Ex Parte Wang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 13, 2003

08752020 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 13, 2003)

1An oral hearing scheduled for February 18, 2003, was wavied
by appellant.
-1–
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication in a law journal
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 23
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte YI-PIN E. WANG

Appeal No. 2002-1617
Application No. 08/752,020

ON BRIEF1

Before THOMAS, KRASS and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1, 3-6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16-19, 23 and 25-28. Claims 2, 7-
9, 12, 15, 20-22 and 24 have been indicated by the examiner as
Appeal No. 2002-1617
Application No. 08/752,020
-2–
being directed to allowable subject matter and are not here
before us on appeal.
The invention is directed to a time-multiplexed short
message acknowledgment system.
Independent claim 1, reproduced as follows, is
representative:
1. A method of communicating access requests and short
message acknowledgments in a radiotelephone communications system
including a central station and a plurality of radiotelephones
communicating over a plurality of carrier frequency bands, the
radiotelephone communications system including a short message
service (SMS) for communicating short messages from the central
station to the plurality of radiotelephones, the method
comprising the steps:
communicating access requests from the plurality of
radiotelephones to the central station over a random access
channel carrier (RACH) frequency band during a first RACH message
time window, the access requests representing requests for access
to the radiotelephone system, such that communication of access
requests from the plurality of radiotelephones on the RACH
carrier frequency band is constrained to occur during the first
RACH message time window; and
communicating short message acknowledgments from the
plurality of radiotelephones to the central station over the RACH
carrier frequency band during a second RACH message time window,
such that communication of short message acknowledgments from the
plurality of radiotelephones on the RACH carrier frequency band
is constrained to occur during the second RACH message time
window.
Appeal No. 2002-1617
Application No. 08/752,020
-3–
The examiner relies on the following references:
Chennakeshu et al. (Chennakeshu) 5,822,310 Oct. 13, 1998
(filed Dec. 27, 1995)
Macario, “CELLULAR RADIO Principles and Design”, The MacMillan
Press LTD, Published 1993, pp. 162-163.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16-19, 23 and 25-28 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner offers Chennakeshu with regard to claims 1, 5, 6, 10,
14, 18, 19, 23, 27 and 28, adding Macario with regard to claims
3, 4, 11, 13, 16, 17, 25 and 26.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 14,
18, 19, 23, 27 and 28, the examiner contends that Chennakeshu
teaches everything but the specific disclosure “that the
communication of access requests from the plurality of
radiotelephone...on the RACH carrier frequency band is
constrained to occur during the first RACH message time window
and communicating short message acknowledgments during second
RACH message time window” [answer-pages 3-4]. However, the
Appeal No. 2002-1617
Application No. 08/752,020
-4–
examiner concludes that since Chennakeshu discloses transmission
of access requests and short message acknowledgments over the
RACH channels in different time slots, citing column 3, lines 31-
42, and column 8, lines 54-57, it would have been obvious “to
utilize the teachings of Chennakeshu, as elaborated in col. 2,
lines 61 through col. 3, lines 1-42, in order to transmit access
requests on the RACH carrier during a particular set of RACH time
window and communicating short message acknowledgments during
another set of time window...” [answer-page 4].
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 14,
18, 19, 23, 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 because, in our view,
the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness.
The examiner appears to acknowledge that the applied
reference does not specifically teach the very improvement over
the prior art that appellant has made, that is, constraining
access requests and short message acknowledgments to respective
time windows on a random access channel carrier (RACH). Yet, the
examiner contends that it would have been obvious to do what
appellant has done. The examiner opines that it would have been
obvious to “utilize the teachings of Chennakeshu...in order to
transmit access requests on the RACH carrier during a particular
Appeal No. 2002-1617
Application No. 08/752,020
-5–
set of RACH time window and communicating short message
acknowledgments during another set of time window...” but has set
forth no convincing rationale as to why the artisan would have
been led to constrain access requests and short message
acknowledgments to respective time windows on a RACH when, by all
accounts, Chennakeshu appears to teach against this. As
appellant points out, Chennakeshu teaches that acknowledgments
may be transmitted on “all time slots of the ...RACH” [column 8,
lines 6-8] and that it is preferable that consecutive repetitions
of a RACH message be transmitted on “separate carrier
frequencies” [column 8, line 18]. Even though acknowledgments in
Chennakeshu “may” be transmitted on “all” time slots and it is
“preferable” to transmit repetitions on “separate carrier
frequencies,” which means that other embodiments are available,
the examiner has not adequately shown that such other embodiments
would meet the instant claim language. Clearly, in the preferred
embodiments of the reference, acknowledgments in “all” time slots
is not an acknowledgment constrained to a first RACH message time
window and transmission of repetitions on “separate carrier
frequencies” is not a single carrier frequency as required by the
instant claims. Note, in claim 1, for example, that access
requests are communicated over “a” RACH frequency band and the
Appeal No. 2002-1617
Application No. 08/752,020
-6–
short message acknowledgments are communicated over “the,” i.e.,
the same, RACH carrier frequency band. Thus, the claims require
a single RACH frequency band and the examiner has not shown where
Chennakeshu suggests the communication of access requests and
short message acknowledgments over the “same,” or single, random
access channel carrier (RACH) frequency band.
Since all of the rejected independent claims contain similar
language regarding constraining access requests and short message
acknowledgments to respective time windows on a random access
channel carrier (RACH) and the use of a single frequency band, we
will not sustain the rejection of any of the claims under
35 U.S.C. 103, noting, with regard to dependent claims 3, 4, 11,
13, 16, 17, 25 and 26, that the addition of Macario does not
remedy the deficiencies of Chennakeshu.
Appeal No. 2002-1617
Application No. 08/752,020
-7–
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2002-1617
Application No. 08/752,020
-8–
EK/RWK
ROBERT M. MEEKS
MYERS, BIGEL, SIBLEY, & SAJOREC
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627