Ex Parte Ramakrishna

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2016

12749367 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016)

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.
12/749,367 03/29/2010 Sudhir Ramakrishna 2009.04.018.SR0 6917
106809 7590
Docket Clerk - SAMS
P.O. Drawer 800889
Dallas, TX 75380
12/23/2016 EXAMINER
PERSAUD, AMARNAUTH G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2016 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):
patents @ munckwilson. com
munckwilson @ gmail. com
patent, srad @ samsung.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUDHIR RAMAKRISHNA
Appeal 2016-001531
Application 12/749,367
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 41—60, which constitute all of the pending claims.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.3
1 Appellant identifies Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 4.)
2 Claims 1—40 are cancelled.
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Mar. 29, 2010 (“Spec.”), the
Final Office Action mailed Jan. 30, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief
filed June 30, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed Sept. 9,
2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Nov. 9, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-001531
Application 12/749,367
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to reducing blind decoding complexity
connected with resource allocation messages in OFDMA-based systems.
(Spec. Title, 12.) Claim 41, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
41. A method for transmitting resource allocation messages by
a base station, the method comprising:
allocating at least one sub band to a mobile station; and
transmitting, to the mobile station, a resource allocation
message comprising a mode indicator,
wherein the mode indicator indicates a number of resource
allocation messages used for indicating the at least one sub band,
wherein the number of resource allocation messages used for
indicating the at least one sub band is one or more and the
resource allocation message comprising the mode indicator is
one of the number of resource allocation messages used for
indicating the at least one sub band.
(App. Br. — Claims App’x 1.)
REJECTION
Claims 41—60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based on Mitra
(US 2013/0322353 Al, Dec. 5, 2013). (Final Act. 2-19.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 41, 46, 51, and 56
The Examiner finds that Mitra anticipates claim 41. (Final Act. 2—5.)
Appellant states that claim 41 recites a mode indicator that (i) is included in
a resource allocation message transmitted to a mobile station and (ii)
indicates a number of resource allocation messages used for indicating the at
least one sub band allocated to the mobile station in which the mode
indicator is included in “one of the number of resource allocation messages
2
Appeal 2016-001531
Application 12/749,367
used for indicating the at least one sub band.” (App. Br. 13—18.) Appellant
argues Mitra fails to disclose such a mode indicator. (Id.)
Mitra discloses control Resource Format Indicators (RFIs) used to
allocate resources on shared channels between a base station (BS) and user
equipment (UE). (Mitra, Fig. 5, 131, 132.) Mitra discloses a technique of
handling multiple resource allocations to a user equipment by receiving a
control RFI in the shared control channel 51, and using an additional field in
this shared control channel 51 to indicate the number of additional
concatenated control RFIs that are present in the resource block RBI of
shared data channel 52 so that the UE can receive and decode them. (Id.)
Importantly, although Mitra discloses its “additional field” is in the
shared control channel 51, Mitra does not disclose that such additional field
is present in any control RFI, and the claim requires that the resource
allocation message comprises the mode indicator that indicates the number
of resource allocation messages transmitted to the mobile station. Thus, we
are persuaded by Appellant’s argument, and we do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 41. We also do not sustain the rejections of
claims 46, 51, and 56, which recite similar limitations.
Remaining Claims
By virtue of their dependency from respective independent claims 41,
46, 51, and 56, we do not sustain the rejection of the remaining dependent
claims. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702
F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Remaining Arguments
Our decision on the stated basis is dispositive of this Appeal and
renders it unnecessary for us to reach Appellants’ remaining arguments.
3
Appeal 2016-001531
Application 12/749,367
Accordingly, in the interests of expediency and economic use of Board
resources, we do not reach Appellant’s remaining arguments.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 41—60 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
REVERSED
4