Ex Parte Wilhelmsson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2019

14379827 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/379,827 08/20/2014 Leif Wilhelms son
24112 7590 01/24/2019
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
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.
4015-8974 I P35343-US 1 4685
EXAMINER
EBRAHIM, ANEZ C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/24/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEIF WILHELMSSON, JOHAN RUNE,
JOACHIM SACHS, and ANDERS WALLEN
Appeal 2018-002568
Application 14/379,827
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JASON J. CHUNG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 28-52, i.e., all pending claims. 2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Telefonaktiebolaget L M
Ericsson. App. Br. 2.
2 A December 13, 2016 After Final Response proposed new claims 53-55.
Initially, in a January 3, 2017 Advisory Action, the Examiner noted that the
proposed new claims would be entered. Subsequently, however, in a
February 1, 2017 Advisory Action, the Examiner noted that the proposed
new claims would not be entered. Additionally, the Answer explains that
the "Examiner hasn't entered those amendments." Ans. 6.
Appeal2018-002568
Application 14/379,827
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the "invention relates to methods for
controlling retransmission protocol based transmission of data blocks and to
corresponding devices." Spec. 1: 8-9. 3 The Specification explains that
"[ t ]he feedback time defines a time interval between transmission of one of
the data blocks and transmission of a feedback message indicating whether
the data block was successfully received." Id. at 3: 13-15; see id. at
6:37-7:1, Abstract. The Specification further explains that "[t]he feedback
message ... may be an ACK ('acknowledgement') indicating that the data
block ... was successfully received, or a NACK ('negative
acknowledgement') indicating that the data block ... was not successfully
received." Id. at 6:19-22; see id. at 13:14--16, 18:2--4. In one embodiment,
a "transmitter determines the value of the feedback time," and "[d]epending
on the determined value of the feedback time, the transmitter controls
transmission of the data block to the receiver." Id. at 3:15-17. In another
embodiment, a "receiver determines the value of the feedback time," and
"[ d]epending on the determined value of the feedback time, the receiver
controls reception of the data block at the receiver." Id. at 3:24--26.
3 This decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the
Specification, filed August 20, 2014; "Final Act." for the Final Office
Action, mailed October 18, 2016; "App. Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed
May 9, 2017; "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed November 14,
2017; and "Reply Br." for the Reply Brief, filed January 8, 2018.
2
Appeal2018-002568
Application 14/379,827
Exemplary Claim
28. A method of controlling wireless transmission of
data blocks between a transmitter and a receiver based on a
retransmission protocol with a variable value of a feedback
time, the method comprising:
determining, by the transmitter, the value of the feedback
time, wherein the feedback time defines a time interval between
transmission of a data block by the transmitter and transmission
of a feedback message by the receiver indicating whether the
data block was successfully received by the receiver; and
controlling, by the transmitter, transmission of the data
block to the receiver based on the determined value of the
feedback time.
App. Br. 11 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
Nakazawa
Senta et al. ("Senta")
Geile et al. ("Geile")
Ahn et al. ("Ahn")
US 2004/0165543 Al
US 2006/0203855 Al
US 7,280,564 Bl
US 2010/0008270 Al
The Rejections on Appeal
Aug.26,2004
Sept. 14, 2006
Oct. 9, 2007
Jan. 14,2010
Claims 28, 30, 31, 33-37, 40-42, 47, and 49-52 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as anticipated by Senta. 4 Final Act. 3-10.
Claims 29, 32, 38, 39, 43, 44, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Senta and Nakazawa. Final Act. 11-12.
4 On September 16, 2012, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ("AIA"),
Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), took effect and amended
35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because Application 14/379,827 has an effective
filing date before the AIA' s amendments to § § 102 and 103, this decision
refers to the pre-AIA versions of§§ 102 and 103.
3
Appeal2018-002568
Application 14/379,827
Claim 45 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Senta and Ahn. Final Act. 13.
Claim 46 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Senta and Geile. Final Act. 13-14.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 28-52 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. Based on the record before
us and for the reasons explained below, we concur with Appellants'
contention that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of Senta
disclose or suggest a "feedback time" that defines "a time interval between
transmission of a data block by the transmitter and transmission of a
feedback message by the receiver indicating whether the data block was
successfully received by the receiver" as required by each independent
claim.
The§ 102(b) Rejection of Claims
28, 30, 31, 33-37, 40-42, 47, and 49-52
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 28, 40, and 49-52 because Senta does not disclose or suggest the
following ( or an essentially identical) limitation in each claim: "the
feedback time defines a time interval between transmission of a data block
by the transmitter and transmission of a feedback message by the receiver
indicating whether the data block was successfully received by the receiver."
See App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 2-3. Specifically, Appellants assert that the
Examiner's citations to Senta do not "suggest to a skilled artisan that the
feedback time is defined as a time interval between transmission of a data
block by the transmitter and transmission of a feedback message by the
4
Appeal2018-002568
Application 14/379,827
receiver ... as claimed." App. Br. 6. Appellants contend that "Senta
teaches that the transmitter calculates the round trip time as a difference
between an acknowledgement message arrival time that is received by the
transmitter within a predetermined time period and a packet transmission
time embedded in the acknowledgement message." Id.
The Examiner finds that a transmitter in Senta determines "the
feedback value time" where "the feedback time is the round trip time which
is the total time from transmitter to receiver and receiver to transmitter."
Final Act. 4, 6, 8-10, 14--15. The Examiner also finds that the transmitter in
Senta "determines the round trip time R TT based on transmission of [a]
packet and whether [the] packet is successfully received." Ans. 3-5.
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Senta
disclose or suggest a "feedback time" that defines "a time interval between
transmission of a data block by the transmitter and transmission of a
feedback message by the receiver indicating whether the data block was
successfully received by the receiver" as required by each independent
claim.
In Senta, a transmission-side terminal sends packets to a reception-
side terminal. Senta ,r,r 16-17, 25-26, 30-31, 49---62, Abstract, Figs. 1-2.
When the transmission-side terminal sends a packet to the reception-side
terminal, the transmission-side terminal embeds the transmission time in the
packet. Id. ,r,r 16-17, 27, 42, Abstract, Fig. 1. When the reception-side
terminal sends an acknowledgment to the transmission-side terminal, the
reception-side terminal embeds the transmission time in the
acknowledgement. Id. ,r,r 16-17, 27-28, Abstract, Fig. 1. After the
5
Appeal2018-002568
Application 14/379,827
transmission-side terminal receives the acknowledgement, the transmission-
side terminal calculates a round-trip time based on the transmission time
embedded in the acknowledgement and the acknowledgement's arrival time.
Id. ,r 29, Fig. 1; see id. ,r 8.
Senta's round-trip time does not meet the claimed "feedback time"
because the round-trip time does not define a time interval between a
transmission by a transmitter and a transmission by a receiver. Rather, the
round-trip time defines a time interval between a transmission by a
transmitter and a reception by the transmitter. See Senta ,r,r 16-17, 27-29,
42, Abstract, Fig. 1. Hence, we do not sustain the § 102(b) rejection of
claims 28, 40, and 49-52.
Claims 30, 31, and 33-37 depend from claim 28, while claims 41, 42,
and 47 depend from claim 40. For the reasons discussed regarding the
independent claims, we do not sustain the § 102(b) rejection of claims 30,
31, 33-37, 41, 42, and 47.
The§ 103(a) Rejections of Claims 29, 32, 38, 39, 43-46, and 48
Claims 29, 32, 38, and 39 depend from claim 28, while claims 43--46
and 48 depend from claim 40. On this record, the Examiner has not shown
how the additionally cited secondary references-Nakazawa, Ahn, and
Geile----overcome the deficiency in Senta discussed above for claims 2 8
and 40. Hence, we do not sustain the§ 103(a) rejections of claims 29, 32,
38, 39, 43--46, and 48.
Because this determination resolves the appeal with respect to
claims 28-52, we need not address Appellants' other arguments regarding
Examiner error. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423
6
Appeal2018-002568
Application 14/379,827
(Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that an administrative agency may render a
decision based on "a single dispositive issue").
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 28-52.
REVERSED
7