Ex Parte SHOR et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2019

14899137 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/899,137 12/17/2015
34814 7590 01/31/2019
NXP-LARSON NEWMAN, LLP
6501 William Cannon Drive West
Austin, TX 78735
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Roy SHOR
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.
DN30615EH 6411
EXAMINER
OH, ANDREW CHUNG SUK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2019 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROY SHOR, ORI GOREN, A VRAHAM HORN,
YAEL KARIL, and SHAY SHPRITZ 1
Appeal2018-006497
Application 14/899, 137
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-18, which are all the claims pending in this
application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is NXP
Semiconductors. App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 12 and 19 have been canceled. Amendment filed July 14, 2017;
Amendment filed December 17, 2015.
Appeal2018-006497
Application 14/899, 137
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' application relates to data streaming in a base station in a
mobile communication system. Spec. 1:6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of interfacing in a base station in a mobile
communication system, the base station comprising radio units
and at least one controller unit for controlling the radio units,
different types of the radio units including at least one radio
equipment unit coupled to at least one antenna and at least one
radio equipment controller unit for controlling the radio
equipment unit, the radio units having a common public radio
interface for streaming data samples and control data arranged in
lanes corresponding to antenna signals and a serial interface for
transferring packets separate from the common public radio
interface, the method comprising:
transferring, between a first radio unit and a further unit,
selected control data arranged in packets via the serial interface,
the selected control data corresponding to control data streamed
between the first radio unit and a preceding radio unit via the
common public radio interface;
in the first radio unit, arranging in packets the selected
control data to be transmitted via the serial interface to the further
unit, bypassing processing of the control data in the first radio
unit;
receiving an interrupt packet by an interrupt unit in the
first radio unit or the further unit, the interrupt unit triggering
further processing of the selected control data upon receipt of the
interrupt packet; and
in the further unit, processing the selected control data
arranged in packets received via the serial interface.
2
Appeal2018-006497
Application 14/899, 137
The Examiner's Rejections 3
Claims 1 and 3 stand provisionally rejected under the non-statutory
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1, 3, 11, and 12
of US App. No. 14/899,132 in view of Sakama (US 2008/0089689 Al; Apr.
17,2008). 4
Claims 1, 3, 14, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Evans et al. (US 2012/0057572 Al; Mar. 8, 2012),
Sakama, and Murphy et al. (US 2011/0050618 Al; Mar. 3, 2011).
Claims 2, 4, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Evans, Sakama, Murphy, and Take (US 2013/0051329;
Feb. 28, 2013).
Claims 5 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Evans, Sakama, Murphy, and Shih et al. (US
2007/0143579 Al; Jun. 21, 2007).
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Evans, Sakama, Murphy, and Kashyap (US 2009/0016217
Al; Jan. 15, 2009).
3 The Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) has been withdrawn
and is therefore not before us on appeal. Ans. 2.
4 Although the Final Action from which Appellants appeal identifies
"copending Application No. 14899137" as the basis for the double patenting
rejection, this is clearly a mistake. See Final Act. dated Oct. 11, 2017, at 4.
Appellants acknowledge that it is US App. No. 14/899,132 that is the basis
for the rejection (see App. Br. 3), and an earlier Non-Final Action names the
'132 application in rejecting claims 1 and 3. Non-Final Act., dated May 11,
2017,at3.
3
Appeal2018-006497
Application 14/899, 137
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Evans, Sakama, Murphy, Kashyap, and Eiriksson (US
7,831,745 Bl; Nov. 9, 2010).
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Evans, Sakama, Murphy, and Abdelilah et al. (US
2005/0188129 Al; Aug. 25, 2005).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Evans, Sakama, Murphy, and Singh et al. (US
2012/0151537 Al; Jun. 14, 2012).
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Evans, Sakama, Murphy, and Rawlings et al. (US
4,200,930; Apr. 29, 1980).
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Evans, Sakama, Murphy, and Kelleher et al. (US
2011/0164624 Al; Jul. 7, 2011).
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejections
The Examiner finds the combination of Evans, Sakama, and Murphy
discloses all the limitations of claim 1, including that Evans teaches "the
radio units having a common public radio interface for streaming data
samples and control data ... and a serial interface for transferring packets
separate from the common public radio interface" and "transferring, between
a first radio unit and a further unit ... , selected control data arranged in
packets via the serial interface ... , the selected control data corresponding
to control data streamed between the first radio unit and a preceding radio
4
Appeal2018-006497
Application 14/899, 137
unit via the common public radio interface." Final Act. 7-9. Appellants
contend "Claim 1 recites two interfaces: a common public radio equipment
interface (CPRI) for streaming data samples and a serial interface for
transferring packets," but "Evans et al. only shows streaming data samples
between radio units using CPRI." App. Br. 10. Appellants have persuaded
us of Examiner error.
Claim 1 recites both "a common public radio interface" and "a serial
interface ... separate from the common public radio interface" for each
radio unit in a base station in a method that includes "transferring, between a
first radio unit and a further unit, selected control data arranged in packets
via the serial interface, the selected control data corresponding to control
data streamed between the first radio unit and a preceding radio unit via the
common public radio interface." Thus, claim 1 requires the "first radio unit"
to include two different interfaces-the "common public radio interface"
and the "serial interface"-because the different language used to introduce
the respective interfaces in claim 1, as well as the related description in the
Specification, indicate that the "common public radio interface" and the
"serial interface" are different interfaces. For example, the Specification
provides the following:
The connection for data samples and control data between the
RE and REC can be through the streaming CPRI interface.
Separate controllers may be added to such a chain and may be
coupled via a further serial interface. For example, a separate
controller may further be connected to the primary REC through
a serial interface for transferring control data in packets, such as
the high speed serial Rapid Input Output (sRIO) interface. Radio
equipment units (RE) and further REC units may be chained, and
may also have the additional serial interface separate from the
CPRI. It is noted that although CPR! and sRIO are used as
5
Appeal2018-006497
Application 14/899, 137
examples for elucidating the proposed system below having both
a streaming interface and a separate packet based serial
interface, other data streaming interfaces and/or packet based
serial interfaces may also be used. For example PCI Express is
a well known example of such a packet based serial interface.
Spec. 3 :21-31 ( emphasis added).
The Examiner cites Evans' s "serial data link 26" shown in Figure 2
for disclosing the claimed "common public radio interface" and "serial
interface." See Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 18-19. As shown in Evans's Figure 2,
link 26 is actually comprised of two links, 26-1 and 26-2, both of which
connect to RE 24-1. Evans ,r 51; Fig. 2. The Examiner, however, has not
shown that Evans describes RE 24-1 as having two different interfaces for
connecting to links 26-1 and 26-2. Rather, Evans describes link 26 in
general as comporting with the CPRI specification, the OBSAI specification,
or another proprietary specification. See Evans ,r 4 7. Evans does not
describe links 26-1 and 26-2 that comprise link 26 as comporting with
different specifications from one another, and thus does not teach the claim 1
limitations of a "common public radio interface" and a "serial interface."
Therefore, Appellants' argument that Evans fails to teach the two differently
claimed interfaces is persuasive. See App. Br. 10.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claim 3 which recites
commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2, 4--11, and 13-18 for the
same reasons.
6
Appeal2018-006497
Application 14/899, 137
The Provisional Double Patenting Rejection
Appellants filed a terminal disclaimer on November 3, 2017.
Accordingly, we do not address the merits of the provisional double
patenting rejection, but rather leave it to the Examiner to withdraw the
rejection. See MANUAL OF p ATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
§ 804.I.B.1.(b)(ii) (9th ed. 2018) ("If both applications are ... entitled to the
same earliest effective filing date ... the provisional nonstatutory double
patenting rejection made in each application should be maintained until the
rejection is overcome. Applicant can overcome a provisional nonstatutory
double patenting rejection in an application by ... filing a terminal
disclaimer in the pending application.").
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11 and 13-18
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a), and we make no findings or conclusions regarding
the provisional double patenting rejection.
REVERSED
7