Ex Parte Rai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2013

10717065 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2013)

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.
10/717,065 11/19/2003 Vikram Rai 4-2 7231
7590 02/28/2013
DAVID GASKEY
400 W. MAPLE RD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
CHO, UN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2413
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte VIKRAM RAI and RUI ADELINO SILVA
__________

Appeal 2010-008506
Application 10/717,065
Technology Center 2400
___________

Before JAMESON LEE, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and TRENTON A.
WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-15. The real party in interest is Lucent
Technologies Inc. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2010-008506
Application 10/717,065
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Applied Prior Art
Lee US 2001/0021180 A1 Sept. 13, 2001
Sindhushayana US 2006/0114910 A1 May 22, 2001

Admitted Prior Art Spec. 2:13-22, 3:4-10

The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-10, 13, and 14 were finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee and Sindhushayana.
Claims 3, 7, 11, and 15 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lee, Sindhushayana, and the Admitted Prior Art
(“APA”).
The Invention
The claimed invention is directed to a method of arranging a
permanent virtual pipe on a communication channel that facilitates a unique
manner of scheduling data bursts on that channel. (Spec. 5:11-21).
Appellants’ independent claims require that the method provide a permanent
virtual pipe comprising a plurality of different width virtual pipes and at
least one burst segment of each data burst is scheduled on the widest of the
pipes. (See Claims 1, 8). Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below, with
certain limitations emphasized:
1. A method at a base station in a code division multiple
access wireless network that transmits data bursts on a high-
speed forward channel, the method comprising the steps of:
providing at least one permanent virtual pipe comprising
a plurality of different width virtual pipes on the high-speed
forward channel for transmission of the data bursts, at least one
of the plurality of different width permanent virtual pipes being
wider than another of the virtual pipes;
Appeal 2010-008506
Application 10/717,065
3

scheduling transmission of burst segments of the data
bursts on the at least one permanent virtual pipe in a round-
robin manner among different data bursts, at least one burst
segment of each data burst being scheduled for transmission on
the widest virtual pipe; and
transmitting the burst segments on the at least one virtual
pipe in accordance with the scheduling.

DISCUSSION
A. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims
1, 2, 5, 6, 8 -10, 13, and 14 over Lee and Sindhushayana

We focus on the arguments raised by Appellants. Arguments not
raised are considered as waived.
The Examiner determined that Lee discloses all of Appellants’
claimed invention, including a wireless network that transmits data bursts on
a high-speed forward channel, except that Lee does not specifically disclose:
(1) a plurality of different width virtual pipes on the high-speed forward
channel for transmission of data bursts, (2) at least one of the plurality of
different width permanent virtual pipes being wider than another of the
virtual pipes, and (3) at least one burst segment of each data burst being
scheduled for transmission on the widest virtual pipe. (Ans. 4:3-7). The
Examiner cited Sindhushayana for teaching these features. (Ans. 4:7-22).
Appellants disagree and argue that Sindhushayana fails to remedy the
deficiencies of Lee on two grounds.
First, Appellants argue that Sindhushayana provides different data
rates but does not provide different width virtual pipes. (Brief 4:11-15).
Appellants argue that providing different data rates at different times is not
the same thing as providing a permanent virtual pipe comprising many pipes
of different widths. (Brief 4:17-20).
Appeal 2010-008506
Application 10/717,065
4

Appellants’ argument is contrary to the disclosure in the Specification.
The Examiner finds that Appellants’ Specification states that the widths of
the virtual pipes are represented as 2X, 4X, 8X, 16X, which correspond to
different data rates, 19.2kbps, 38.4 kbps, 76.8 kbps, and 153.6 kbps,
respectively. (Spec. 1:15-18). Additionally, Appellants’ Specification
equates “width” with data rate by stating that “[v]irtual pipes that are 8X and
4X wide are also generally provisioned.” (Spec. 5:20-21) (emphasis added).
Furthermore, Appellants’ claim 6 expressly states that “virtual pipes are
provided at widths chosen from among: 19.2 kbps, 38.4 kbps, 76.8 kbps and
153.6 kbps.” (Claim 6 (emphasis added)). Thus, Appellants equate a
particular width pipe with a particular data rate. In other words, the widest
virtual pipe is the fastest virtual pipe. We see no reason why the disclosure
in Sindhushayana regarding different data rates should not be regarded as
setting forth “different width virtual pipes” as recited in independent claims
1 and 8.
Second, Appellants argue that Sindhushayana does not teach having at
least one burst segment of each data burst scheduled on a widest virtual pipe,
as required by independent claims 1 and 8. (Brief 4:21-22). The Examiner
concludes that Sindhushayana teaches that claim limitation by teaching a
“scheduling algorithm [that] determines which remote station will be the
recipient of the next packet [], in accordance with an optimal forward link
throughput level.” (Ans. 4:15-17 (citing Sindhushayana, ¶[0044-
45])(emphasis in original)). Although Sindhushayana does describe a
scheduling algorithm, we agree with Appellants that Sindhushayana fails to
teach that “at least one burst segment of each data burst being scheduled for
transmission on the widest virtual pipe,” as required by independent claims 1
and 8. The base stations executing the scheduling algorithm in
Appeal 2010-008506
Application 10/717,065
5

Sindhushayana seek to achieve “optimal forward link throughput” by
monitoring the arrival of Data Rate Control Messages (“DRCs”) from
remote stations that estimate the best data rate at which the remote station
can receive the next data packet. (See Sindhushayana, ¶[0043-44]).
Sindhushayana describes that when the signal-to-noise-and-interference ratio
for a forward link data pipe is not favorable, the remote station can “transmit
a DRC message requesting a low data rate packet.” (See Sindhushayana,
¶[0043, 0047]).
While the disclosure in Sindhushayana teaches scheduling the rate of
transmission to the remote station, Sindhushayana does not teach scheduling
transmission of burst segments so that “at least one burst segment of each
data burst” is scheduled for “transmission on the widest virtual pipe,” as
required by independent claims 1 and 8.
Independent claims 1 and 8 require that at least one burst segment of
each data burst be scheduled on the widest, i.e. fastest, virtual pipe. Figure 7
of Appellants’ Specification, reproduced below, shows an example of
scheduling at least one a burst segment on the fastest pipe, the 16X virtual
pipe 701. (Spec. 20:17-18).
Appeal 2010-008506
Application 10/717,065
6

Figure 7 shows an embodiment of Appellants’ claimed invention.

Appellants’ Specification discloses that for the embodiment shown above in
Figure 7, five simultaneous data bursts, labeled A, B, C, D, and E, are
received at the base station for forwarding to mobile terminals. (Spec.
20:17-20). The claimed invention requires that at least one burst segment
(A1, B1, C1, D1, and E1) be scheduled on the widest pipe, 16X virtual pipe
701, and other burst segments can be scheduled onto the 8X virtual pipe 702
and the 4X virtual pipe 703. (Spec. 20:20 – 21:3). The scheduling
algorithm disclosed in Sindhushayana fails to teach the transmission method
shown in Appellants’ Figure 7 above, and required by independent claims 1
and 8, in which at least one burst segment from every data burst is scheduled
for transmission on the widest pipe.
Appeal 2010-008506
Application 10/717,065
7

We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1 and 8, and claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 which
dependent therefrom, as obvious over Lee and Sindhushayana.

B. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 3, 7, 11, and 15 over Lee,
Sindhushayana, and APA

The Examiner rejects dependent claims 3, 7, 11, and 15 under
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee, Sindhushayana, and APA. Since the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections do not address the deficiencies of
Sindhushayana noted above regarding independent claims 1 and 8, we will
reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 3, 7, 11, and 15, which depend
from claims 1 and 8, for similar reasons.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-15 is
reversed.

REVERSED

rwk