14033161 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2018)

Ex Parte STADELMEIER et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 19, 2018

14033161 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/033,161 09/20/2013 Lothar STADELMEIER 22850 7590 10/23/2018 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 1940 DUKE STREET ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 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. 420758US8XCONT 9356 EXAMINER FOTAKIS, ARISTOCRATIS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2633 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/23/2018 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): patentdocket@oblon.com OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM iahmadi@oblon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LOTHAR STADELMEIER, MARKUS ZUMKELLER, ANDREAS SCHWAGER, STEPHEN TIEDEMANN, and GRALF GAEDEKEN Appeal2017-002018 Application 14/033,161 1 Technology Center 2600 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 8, 9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19-21, and 24--33,2 all of the pending claims on appeal. See Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). Oral arguments were heard on October 9, 2018. A transcript of that hearing will be added to the record in due time. We REVERSE. 1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Sony Deutschland GmbH. See Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 1-7, 10, 12, 16, 18, 22, and 23 are cancelled. See Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2017-002018 Application 14/033,161 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Invention Appellants' invention relates to a preamble used in a bi-directional burst-oriented digital communication systems. "Combining the channel equalization and signaling information in the same section of the preamble significantly shortens the overall preamble length." Spec. 6:6-7, 1:22. 3 Exemplary Claim Claims 8, 14, 20, and 32 are independent. Claim 8 is illustrative and is reproduced below with the dispositive disputed limitation (the "disputed limitation") italicized: 8. An electronic device, comprising: preamble circuitry configured to generate a preamble part by merging, into a single section of the preamble part, symbols of a channel estimation pattern with signaling data, the symbols mapped onto every nth frequency subcarrier, n being more than one, and the signaling data mapped onto frequency subcarriers that are between the nth frequency subcarriers such that the preamble part is shortened, and OFDM ( orthogonal frequency division multiplexed) modulate the preamble part to generate a modulated preamble part; payload data circuitry configured to OFDM modulate a payload data part to generate a modulated payload data part; 3 Our Decision refers to: (1) Appellants' Specification filed September 20, 2013 ("Spec."); (2) the Final Office Action mailed November 6, 2015 ("Final Act."); (3) the Appeal Brief filed April 4, 2016 ("Appeal Br."); (4) the Examiner's Answer mailed September 29, 2016 ("Ans."); and (5) the Reply Brief filed November 29, 2015 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appeal2017-002018 Application 14/033,161 combination circuitry configured to combine the modulated preamble part and the modulated payload data part to generate an OFDM burst; and an interface configured to wirelessly transmit the OFDM burst to a receiver such that portions of the merged signaling data and channel estimation pattern are wirelessly transmitted at a same time, wherein the symbols of the channel estimation pattern are known by the receiver prior to transmission of the OFDM burst, the receiver uses the symbols of the channel estimation pattern for channel estimation, and the signaling data includes medium access control timing information. Appeal Br. 18. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal includes: Ma et al. ("Ma") Simmonds Scarpa Boer et al. ("Boer") Aoki et al. ("Aoki") McNamara et al. ("McNamara") US 2002/0041635 Al US 2003/0215021 Al US 2004/0001563 Al US 2004/0101035 Al US 2005/0201268 Al US 2005/0249244 Al REJECTIONS Apr. 11, 2002 Nov. 20, 2003 Jan. 1,2004 May 27, 2004 Sept. 15, 2005 Nov. 10, 2005 Claims 8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 24--33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Scarpa, Boer, McNamara, Ma, and Aoki. Final Act. 3-7. 3 Appeal2017-002018 Application 14/033,161 Claims 9, 15, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Scarpa, Boer, McNamara, Ma, Aoki, and Simmonds. Final Act. 7-8. Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(1)(iv)(2015). ISSUE Based on Appellants' arguments, the dispositive issue presented on appeal is whether the Examiner errs in finding that the combination of Scarpa, Boer, McNamara, Ma, and Aoki teaches or suggests "generat[ing] a preamble part by merging, into a single section of the preamble part, symbols of a channel estimation pattern with signaling data," as recited in claim 8. CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS In support of the rejection of claim 8, the Examiner finds Scarpa's discussion of merging "pilot symbols (shaded portions of#236, Fig.2) with signaling data (unshaded portions of #236, Fig.2)," in combination with Boer, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Scarpa Fig. 2, Boer ,r 32). Namely, the Examiner finds Scarpa teaches that the binary phase shift key ("BPSK") "signal field of Scarpa in Figure 2 is the merge of four pilot symbols with the signaling data symbols as shown in #236 of Figure 2," and the pilots symbols can be a channel estimation pattern of the Signal Field used for channel estimation as taught by Boer. Ans. 3. 4 Appeal2017-002018 Application 14/033,161 Appellants argue "BPSK signal field 236 is not a part of preamble 234" and so Scarpa's BPSK signal field 236 cannot be relied on to teach generating a preamble part by merging, into a single section of the preamble part, as claimed. Appeal Br. 10, emphasis omitted. We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. The Examiner does not, on the record before us, show that Scarpa's BPSK signal field 236 teaches or suggests the claimed "generating a preamble part." See Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 2-8. Scarpa's Figure 2, relied upon by the Examiner to reject the disputed limitation, is reproduced below with additional markings: N N ------------------Â· ..... u c~~S::~Â·Â·--J ___ ,==-=-~----_:::::::~:j ::::::::::_-____ -___ -__ Time --......... ,,............................. . ........ ,'S... .... ,, .â€¢â€¢.. .-1'-., ................................... , ................. ~~ ..................... - 214 216 236 238 214-sliort pilot symbols 2'!6-!orig pilot S)'IT1bo!s 234-preamble 236-BPSK signal field 238-data field 236. 238 include oi!ot data 234 Ffg. 2 !signaling data {unshaded)! 5 Appeal2017-002018 Application 14/033,161 Figure 2 of Scarpa above shows a frequency versus time graph of an 802.1 la wireless signal that uses burst Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing ("OFDM"). As shown in Scarpa's Figure 2, "the illustrated burst OFDM signal includes a preamble 234 that includes two sections 214, 216." Scarpa ,r 35. "The preamble is followed by the BPSK signal field 236 []. This field is followed by the data field, section 238." Scarpa ,r 38. Both Scarpa's Figure 2 and Scarpa's related text indicate that preamble 234 is only comprised of two sections, i.e., sections 214,216. In response to Appellants' argument that BPSK signal field 236 is not a part of preamble 234, the Examiner finds Appellants' Specification describes the preamble as including three distinct parts. Ans. 6 ( citing Spec. ,r 6). The Examiner justifies the finding that Scarpa's preamble includes sections 214, 216, and 23 6 as consistent with Appellants' description of the preamble in the Specification. Ans. 6-7. Appellants argue the Examiner's interpretation of "preamble" is based on Appellants' background description of the prior art and not on Appellants' invention and so is inconsistent with Appellants' description of the invention in the Specification and as recited in the claim. Reply Br. 6-7 ( citing Spec. ,r 6). Appellants' argument are persuasive. The Examiner does not show the interpretation of the term "preamble"-as comprising three distinct parts-is consistent with the Specification's description of Appellants' claimed invention. We, therefore, do not agree with the Examiner's finding that BPSK signal field 236 teaches or suggests merging signals into a single section of the preamble is supported by substantial evidence. 6 Appeal2017-002018 Application 14/033,161 Accordingly, the Examiner has not shown how Scarpa, alone or in combination with the other cited references, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation, as claimed. Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellants for claim 8, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other contentions. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claim 8. We also do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 14, 20, and 32, which recite limitations commensurate in scope with claim 8. We, likewise, do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19, 21, and 24--31, and 33. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 8, 9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19-21, and 24--33. REVERSED 7