Ex Parte Pande et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201612129932 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/129,932 05/30/2008 23494 7590 06/02/2016 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED P 0 BOX 655474, MIS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Tarkesh Pantle 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. TI-64850 2999 EXAMINER LAM, YEEF ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2465 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2016 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TARKESH P ANDE, EKO N. ONGGOSANUSI, and ANAND G. DABAK Appeal2013-010724 Application 12/129,932 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JESSICA C. KAISER, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1---62, all of the claims pending in the application. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(l). We reverse and enter a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Texas Instruments Incorporated. (Appeal Br. 1.) Appeal2013-10724 Application 12/129,932 Invention Appellants' invention concerns a downlink synchronization process by which user equipment in a cellular network initially connects with the base station of a cell in the network. Specifically, Appellants' invention relates to a transmitter at the base station transmitting according a downlink synchronization signal which includes two groups of guard subcarriers that partition a synchronization portion of the downlink synchronization signal from data portions. These guard subcarriers form a partition of a symbol into a set of subcarriers used for synchronization and another set that can be used for data. This allows front-end filtering with a relaxed design specification, large transition band, or low quality factor. (Abstract, Spec. iTiT 4, 21, 24.) Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below, with key limitations emphasized: 1. A transmitter for use with a base station in a cellular communication system, comprising: a partitioning unit configured to provide first and second groups of guard subcarriers that partition a synchronization portion from data portions in a downlink synchronization signal; and a transmit unit configured to transmit the downlink synchronization signal. REJECTIONS The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3, 14, 16, 18, 29, 31, 34, 45, 47, 50, and 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Khandekar et al. (US 2007/0147226 Al, published June 28, 2007, filed Oct. 25, 2006) ("Khandekar") and Ishii (US 200710107191, published May 8, 2008, filed 2 Appeal2013-10724 Application 12/129,932 Nov. 3, 2006). (Non-Final Action mailed July 30, 2012 (hereinafter "Non- Final Action") 3-5.) The Examiner has rejected claims 2, 6, 8-9, 17, 21, 23-24, 33, 37, 39--40, 49, 53, and 55-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Khandekar, Ishii, and Han et al. (US 2009/0219802, published Sept. 3, 2009, filed Nov. 10, 2006) ("Han"). (Non-Final Action 5-7.) The Examiner has rejected claims 4, 5, 7, 10-13, 15, 19-20, 22, 25- 28, 30, 32, 35-36, 38, 41--44, 46, 48, 51-52, 54, 57---60, and 62 under U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Khandekar and Ishii in various combinations with other references. (Non-Final Action 7-16.) ISSUE The issue raised by Appellants' arguments is: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Khandekar and Ishii teaches or suggests "first and second groups of guard subcarriers that partition a synchronization portion from data portions" as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Claims 1, 16, 31, and 47 The Examiner finds that Khandekar teaches a transmitter for use with a base station and a partitioning unit providing first and second groups of subcarriers that partition a downlink synchronization signal. (Non-Final Action 3; Answer 22-23.) Khandekar teaches the use of guard subcarriers to allow the operating bandwidth being used for transmission to vary from the fixed bandwidth in the transmission system. (Khandekar i-fi-1 43--46, 3 Appeal2013-10724 Application 12/129,932 Abstract, Fig. SB.) In Khandekar, the operating bandwidth used for transmission is in the middle of the fixed bandwidth, with guard subcarriers making up the rest of the fixed bandwidth. (Id.) The Examiner finds that the use of guard subcarriers to partition a synchronization portion from data portions is well known in the art and taught by Ishii. (Non-Final Act. 3--4; Answer 26-27.) Ishii describes the transmission of OFDM signals, including the transmission of pilot and data symbols, and the transmission of guard interval symbols being sent in time intervals between pilot symbols and data symbols. (Ishii i-fi-15-7, Fig. IA.) The Examiner finds that Ishii's partitioning in the time domain (using guard interval symbols) teaches the claimed partitioning because the claim does not specify whether the claimed partitioning is in the time domain or the frequency domain. (Answer 19-22, 24--25, and 27-29.) Appellants argue that Khandekar' s guard subcarriers are outside of the operating bandwidth. (Answer 14.) Appellants contend that the claim term "subcarriers" refers to partitioning in the frequency domain, and that Ishii' s teachings in the time domain are therefore inapposite. (Answer 14--16.) We agree with Appellants, and conclude the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term "subcarrier" consistent with the Specification as it applies here requires partitioning in the frequency domain. (Spec. i-fi-131-35, Fig. 3-5.) We observe that carriers are generally defined in the frequency domain. See WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD TELECOM DICTIONARY (2010 (defining "carrier" as ""[a] continuous signal, or waveform, at a certain frequency on a circuit, or within a certain frequency range, and that can be modulated to support an information-bearing signal"). Subcarriers are 4 Appeal2013-10724 Application 12/129,932 divisions of a carrier bandwidth. See, e.g., Han if 4 ("A basic principle of OFDM lies in dividing a high-rate data stream into a number of slow-rate data streams and transmitting the slow-rate data streams simultaneously using a plurality of carriers. In this case, each of a plurality of the carriers is called a subcarrier"); Khandekar Abstract ("The design bandwidth may be associated with K total subcarriers."). While Appellants agree that communications symbols, such as those in Ishii, exist in the time domain and in the frequency domain, Appellants note that, "a guard subcarrier, defined in the frequency domain, does not create a guard interval symbol in the time domain, .... Likewise, a guard interval symbol defined in the time domain does not create a guard subcarrier in the frequency domain." (Reply 2 (citations omitted).) We find Appellants' argument persuasive. We agree with Appellants that Ishii' s guard interval symbols are defined in the time domain, and that the guard subcarriers of claim 1 are defined in the frequency domain and that thus Ishii does not teach or suggest that guard subcarriers that partition a synchronization portion from data portions, as the Examiner finds. Accordingly, we find the combination of Khandekar and Ishii does not teach or suggest the invention recited in claim 1. However, as the Examiner finds, Han's disclosure is from an analogous field of endeavor, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Khandekar and Ishii to provide improved autocorrelation and cross-correlation properties. (Non-Final Action 10.) Han discloses inserting subcarriers within a frequency bandwidth to reduce adjacent channel interference. (Han iii! 16, 74--75, 103-107, Fig. 2, Fig. 5B, Fig. 11.) Thus, Han teaches or suggests the use of guard subcarriers to 5 Appeal2013-10724 Application 12/129,932 partition data in the frequency domain. When this teaching from Han is combined with the other teachings found by the Examiner, we find the combination of Khandekar, Ishii, and Han teaches the invention as recited in claims 1, 16, 31, and 47. Because our findings and reasoning differ from the Examiner's and the Han reference was not part of the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, we designate the cited findings and reasoning as a new ground of rejection of claim 1 and of independent claims 16, 31, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Khandekar, Ishii, and Han. Additional Rejections Claims 2-15, 17-30, 32--46, and 48---62 depend from independent claims 1, 16, 31, and 4 7. The additional references as cited in the Examiner's obviousness rejections of these claims do not cure the deficiency discussed supra with respect to the rejection of the independent claims. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of claims 2-15, 17-30, 32--46, and 48---62. We note that with respect to the rejections of dependent claims, that the Examiner has not cited, nor have Appellants addressed, the teachings of Han that we rely on above for the new ground of rejection. (Non-Final Act. 5-7, 10-12; Appeal Br. 21-26, 34; Answer 35-36, 57-59.) We further note that although we have rejected claims 1, 16, 31, and 47 under 37 C.F.R. § 41. 50(b ), we have not reviewed the remaining claims to the extent necessary to determine whether those claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We emphasize that our decision should not be interpreted to mean the remaining claims are patentable. Rather, we leave it to the Examiner to 6 Appeal2013-10724 Application 12/129,932 determine the appropriateness of any further rejections based thereon. See MPEP § 1213.02. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 14, 16, 18, 29, 31, 34, 45, 47, 50, and 61under35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable Khandekar and Ishii are reversed. The Examiner's rejections of claims 2, 6, 8-9, 17, 21, 23-24, 33, 37, 39--40, 49, 53, and 55-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable Khandekar, Ishii, and Han are reversed. The Examiner's rejections of claims 4, 5, 7, 10-13, 15, 19-20, 22, 25- 28, 30, 32, 35-36, 38, 41--44, 46, 48, 51-52, 54, 57---60, and 62 under U.S.C. 103(a)as unpatentable over Khandekar and Ishii in various combinations with other references are reversed. We enter new grounds of rejection of claims 1, 16, 31 and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (2010). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review." 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: ( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so 7 Appeal2013-10724 Application 12/129,932 rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. ... (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record .... 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). REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation