Ex Parte Van Zelst et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

13186047 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2017)

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.
13/186,047 07/19/2011 Albert Van Zelst 102449 3542
15055 7590 06/02/2017
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
RIVAS, SALVADOR E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2017 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):
qu alcomm @ pattersonsheridan .com
PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALBERT VAN ZELST, VINCENT KNOWLES JONES IV,
and HEMANTH SAMPATH
Appeal 2017-004150
Application 13/186,047
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-004150
Application 13/186,047
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—46, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to “ordering sub-fields
within Signal (SIG) fields of a preamble in Very High Throughput (VHT)
wireless communications systems” (Abstract).
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for wireless communications, comprising:
using a Signal (SIG) field with a first portion followed by
a second portion, wherein a plurality of sub-fields of the SIG
field are allocated between the first and second portions by
ordering a first group of the sub-fields common for a Single User
(SU) mode and a Multi User (MU) mode to be transmitted before
a second group of the sub-fields not common for the SU and MU
modes, wherein the first portion comprises a group ID sub-field;
and
transmitting the SIG field within a preamble.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
2
Appeal 2017-004150
Application 13/186,047
Broadcom 802.11 ac Preamble Proposal Nov. 4, 2009
Lee 802.1 lac Preamble for VHT auto­
detection
May 10, 2010
Stacey IEEE P802.ll Wireless LANs
Specification Framework for TGac
July 15,2010
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1—6, 8—17, 19—28, and 30-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Stacey. Final Act. 3.1
Claim 46 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee, in view of Stacey and Broadcom. Final Act. 22.
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding motivation
to combine Lee and Stacey.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to employ the function
for SU bit allocations and MU bit allocations (e.g.: Group ID
and STS fields) within VHT-SIG-A fields as taught by Stacey’s
IEEE document within the 802.11 a/n devices that exchange
packets with preambles comprising of a VHT-SIG-A 1 and a
VHT-SIG-A2 as taught by Il-Gu Lee et al. for the purpose of
enhancing a VHT-SIG-A format
1 The rejection of claims 7, 18, and 29 is withdrawn in the Answer. See
Answer 2.
3
Appeal 2017-004150
Application 13/186,047
(Final Act. 5, emphasis added). This finding is repeated in the Advisory
Action (Advisory Act. 3) and Answer (Ans. 4).
Appellants argue that “the Examiner’s reasons for why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would combine Lee and Stacey are insufficient to
support a finding of obviousness” (App. Br. 9, citing MPEP § 2143).
Appellants contend “the Examiner has failed to provide any explanation of
how allegedly employing the function for SU bit allocations and MU bit
allocations taught in Stacey into preambles comprising a VHT-SIG-A as
taught in Lee would enhance a VHT-SIG-A format at all” (App. Br. 10).
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner does not provide any
findings that illuminate the Examiner’s meaning of “for the purpose of
enhancing a VHT-SIG-A format” as a motivation to combine the references.
The cited portions of the references do not appear to explain a format
enhancement; for example, Lee’s “[proposal” states that “VHT-SIGA1
gives certainty” to some devices, whereas “VHT-SIGA2 gives uncertainty”
to some devices. See Lee at Slide 7. Thus, the Examiner’s motivation to
combine appears to be a “conclusory statement[]” insufficient to establish
obviousness. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(citing In re Kahn, 441 F3d 977,988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)).
Thus, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1, independent claims 12, 23, 34, and 35
commensurate in scope, and dependent claims 2—6, 8—11, 13—17, 19—22, 24—
28, 30-33, and 36-A6.
4
Appeal 2017-004150
Application 13/186,047
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding adequate motivation to combine Lee
and Stacey.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—6, 8—17, 19—28, and 30-
46 is reversed.
REVERSED
5