Ex Parte Wan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 11, 2016

12521667 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/521,667 0710312009
23117 7590 02/16/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Lei Wan
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.
JRL-6002-44 9777
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, TUX
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/16/2016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEI WAN and BO GORANS SON
Appeal2014-003340
Application 12/521,667
Technology Center 2600
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1--4, 46, 48, and 58---65. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
We have reviewed Appellants' contentions in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
contentions. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not
established Sampath (US 2006/0203891 Al) discloses "each selection
1 Claims 5--45 have been canceled, and claims 47 and 49--57 have been
withdrawn.
Appeal2014-003340
Application 12/521,667
message including pre-allocation information for the mobile terminal
concerned, and being transmitted in the form of a dedicated pilot signal
using the determined transmission weights" (hereinafter the "selection
message" limitation), as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner finds Sampath discloses beamformed weight dedicated
pilot symbols that correspond to a "selection message including pre-
allocated link resources to mobile terminals." Ans. 2 (citing Sampath i-f 42).
The Examiner further finds Sampath discloses the dedicated pilot symbols
322 may include the same beamforming weights that are applied to the data
symbols and the time and frequency allocation of dedicated pilot symbols
322 corresponds to pre-allocation information. Ans. 2-3 (citing Sampath
i-fi-142, 44); see also Final Act. 3. We agree with Appellants that the
Examiner does not provide a clear explanation of how these cited sections of
Sampath map to the claimed selection message features. See Reply Br. 2--4;
see also App. Br. 10, 13-14.
The disputed limitation sets forth pre-allocation information for the
mobile terminal being transmitted in the form of dedicated pilot signals.
Appellants contend that this limitation requires the dedicated pilot symbols,
which the Examiner equates to the selection messages, include pre-
allocation information for the mobile terminal. Reply Br. 4. The sections of
Sampath cited by the Examiner as disclosing this limitation describe "one or
more hop regions 320 each of which includes one or more dedicated pilot
symbols 322" and that generated CQI (channel quality information) is
provided to the access points for dedicated pilot symbols 322. Sampath
i-f 42, 44; see also Sampath i-f 43 (describing that dedicated pilot symbols 322
may be utilized by the access terminals to generate CQI). We agree with
2
Appeal2014-003340
Application 12/521,667
Appellants (Reply Br. 4) that the Examiner's findings do not establish that
Sampath discloses the dedicated pilot symbols themselves include time and
frequency allocation, which the Examiner mapped to the "pre-allocation
information" (Final Act. 3; Ans. 2). Nor do we find that the Examiner
provides any other explanation to map Sampath's disclosure to the claimed
pre-allocation information transmitted in the dedicated pilot symbols.
For the reasons stated above, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner has not established Sampath discloses the selection message
limitation. The Examiner does not use the additional reference of record in
the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 4 and 58---64 (Pankaj; US
2002/0183066 Al) to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
of: (1) claim 1; (2) independent claims 48, 58, and 65, which contain
limitations substantially similar to the selection message limitation; and (3)
the remaining claims, which depend from claims 1, 48, 58, and 65.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 46, 48, and
58-65.
REVERSED
3