Ex Parte Vermani et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 22, 201812422145 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/422,145 04/10/2009 15055 7590 08/24/2018 Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P. Qualcomm 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77046 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sameer Vermani 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. 082201US 6022 EXAMINER ESMAEILIAN, MAJID ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2477 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/24/2018 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): qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com P AIR_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 SAMBER VERMANI and VINA Y SRIDHARA Appeal2016-005854 Application 12/422,145 1 Technology Center 2400 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, HUNG H. BUI, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Office Action rejecting claims 1-3, 5-17, 19-31, 33--47, 49-61, 63-75, and 77-88, which are all the claims pending on appeal. Claims 4, 18, 32, 48, 62, and 76 have been canceled. Claims App'x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is QUALCOMM Incorporated. App. Br. 3. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed October 1, 2015 ("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed May 16, 2016 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed March 28, 2016 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed May 21, 2015 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed April 10, 2009 ("Spec."). Appeal2016-005854 Application 12/422,145 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants ' invention Appellants' invention relates to increased data throughput within "systems employing wireless local area networks (WLANS) [including an access point (AP) 110 in communication with a plurality of access terminals (ATs) 120, shown in Figure 1] in accordance with the IEEE 802.11 standard." Spec. ,r,r 3--4. Appellants' Figure 1 is reproduced below with additional markings for illustration: . ( ..... -.:., ·1 •.• •· W!RELE$S c'iUWORK .l!J.\1 ... -:.-\ ·r ••• ··i AT ,.·,-- .Lf .. ~t Appellants' Figure 1 shows wireless network 100 including access point (AP) 100 to provide coverage for a plurality of access terminals (ATs) 120 ( e.g., mobile devices). According to Appellants, an access point (AP) or apparatus is provided with "a processing system configured to generate a physical layer packet for transmission to a plurality of nodes, the physical layer packet 2 Appeal2016-005854 Application 12/422,145 including a resource allocation for each of the plurality of nodes to send an acknowledgement to the apparatus; and transmit the physical layer packet." Spec. ,r 9. Similarly, an access terminal (AT) is provided with a processing system [] configured to receive a physical layer packet transmitted by a node to a plurality of other nodes, the physical layer packet including a resource allocation for each of the plurality of other nodes to acknowledge receipt of the physical layer packet to the node; generate an acknowledgement packet in response to the receipt of the physical layer packet; and transmit the acknowledgement packet to the node based on the resource allocation. Spec. ,r 14. Claims on Appeal Claims 1-3, 5-17, 19-31, 33--47, 49-61, 63-75, and 77-88 are pending on appeal. Claims 1, 15, 29, 43, 44, 45, 59, 73, 87, and 88 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, as reproduced below: 1. An apparatus for communication, comprising: at least one processor configured to: generate a physical layer packet for transmission to a plurality of nodes, the physical layer packet comprising [ 1] a resource allocation for each of the plurality of nodes to send an acknowledgement to the apparatus, [2] wherein the resource allocation comprises a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for each of the plurality of nodes to send its respective acknowledgement to the apparatus in response to the physical layer packet; and a transmitter configured to transmit the physical layer packet. App. Br. 26 (Claims App'x) (bracketing added). 3 Appeal2016-005854 Application 12/422,145 EXAMINER'S REJECTION3 & REFERENCES Claims 1-3, 5-17, 19-31, 33--47, 49-61, 63-75, and 77-88 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Sammour et al. (US 2007/0147284 Al; published June 28, 2007; "Sammour"), Jang et al. (US 2006/0056362 Al; published Mar. 16, 2006; "Jang"), and IEEE P802.1 ln™/D7.0 ("Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications" published September 2008; "IEEE P802.11 standards.") Final Act. 15-75. ANALYSIS In support of the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 and, similarly, claims 15, 29, 43, 44, 45, 59, 73, 87, and 88, the Examiner finds the combination of Sammour, Jang, and IEEE 802.11 teaches all of the claims' limitations. For example, the Examiner finds Sammour teaches a similar apparatus for packet aggregation, resource allocation, and transmission for higher data throughput in compliance with IEEE 802.11 standards provided with a processing system that (1) configures a physical layer packet for transmission to a plurality of nodes to send an acknowledgement to the apparatus and (2) transmits the physical layer packet in the context of an AP 110, shown in Figure 8, that assembles a MMP/PSAD (Multiple Receiver Aggregate Multi-Poll/Power Save Aggregation Descriptor) frame with scheduled transmission time (ULT) 3 Claim 1 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre- AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 14. However, the § 112(b) rejection was withdrawn in the Advisory Action dated on August 5, 2015. As such, this rejection is no longer pending on appeal. 4 Appeal2016-005854 Application 12/422,145 (including one or more flags that indicate specified ST As 120 to respond with their BA (block acknowledgement) frames during their scheduled UL Ts, and then transmits the MMP /PSAD frame to a plurality of ST As 120. Final Act. 15-16 (citing Sammour ,r,r 44, 83); see also Sammour ,r 84. Sammour' s Figure 8 is reproduced below: •,---, ,7 ,---~- I --=,"" ~1,\_P ___ -U-_0--~---,,-;6--- 1 --............,i-,! I .-~126 c-,, ,.,,}, _____ J _______ ~t_-RE_-;_;1\-/[_R--' 1 I r~ RE~~,~~;-~ - J A , LC I PF~OCESSCF~ ~r:.+---1 : 8 l PROCE~::soF~ : ------1 1 :-::~--:--·.::----.~-::::::::- 11 12 ?,- ,:1-;· 1 :_::. · --· ::---------=:-- r-- I 1 L ••••••• lt-,},i'bM: l ! U, ....... ,., I "'I······· 1 >.;,".NS!-.,HTT" '( •...... '-- 125 ! --~' : '~_1_2:_ 7 -- -----------~ _I 1 :5-) FIG.8 Sammour's Figure 8 shows AP 110 that assembles MMP/PSAD frame (data packet) and transmits the MMP/PSAD frame (data packet) to STAs 120. According to Sammour, [83] [T]he MMP/PSAD frame may be utilized to poll certain types of packets, such as Block Acknowledgement (BA) response frames. In this case, the AP 110 may utilize one or more flags within the MMP/PSAD frame indicating to specified ST As 120 that they transmit their BA response frames during their scheduled UL Ts. The flag may further indicate to the ST As 120 whether or not they are to transmit only BA response frames during their scheduled ULT, or if they are to transmit BA response frames along with other frames the STA is transmitting. This alternative facilitates the addition of a new mode for BA to the currently existing modes. 5 Appeal2016-005854 Application 12/422,145 [84] Currently, the ex1stmg BA modes include Immediate Block ACK and Delayed Block ACK. In Immediate Block ACK mode, a STA responds to a BA request (BAR) immediately following an SIPS delay. In Delayed Block ACK mode, a STA decides on its own when to transmit a BA frame. Sammour ,r,r 83-84 ( emphasis added). In other words, Sammour teaches resource allocation included in the MMP /PSAD frame ( data packet) in the form of transmission time allocation of BA (block acknowledgement) frames at STAs 120. In addition to transmission time allocation of BA frames at ST As 120, Sammour also teaches an aggregated data packet (a.k.a., physical layer (PHY) protocol data units "PPDUs") provided with an MCS field 96 that includes modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for implementation of IEEE 802.11 standards, shown in Figure 6, as reproduced below: ..ii(----·----------·-------------------------------------- /\GGfff G/\. TE ,)s DU (A-PP:}~_:) ···········----·------········------················----------9~ 1., •• ~·R;MBL'i''T~~;~~~d~~~J.~~~SIG2.l_g~~U2 ... f- - --[~,:;~1 9;1 ...... -.-~~~-~ --.. .... __ ...... ___ _ Modulatiqp__.atxtr··::::c,dinq scbeme {MCS) --.. _ ... , ..... ___ _ __ ..... -----------·---..... - -:--.~~· ~ """'- ....... ...._ 1-:c::-1 M~ rAt~';;/~t~Sii" '~'i'~Cf;' I 3HO[ff GI 2D / 4()' CRC -~=-- I '--95 '---97 103 FIG.6 Sammour's Figure 6 shows an aggregated data packet (PPDU) 60 including MCS field 96 for implementation of IEEE 802.11 standards. Sammour ,r,r 4, 17-18. To the extent necessary to support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner relies on (1) Jang for expressly teaching "generat[ing] a physical 6 Appeal2016-005854 Application 12/422,145 layer packet," i.e., an aggregated PPDU after aggregation for transmission destined for ST As; and (2) IEEE 802.11 standards for expressly teaching ( what Sammour has already suggested) that the "physical layer packet" comprises "a resource allocation for each of the plurality of nodes to send an acknowledgement to the apparatus," and "the resource allocation comprises a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for each of the plurality of nodes to send its respective acknowledgement to the apparatus in response to the physical layer packet." Final Act. 16-19 (citing Jang ,r 15; IEEE 802.11 standards§ 9.16.1.5 "Resource allocation within a PSMP Burst", Fig. 9-29 ("PSMP burst showing resource allocation"), Fig. 9-30 ("PSMP burst showing retransmission and resource allocation"); § 20.3 .5 "Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS)"). Appellants contend the combination of Sammour, Jang, and IEEE 802.11 standards does not teach the claimed processor configured to: generate a physical layer packet for transmission to a plurality of nodes, the physical layer packet compnsmg: [ 1] a resource allocation for each of the plurality of nodes to send an acknowledgement to the apparatus, [and] [2] wherein the resource allocation comprises a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for each of the plurality of nodes to send its respective acknowledgement to the apparatus in response to the physical layer packet as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13-18; Reply Br. 3-6. In particular, Appellants present several arguments against the Examiner's combination, including: (1) "[IEEE] 802. lln discloses an AP ... transmitting Block Acks in response to data received during the respective PSMP-UTT or PSMP-DTT, not that a STA responds to 7 Appeal2016-005854 Application 12/422,145 Block Ack with a Block Ack, as asserted by the Examiner" (App. Br. 15) (emphasis added); (2) "802.1 ln discloses that a transmitter may include, within a preamble of packet, information (e.g., such as MCS, transmission rate, etc.) about a corresponding transmission (e.g., the data portion of the packet) that the transmitter transmits to a receiver . . . however that the 'preamble' from 802. lln cannot be considered to correspond to the claimed 'resource allocation 'because the 'preamble' only includes the MCS of a transmission (e.g., the data portion) the transmitting device is sending rather than an MCS for receiving nodes to use to send ACKs in response to receiving the transmission the transmitting device is sending" (App. Br. 15); (3) "nothing in 802.1 ln teaches that a data frame includes 'a resource allocation [that] comprises a [MCS] for each of the plurality of nodes to send its respective [ ACK] in response to the physical layer packet"' (App. Br. 16); (4) "MCS [of IEEE 802.lln] is not the same as a resource allocation, in a packet, that comprises a MCS for nodes receiving the packet to use for acknowledging the packet" (App. Br. 16) ( emphasis added); and (5) "Sammour and Jang (as conceded by the Examiner) fail to remedy the deficiencies noted in 802.1 ln" because Sammour and Jang fail to teach a "resource allocation [ within a physical layer packet transmitted to a plurality of nodes] comprises a [MCSJ for each of the plurality of nodes to send its respective [ACK] to the apparatus in response to the physical layer packet" as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 17) ( emphasis added). App. Br. 13-17. In addition, Appellants also argue: ( 6) "Sammour is completely silent with respect to the MMP/PSAD frame ... that includes 'a resource allocation for each of the plurality of nodes to send an acknowledgment to the apparatus, wherein the resource allocation comprises a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for each of the plurality of nodes to send its 8 Appeal2016-005854 Application 12/422,145 respective acknowledgement to the apparatus in response to the physical layer packet' as recited in claim 1" and (7) "[ n Jo thing in [IEEE 802 .11 n] teaches or suggests that an apparatus generates 'a physical layer packet for transmission to a plurality of nodes' where the physical layer packet comprises 'a resource allocation for each of the plurality of nodes to send an acknowledgement to the apparatus. wherein the resource allocation comprises_g_ modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for each of the plurality of nodes to send its respective acknowledgment to the apparatus in response to the physical layer packet' as recited in claim 1." Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Instead, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 53-59. As such, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id. At the outset, we note much of Appellants' arguments simply attack cited references individually where the Examiner's rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). References must be read, not in isolation, but for what they fairly teach in combination with the prior art as a whole. Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. For example, Jang and IEEE 802.11 standards (not Sammour and Jang as Appellants argue) are relied upon by the Examiner to remedy the perceived deficiencies of Sammour (not IEEE 802.11 standards as Appellants argue). Separately, we note Appellants' claim 1 does not distinguish over Sammour alone. As correctly recognized by the Examiner, Sammour teaches an AP 110, shown in Figure 8, used to configure and transmit a physical layer packet, i.e., MMP/PSAD frame to STAs 120, including one or 9 Appeal2016-005854 Application 12/422,145 more flags within the MMP/PSAD frame indicating to specified STAs 120 to send their BA (block acknowledgement) response frames back to the AP 110 during their scheduled transmission time. Final Act. 15-16 ( citing Sammour ,r,r 44, 83-84). Because the BA frame is used to enable scheduling and resource allocation of BAs, as described in paragraphs 48--49 of Appellants' Specification, Sammour's transmission allocation of BA (block acknowledgement) frames at STAs 120 is considered as "resource allocation" included in Appellants' claimed "physical layer packet for transmission to a plurality of nodes," as recited in claim 1. In addition to Sammour' s transmission allocation of BA (block acknowledgement) frames at STAs 120, Sammour also teaches an aggregated data packet including an MCS field for implementing a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) required by IEEE 802.11 standards. Sammour ,r,r 4, 17-18, Fig. 6. To the extent necessary, IEEE 802.11 standards expressly teach (what Sammour implicitly has taught) that the "physical layer packet" comprises "a resource allocation for each of the plurality of nodes to send an acknowledgement to the apparatus," and "the resource allocation comprises a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for each of the plurality of nodes to send its respective acknowledgement to the apparatus in response to the physical layer packet." See IEEE 802.11 standards § 9 .16.1.5 "Resource allocation within a PSMP Burst", Fig. 9-29 ("PSMP burst showing resource allocation"), Fig. 9-30 ("PSMP burst showing retransmission and resource allocation"); § 20.3.5 "Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS)"). Based on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 and, similarly, independent claims 15, 29, 43, 44, 45, 10 Appeal2016-005854 Application 12/422,145 59, 73, 87, and 88, and respective claims 2-3, 5-14, 16, 17, 19-28, 30, 31, 33--42, 46, 47, 49-58, 60, 61, 63-72, 74, 75, and 77-86, which Appellants do not argue separately. Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites "wherein the resource allocation further comprises a tone allocation for each of the plurality of nodes to send its respective acknowledgement to the apparatus." App. Br. 26 (Claims App'x) (emphasis added). Similarly, claim 8 depends from claim 7 and further recites "wherein the resource allocation further comprises a time period for each of the plurality of nodes to send its respective acknowledgement to the apparatus using the tone allocation." App. Br. 27 (Claims App'x) (emphasis added). Appellants acknowledge IEEE 802.11 standards teach "channel allocations (tone allocations) in different frequency bands" but argue that such "tone allocation" is intended "for each of the plurality of nodes to send its respective acknowledgement to the apparatus" recited in claim 7, or additional "time period" intended "for each of the plurality of nodes to send its respective acknowledgement to the apparatus using the tone allocation." App. Br. 18. We disagree and adopt the Examiner's explanations provided on page 60 of the Examiner's Answer. For example, IEEE 802.11 standards teach "a frame (i.e., data frame) format with a sequence occupying 114 tones (i.e., tone allocation). Ans. 60 (citing IEEE 802.lln § 9.16.1.7). Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 7 and 8. 11 Appeal2016-005854 Application 12/422,145 DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-3, 5- 17, 19-31, 33--47, 49-61, 63-75, and 77-88 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Sammour, Jang, and IEEE 802.11 standards. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation