Ex Parte Raaf

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

13119502 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/119,502 03/17/2011
10948 7590 10/03/2016
Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC
4 Research Drive, Suite 202
Shelton, CT 06484
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bernhard Raaf
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.
800.1667.Ul(US) 2018
EXAMINER
HO,CHUONGT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2412
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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@hspatent.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERNHARD RAAP
Appeal2015-004617
Application 13/119,502
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, and 11-13. Claims 2 and
4 have been canceled. See Br. 12; Final Act. 1-2. 1 The Examiner indicates
claims 6-10 include allowable subject matter. Final Act. 7. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 We refer to Appellant's Specification ("Spec.") filed Mar. 17, 2011
(claiming benefit of PCT/EP2008/062508 filed Sept. 19, 2008); Appeal
Brief ("App. Br,") filed Oct. 20, 2014; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed
Feb. 20, 2015. We also refer to the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed
Feb. 4, 2015, and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) ("Final Act.") mailed
Apr. 29, 2014.
Appeal2015-004617
Application 13/119,502
Appellant's Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns network elements in a
wireless (cellular) communication system - specifically, relay nodes and
methods of operating relay nodes. The method utilizes a relay node to
switch between transmitting signals during a first state and receiving signals
during a (different) second state within a single subframe of a
communication. (Spec. 1 :8-11; 2: 18-11 :26; Abstract.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 11, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
11. A method, comprising:
switching, with a relay node, between a first state and a
second state different to the first state within a single multicast-
broadcast single frequency network subframe of a
communication in a communication network comprising
receiving signals during the second state, and transmitting
signals during the jzrst state, and
wherein the relay node comprises: a transmitting unit; and
a receiving unit, wherein the first state is a transmitting state in
which the relay node transmits signals by using the transmitting
unit; and wherein the second state is a receiving state in which
the relay node receives signals by using the receiving unit.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 5, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 2008/0186950 Al;
published Aug. 7, 2008) ("Zhu"), Bhattad et al. (US 2010/0008282 Al;
published Jan. 14, 2010 (filed July 8, 2009, claiming benefit of US
61/080,025, filed July 11, 2008)) ("Bhattad"), and Stanwood et al. (US
2
Appeal2015-004617
Application 13/119,502
2013/0114546 Al; published May 9, 2013 (filed Dec. 27, 2012, claiming
benefit of US 11/683,314, filed Mar. 7, 2007)) ("Stanwood").
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellant's
contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the dispositive
issue before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of Zhu,
Bhattad, and Stanwood would have collectively taught or suggested
"switching ... between a first state and a second state ... within a single ...
subframe of a communication ... comprising receiving signals during the
second state, and transmitting signals during the first state" within the
meaning of Appellant's claim 11 and the commensurate limitations of claim
1?
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that Zhu, Bhattad, and Stanwood do not teach the
disputed features of independent claim 11. See App. Br. 4---6; Reply Br. 2-5.
Specifically, Appellant contends that "[a]s clearly shown in Figure 4 of Zhu
the guard time of a symbol 408 is the last symbol of the DL subframe 204
and the switched to transmitting mode is not performed in the same DL
subframe 204" (App. Br. 6 (emphasis omitted)) and that "[i]n view of at
least Figure 4 of Zhu ... the different mode switched to using the guard time
of a symbol 408 of DL subframe 204 is actually performed in the subsequent
UL subframe 205, and not performed within the same single subframe (App.
Br. 6 (emphasis omitted)).
3
Appeal2015-004617
Application 13/119,502
Appellant persuades us of error in the obviousness rejection of claim
11 for the reasons set forth by Appellant (supra). Appellant's claim 11
requires switching between a first transmitting state and a second receiving
state within a single communication (signal) subframe. While we agree with
the Examiner, and it is uncontested, that Zhu teaches "schedule[ing] a guard
time of a symbol 408 during the DL subframe 204 for the RS 104 to switch
from transmitting mode to receiving mode" (Zhu i-f 32) (see Zhu Fig. 4; Final
Act. 3), Zhu does not actually describe switching from transmitting to
receiving mode in a single subframe as maintained by the Examiner.
Further, the Examiner fails to address Appellant's express contentions (see
App. Br. 5---6) in the Examiner's Answer (see Ans. 8-9), other than to cite to
portions of Appellant's Specification and Figure 5.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Zhu, Bhattad, and Stanwood teach the
disputed limitations of Appellant's claim 11. Independent claim 1 includes
limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 3, 5, 12 and 13 depend on
claims, 1 and 11, respectively. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's
obviousness rejections of claims 1, 3, 5, and 11-13 over Zhu, Bhattad, and
Stanwood.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3,
5, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
4
Appeal2015-004617
Application 13/119,502
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 5, and 11-13.
REVERSED
5