Ex Parte Wentink

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

12711725 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)

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.
12/711,725 02/24/2010 Maarten Menzo Wentink 082558 1272
23696 7590 12/30/2016
OTTAT mMM TNmRPORATFD
EXAMINER
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
HALL, TEISHA DANEA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAARTEN MENZO WENTINK
Appeal 2015-005939
Application 12/711,725
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH,
and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-005939
Application 12/711,725
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1—52, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method for transmitting data to multiple
wireless apparatuses comprising:
transmitting, to the wireless apparatuses, a transmission
comprising data frames for each wireless apparatus during a
first transmit opportunity; and
receiving, during one or more second transmit
opportunities, acknowledgements of receipt of the data frames
from the wireless apparatuses, wherein the transmission
comprises a frame indicating one or more frequency resource
allocations for the second transmit opportunities.
Prior Art
Janko US 2002/0150102 A1
Stephens US 2005/0285719 A1
McBeath US 2008/0310363 A1
Malkamaki US 2011/0182245 A1
Oct. 17, 2002
Dec. 29, 2005
Dec. 18, 2008
July 28, 2011
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1—5, 10-13, 17—21, 26—29, 33—37, 42-45, 49, and 51 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stephens and
McBeath.
2
Appeal 2015-005939
Application 12/711,725
Claims 6—8, 14—16, 22—24, 30-32, 38-40, and 46-48 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stephens, McBeath, and
Janko.
Claims 9, 25, 41, 50, and 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Stephens, McBeath, and Malkamaki.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Final Action and
Examiner’s Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Claim 1 recites “a frame indicating one or more frequency resource
allocations for the second transmit opportunities.” Appellant contends that
although Stephens teaches a frame indicating a time resource allocation,
Stephens does not teach a frame indicating one or more frequency resource
allocations. App. Br. 9—10; Reply Br. 2—3. Appellant also contends that,
although McBeath teaches a group assignment message indicating time-
frequency resource allocations, McBeath does not teach the group
assignment message is a data frame. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 3.
Appellant’s arguments against the references individually do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s combination: namely, that including the
frequency resource allocation taught by McBeath in the resource allocation
frame of Stephens yields the predictable result of “a frame indicating one or
more frequency resource allocations for the second transmit opportunities.”
See Ans. 10.
3
Appeal 2015-005939
Application 12/711,725
Appellant contends the Examiner has not provided a sufficient
rationale to combine the teachings of Stephens and McBeath. Reply Br. 6—
7. However, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would
indicate the frequency resource allocation of McBeath using the data frame
of Stephens for the benefit of increasing throughput by allocating resources
simultaneously. See Ans. 12; see also Ans. 3,10. We agree with the
Examiner. Paragraph 9 of Stephens teaches achieving the benefit of
increasing overall throughput by allowing a single initiator device, such as
the base station of McBeath, to address multiple responder devices within a
frame exchange sequence.
We further highlight that combining the familiar elements of
McBeaths’s frequency resource allocation message with the resource
allocation frame of Stephens does no more than yield the predictable result
of “a frame indicating one or more frequency resource allocations” as recited
in claim 1. See KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2—5, 10-13,
17—21, 26—29, 33—37, 42-45, 49, and 51 which fall with claim 1. Appellants
present arguments for the patentability of claims 6—9, 14—16, 22—25, 30-32,
38-41, 46-48, 50, and 52 similar to those presented for claim 1 which we
find unpersuasive.
4
Appeal 2015-005939
Application 12/711,725
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—52 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5