece1vmg a resource request on a resource request
channel;
determining which access terminal transmitted the
resource request based on at least one resource request channel
characteristic of the resource request channel upon which the
resource request was received;
transmitting a response to the request;
wherein assigning a respective set of at least one resource
request channel characteristics to each of a plurality of access
terminals comprises allocating a resource for uplink signalling
that is at least partially superimposed upon an OFDM time-
frequency resource allocated for at least one of traffic and
uplink control signalling.
2
Appeal2013-010266
Application 12/677,438
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 7
Appellants contend the proposed combination of Helmke and Ji does
not teach or suggest
wherein assigning a respective set of at least one resource
request channel characteristics to each of a plurality of access
terminals comprises allocating a resource for uplink signalling
that is at least partially superimposed upon an OFDM time-
frequency resource allocated for at least one of traffic and
uplink control signalling[,]
as recited by claim 1. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 5.
Specifically, Appellants argue a resource "superimposed upon"
another resource requires that the resources are simultaneously transmitted
because the Specification states superposition2 is "within a time-frequency
transmission resource space." Id. We disagree with Appellants because
Appellants' contention is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. We
conclude the Specification's definition of superposition does not include
"within a time-frequency transmission resource space," which is provided as
merely a "typical" and non-limiting example.
Appellants' Specification defines "superposition or overlaying of
transmission" as "some or all of the transmission resource used for
transmission of the resource requests is the same as that used for traffic
and/or other signaling, typically by a different access terminal, within a time-
frequency transmission resource space." Spec. 10 (emphasis added). In
other words, the Specification defines "superposition" as "some or all of the
transmission resource used for transmission of the resource requests is the
2 "[I]t is noted that 'superposition' and 'superimposition' are used
synonymously." App. Br. 5.
3
Appeal2013-010266
Application 12/677,438
same as that used for traffic and/or other signaling," and provides a non-
limiting example that superposition is "typically by a different access
terminal, within a time-frequency transmission resource space." Id.
(emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner that the definition of
"superposition" requires "that all or a fraction of a transmission resource
used for traffic or signaling can also be used for transmitting resource
requests." Ans. 27.
Appellants argue against this claim construction. See App. Br. 6-7.
However, we agree with the Examiner that the "meaning of superimposition
... does not require any simultaneous transmission" or that "a resource is
simultaneously used/or resource requests and traffic/control." Ans. 31-
32 (addressing Appellants' arguments at App. Br. 6-7). We further agree
with the Examiner that the "meaning of superimposition provided ... does
not require any further details to an arrangement that clearly excludes any
form of channel sharing" and "may include sequential transmission, since
the meaning does not require that resource requests and traffic are not
involving any form of transmitting in sequence" or "sharing the transmission
resource." Ans. 34--35 (addressing Appellants' arguments at App. Br. 7).
We further agree with the Examiner that the "language of the Specification
does not require that the concept details of the embodiments, advantages and
examples ... be specified in the meaning of superimposition." Ans. 30
(addressing Appellants' arguments at App. Br. 6-7).
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Ji teaches, "a resource"
(Ji's reverse link's set of subbands) "for uplink signaling" (Ji's pertinent
information included in the preamble of the transmission on the subbands)
"that is at least partially superimposed upon an OFDM time-frequency
4
Appeal2013-010266
Application 12/677,438
resource allocated for at least one of traffic and uplink control signaling"
(Ji's transmission on the subbands non-simultaneously transmitting the
preamble with pertinent information and the output data). See Ans. 27-28.
The following sections of the references are relied upon in the
Examiner's Answer:
[0047] ... Each base station may send an assignment via
an over-the-air message to each terminal scheduled for
transmission on the reverse link. The assignment may include
pertinent parameters such as, e.g., the air-link resources (e.g.,
frequency, time and/or code) assigned to the terminal, the
packet format to be used for transmission, and possibly other
information. The packet format may indicate, e.g., the data
rate, the coding and modulation, the packet size, and so on to
use for transmission. If soft handoff is desired for a given
terminal, then the SHO base stations in the active set can
ascertain the pertinent parameters used by the terminal for
transmission and can attempt to decode the transmission based
on this knowledge ....
[0048] In an aspect, a SHO terminal sends over-the-air
signaling that contains pertinent information for recovering the
transmission sent on the reverse link. The pertinent
information may be sent in a preamble of the transmission, in
the transmission itself, in a message sent on a separate control
channel, and so on ....
[0081] The terminal receives from the serving base
station an assignment indicative of at least one communication
parameter (e.g., a packet format) and a set of subbands to use
for transmission on the reverse link (block 1012). The terminal
processes (e.g., encodes and symbol maps) input data in
accordance with the communication parameter( s) and generates
output data (block 1014). The terminal generates a
transmission with the output data and the communication
parameter(s) sent on the assigned set of subbands (block 1016).
For example, the terminal may scramble the communication
parameter(s) with a scrambling sequence for the terminal, form
5
Appeal2013-010266
Application 12/677,438
a preamble with the scrambled parameter(s), and generate the
transmission with the preamble and the output data. The
terminal then sends the transmission via the reverse link to the
serving and SHO base stations (block 1018). The signaling
may comprise the preamble and/or other information used to
recover the transmission sent by the terminal.
See id.; Ji i-fi-147, 47, 81 (emphasis added).
In other words, Ji teaches assignment specific pertinent parameters or
characteristics included in assignment signaling sent as a preamble of a
transmission or in the transmission itself, and sent on assigned subbands of a
channel. Thus, we agree Ji teaches a form of superposition and
superimposing. See id.
Appellants further contend "the 'pertinent information for recovering
the transmission' referred to in Ji is not equivalent to [Appellants'] claimed
resource request channel," and the pertinent information "is information that
allows the soft handoff base station to recover a transmission sent on the
reverse link" and "has nothing to do with a resource request generated by a
mobile station" and cannot "possibly be reasonably interpreted as being a
request for resources." App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2-5.
Appellants' contentions regarding the "resource request," "resource
request channel," and "resource request channel characteristics" are directed
at the Ji reference. However, to address these limitations, the Examiner
relies upon the Helmke reference, which Appellants have not argued.
Specifically, the Examiner finds "the Helmke reference as explicitly
teaching a resource request channel of Claim 1" and "the Helmke reference
also teaches a resource request channel and resource request channel
characteristics." Ans. 3-5, 22-23. As such, Appellants have failed to
6
Appeal2013-010266
Application 12/677,438
convince us that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Helmke
and Ji teaches or suggests the claimed "resource request," "resource request
channel," and "resource request channel characteristics."
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Ji also teaches the
"resource request," "resource request channel," and "resource request
channel characteristics." Specifically, we agree with the Examiner's
interpretation that Ji's "pertinent information can be reasonably interpreted
as being part of a request to obtain the implied network resources from the
SHO base station, for the purpose of advancing the soft handoff so that the
SHO base station can recover the data transmission from the SHO terminal"
because Ji's terminal transmitting pertinent information within over-the-air
signaling is a component for successfully advancing the soft handoff
process. See id.
Appellants further contend the Examiner has provided no valid basis
for combining the approach of Ji with the approach of Helmke. App. Br. 7-
8; Reply Br. 8. The Examiner relies on channel assignment of Helmke and
additional details of channel assignment of Ji. Ans. 39--40. The Examiner
has found teachings in the prior art showing that every step recited in claim
1 is taught or suggested by the prior art. These disclosures show that the
combination made by the Examiner involved familiar elements according to
known methods that yield predictable results. As the Supreme Court stated,
"[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results."
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). We further note
"the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference
may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference ...
7
Appeal2013-010266
Application 12/677,438
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appellants have failed to convince us that the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Helmke and Ji teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations of claim 1. And, we are not persuaded of error with regard to the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1, as well as the rejection of dependent claim 7.
Claim 120
Appellants contend the combination of Helmke and Ji does not teach
or suggest "wherein the resource request is a message containing at least one
parameter in respect of the resource request and wherein the at least one
parameter comprises at least one of: CQI; packet format; CQI with sub-band
index," as recited by claim 120. App. Br. 8-9.
The Examiner finds Ji teaches the claimed parameter, and that Ji
teaches "a packet format indicating a data rate." Ans. 41. One cited section
of Ji relied upon by the Examiner teaches the
assignment may include pertinent parameters such as, e.g., the
air-link resources (e.g., frequency, time and/or code) assigned
to the terminal, the packet format to be used for transmission,
and possibly other information. The packet format may
indicate, e.g., the data rate, the coding and modulation, the
packet size, and so on to use for transmission.
See id.; see Ans. 8-9; Ji i-f 47 (emphasis added). Another cited section of Ji
relied upon by the Examiner teaches "a SHO terminal sends over-the-air
signaling that contains pertinent information for recovering the transmission
sent on the reverse link. The pertinent information may be sent in a
8
Appeal2013-010266
Application 12/677,438
preamble of the transmission, in the transmission itself." See id.; Ji i1 48
(emphasis added).
In other words, Ji describes packet format as a pertinent parameter for
assignment that is sent in a transmission. We conclude Ji' s packet format
sent as a pertinent parameter teaches or suggests the claimed "at least one
parameter comprises at least one of CQI; packet format; CQI with sub-band
index." (Emphasis added).
Appellants have failed to convince us that the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Helmke and Ji teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation of claim 120. And, the Examiner's obviousness conclusion was
well-supported and reasonable. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 12 0.
Claims 122 and 123
Appellants contend the combination of Helmke and Ji does not teach
or suggest "receiving an uplink transmission on the resource assignment; as
part of the uplink transmission, receiving embedded configuration or
reconfiguration of the assignment," as recited by claim 122. App. Br. 9.
For disclosure of the claimed "request simply indicat[ing] a renewal
of a previously configured service," the Examiner relies upon Helmke's
assignment of a timeslot to a subscriber for transmission in the uplink. Ans.
10-11, 42. The Examiner's Answer states the coding and modulation
indicated in the packet format of Ji' s pertinent information "is related to
configuration of a connection assignment" and "is substantively the same as
a receiving uplink transmission on the resource assignment; as part of the
9
Appeal2013-010266
Application 12/677,438
uplink transmission, receiving embedded configuration or reconfiguration
of the assignment." Id. We disagree with the Examiner's findings.
The following section of Ji is relied upon in the Examiner's Answer:
[0047] ... Each base station may send an assignment via
an over-the-air message to each terminal scheduled for
transmission on the reverse link. The assignment may include
pertinent parameters such as, e.g., the air-link resources (e.g.,
frequency, time and/or code) assigned to the terminal, the
packet format to be used for transmission, and possibly other
information. The packet format may indicate, e.g., the data
rate, the coding and modulation, the packet size, and so on to
use for transmission. If soft handoff is desired for a given
terminal, then the SHO base stations in the active set can
ascertain the pertinent parameters used by the terminal for
transmission and can attempt to decode the transmission based
on this knowledge ....
See id.; Ji i-f 4 7 (emphasis added).
In other words, Ji teaches signaling assignment including information
such as packet format to be used for the transmissions, wherein the packet
format indicates coding and modulation. However, Ji' s packet format has to
do with the transmission as opposed to the assignment itself. Furthermore,
the Examiner provides no further explanation how Ji' s coding and
modulation for the packet format to be used for transmission is the same as
configuration or reconfiguration of the resource assignment.
Appellants have convinced us the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Helmke and Ji teaches or suggests "receiving an uplink
transmission on the resource assignment; as part of the uplink transmission,
receiving embedded configuration or reconfiguration of the assignment," as
recited by claim 122.
10
Appeal2013-010266
Application 12/677,438
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 122. Claim 123
is dependent on claim 122. We do not sustain the rejection of this claim for
the reasons stated above with regard to claim 122.
Claims 124 and 125
Appellants contend the combination of Helmke and Ji does not teach
or suggest "wherein for at least some resource requests, the request simply
indicates a renewal of a previously configured service," as recited by claim
124. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 9-10.
For disclosure of the claimed "request simply indicat[ing] a renewal
of a previously configured service," the Examiner relies upon Helmke's
assignment of a timeslot to a subscriber for transmission in the uplink. Ans.
14, 43. The Examiner's Answer states that Helmke's "assigning timeslots to
a subscriber implies that the base station may reassign a timeslot that the
subscriber was assigned previously, and this is substantively the same as
renewal of a previously configured service." Id. We disagree with the
Examiner's findings.
The Examiner provides no further explanation how Helmke's
assigning a subscriber a timeslot for transmission necessarily leads to
renewal of a previously configured service. We agree with Appellants that
the claim requires "the renewal of a previously configured service is
indicated in a resource request." Reply Br. 9-10.
Appellants have convinced us the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Helmke and Ji teaches or suggests "wherein for at least some
resource requests, the request simply indicates a renewal of a previously
configured service," as recited by claim 124.
11
Appeal2013-010266
Application 12/677,438
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 124. Claim 125
is dependent on claim 124. We do not sustain the rejection of this claim for
the reasons stated above with regard to claim 124.
Claims 126--133and136
Appellants contend the combination of Helmke and Ji does not teach
or suggest "for the purpose of initial access by an access terminal: receiving
an access request on a random access channel using a randomly selected
access channel signalling ID," as recited by claim 126. App. Br. 10; Reply
Br. 10-11.
For disclosure of the claimed "receiving an access request on a
random access channel using a randomly selected access channel signalling
ID," the Examiner relies upon Helmke's timeslot assignment using "random
access timeslots ... which are not assigned permanently to a subscriber
unit." Ans. 15, 43. The Examiner's Answer states the "base station of
Helmke assigns non-permanent timeslots in response to requests, and this is
substantively the same as receiving an access request on a random access
channel using a randomly selected access channel signalling ID." Id. We
disagree with the Examiner's findings.
The Examiner provides no further explanation how Helmke's use of
random access timeslots for assigning timeslots in response to requests is
the same as receiving access requests on a random access channel and using
a randomly selected access channel signaling ID. We agree with Appellants
that the claim "pertains to initial access" and "involves the use of a randomly
selected access channel signaling ID," and that Helmke, by contrast, is not
12
Appeal2013-010266
Application 12/677,438
directed towards "initial access" and "does not refer to the use of an access
channel signaling ID at all." Reply Br. 10-11.
Appellants have convinced us the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Helmke and Ji teaches or suggests "for the purpose of initial
access by an access terminal: receiving an access request on a random access
channel using a randomly selected access channel signalling ID," as recited
by claim 126.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 126. Claims
127-133 and 136 are dependent on claim 126. We do not sustain the
rejection of these claims for the reasons stated above with regard to claim
126.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 7, and 120 is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 122-133 and 136 is reversed.
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-IN-PART
13