Ex Parte Rajkotia

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 12, 2013

10860680 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PURVA R. RAJKOTIA
____________________

Appeal 2011-002411
Application 10/860,680
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, RAMA G. ELLURU, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-002411
Application 10/860,680

2
DECISION ON APPEAL

Purva R. Rajkotia seeks relief under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 10-22.1 App. Br. 52. Claims 1-9 and
23-25 have been cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The appealed claims are directed generally to wireless networks and,
more specifically, to a wireless network that adapts coding rates in order to
maximize Walsh code usage. Spec. ¶ [001]. According to the Specification,
in code division multiple access (CDMA) systems, a user data signal (e.g.,
digitized voice, digital IP data) is modulated (or multiplied) by a particular
type of pseudo-random noise (PN) code known as a Walsh code. Spec. ¶
[002]. Multiplying the user data by the Walsh code spreads the narrow band
user data signal into a wideband, spread spectrum signal. Id. Each base
station of a CDMA wireless network uses a unique Walsh code to modulate
the forward channel data transmitted to each end-user wireless terminal (or
mobile station). Id. A CDMA mobile station is able to detect and capture
forward channel signals modulated by the unique Walsh code assigned to the
CDMA mobile station. Id.

1 Application No. 10/860,680 entitled CDMA Network and Related Method
Using Adaptive Coding Rate to Maximize Walsh Code Usage, filed June 3,
2004. App. Br. 1. The real party-in-interest is identified as Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. Id. at 3.
2 We refer to the Appeal Brief filed April 9, 2010 (“App. Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed July 09, 2010 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed
September 09, 2010 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2011-002411
Application 10/860,680

3
As the number of mobile stations handled by a base station increases,
the number of Walsh codes used increases. Id. at ¶ [005]. Likewise, as the
data rate that is being supported increases, the Walsh code usage increases.
Id. This, in turn, impacts the available number of Walsh codes. Id.
CDMA2000 adds each symbol of information to one complete Walsh code.
Id. Faster symbol rates, therefore, require shorter Walsh codes. Id. If a
short Walsh code is chosen to carry a fast data channel, however, that Walsh
code and all of its replicative descendants are compromised and cannot be
reused to carry other signals. Id.
Therefore, the supply of available Walsh codes in a base station sector
diminishes greatly when a fast Supplemental Channel is used to transmit
packet data. Id. at ¶ [009]. Thus, higher data rates may be increased only at
the expense of the number of free Walsh codes, and vice versa. Id. As a
result, there may be times when the available Walsh codes are depleted, but
the system has not reached its peak in terms of power usage. Id.
The Specification, thus, recognizes a need in the art for an improved
CDMA2000 wireless network that manages Walsh codes more effectively.
Id. at ¶ [010].
Claim 10, set forth below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal and is reproduced below:
10. A wireless network comprising a plurality of base
stations configured to communicate with a plurality of mobile
stations in a coverage area of the wireless network,

wherein a first one of said plurality of base stations is
configured to adapt a coding rate of user data being transmitted
to a first mobile station in a forward channel in order to
maximize the number of Walsh codes available for use in said
first base station, and
Appeal 2011-002411
Application 10/860,680

4
wherein said base station is further configured to adapt
the coding rate of user data being transmitted while maintaining
a Walsh code length.

The Examiner relies upon the following evidence of unpatentability:
Kong US 2003/0128674 A1 July 10, 2003
Mantha US 6,952,589 B1 Oct. 04, 2005
(filed Nov. 28, 2000)

The Rejected Claims
Claims 10-22 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as they would
have been obvious over the combined teachings of Kong and Mantha. Ans.
4.
The Issue Presented
The issue before us on appeal is whether the cited prior art teaches or
suggests the claimed “wherein said base station is further configured to
adapt the coding rate of user data being transmitted while maintaining a
Walsh code length” (claim 10).

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Rejection of Claim 10
Appellant argues that Kong does not teach the claim limitation
“wherein said base station is further configured to adapt the coding rate of
user data being transmitted while maintaining a Walsh code length” (claim
10, emphasis added) and further that Kong teaches away from this
limitation.
The Examiner equates Kong’s disclosure of “orthogonal codes” with
the claimed “Walsh codes” and finds that Kong teaches the claim limitation
at issue. Referring to King, the Examiner states:
Appeal 2011-002411
Application 10/860,680

5
The present embodiment [of King] assumes that coding rate and
the length of the corresponding orthogonal (Walsh) codes are
simultaneously changed in accordance with the channel
environment. However, it is also possible to independently
change the coding rate and the length of the orthogonal code.
Ans. 5 (emphasis added); see Kong, ¶ [0108].
Appellant argues that the italicized sentence in the cited disclosure
states that both the coding rate and the length of the orthogonal code are
changed. App. Br. 14. According to Appellant, the Examiner’s
interpretation of “independently” as “only” is incorrect. Reply Br. 3.
Appellant contends that just because the change in the orthogonal code
length is not dependent on the change in the coding rate date does not mean
that the orthogonal code length is not changed. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 3.
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner explains that the
cited disclosure is interpreted as stating that “in contrast to simultaneously
changing the coding rate and the code length,” Kong teaches that it is also
possible to “independently change the coding rate and the length of the
orthogonal code.” Ans. 9. The Examiner provides the following example to
further explain the applied reasoning:
For example, parameter A and parameter B change at
time T1 simultaneously. On the other hand, parameter A
changes at time T1 while parameter B independently changes
at time T2, where during the time differen[ce] between T1
and T2, parameter B is maintained.
Ans. 9. The Examiner explains that, as long as both the code rate and the
code length do not simultaneously change, it is possible that the code rate
changes while the length is maintained for a certain period of time before the
code length changes independently of the changes in the code rate. Id. We
Appeal 2011-002411
Application 10/860,680

6
determine that the Examiner’s interpretation of Kong is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Appellant focuses on Kong’s statement that “it is also possible to
independently change the code rate and the length of the orthogonal code” in
isolation. Id. Read properly with due consideration to context, however,
that portion of Kong teaches a person of ordinary skill that the “coding rate”
and “length of the orthogonal code” do not have to be changed
“simultaneously,” but, by contrast, may be changed “independently.” In
other words, the “coding rate” and “length of the orthogonal code” may be
changed independently with respect to time of change. Thus, as the
Examiner explains, because the two parameters may be changed at different
times, whereby one parameter remains unchanged (i.e., coding length) while
the other parameter is changed (i.e., coding rate), Kong teaches adapting the
coding rate while maintaining a code length, as required by claim 10. While
Kong states that it is possible to “independently change the coding rate and
the length of the orthogonal code,” as opposed to “or” as Appellant points
out (App. Br. 15), the Examiner’s interpretation of “and” as encompassing
“or,” when viewed in the context of Kong’s disclosure, is supported by the
disclosure.
Appellant also refers to the following sentence from Kong in arguing
that that the orthogonal code length is indeed changed: “Furthermore, the
present embodiment assigns the longer orthogonal code when the coding
rate is increased (e.g., from 1/6 to 1/3), and assigns the shorter orthogonal
code when the coding rate is decreased (e.g., from 1/3 to 1/6).” App. Br. 14.
While this sentence states that the length of orthogonal code is changed in
relation to changes in the coding rate, it does not speak to when the coding
Appeal 2011-002411
Application 10/860,680

7
length is changed. Thus, this sentence does not contradict the Examiner’s
interpretation.
Referring to the aforementioned embodiment in the preceding
paragraph, Appellant also argues that Kong teaches away from the claim
limitation at issue. App. Br. 15. “A reference may be said to teach away
when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led
in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re
Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). However, the mere disclosure of
an alternative embodiment does not teach away from the disclosed
embodiment. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The
prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a
teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does
not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed . . . .”).
Here, the embodiment referenced by Appellant teaches that the orthogonal
code length is changed based on the applicable coding rate, but it does not
teach that both parameters are changed simultaneously. Furthermore, even
if this particular embodiment is interpreted as teaching that both coding rate
and coding length are changed simultaneously, the embodiment does not
“criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” a person of ordinary skill from
“adapt[ing] the coding rate of user data being transmitted while maintaining
a Walsh code length,” as recited by claim 10.
In sum, we determine, that the rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable
over the cited references is supported by a preponderance of evidence.

Appeal 2011-002411
Application 10/860,680

8
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Rejection of Claims 11-22
Appellant asserts the same arguments made with respect to claim 10
for claims 11-22. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 4. Thus, for the reasons discussed
above with respect to claim 10, we determine that the rejection of claims 11-
22 is supported by a preponderance of evidence.

DECISION
We affirm the rejection of:
Claims 10-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combination of Kong and Mantha.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

peb