Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

12270938 (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.
12/270,938 11/14/2008 HANG ZHANG 4015-7656/P31475-US3 3116
24112 7590 12/29/2016
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
HAILE, FEBEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2474
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2016 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 HANG ZHANG and MO-HAN FONG
Appeal 2015-008047
Application 12/270,938
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—7 and 22—32. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1, 4, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Raith et al. (US 6,430,417 Bl; Aug. 6, 2002) and Hsu et
al. (US 6,901,046 B2; May 31, 2005). Final Act. ^U8.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 22—24, 26, and 28—32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Raith, Hsu, and Koo et al. (US 2001/0024431
Al; Sept. 27, 2001). Final Act. 8—21.
Appeal 2015-008047
Application 12/270,938
Claims 6 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Raith, Hsu, Koo, and Moulsey et al. (US 6,668,168 Bl; Dec. 23, 2003).
Final Act. 21—23.1
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “communication of control
information (including feedback, pilot, and any other overhead information)
related to supporting high rate packet data communications in a wireless
communications system.” Spec. 1:12—15. Claim 1 is illustrative and
reproduced below:
1. A method of communicating control information in a
wireless communications system, comprising the steps of:
transmitting control information in one or more time
slots in a control channel;
in a first state of a terminal, transmitting control
information in a first set of time slots in a time interval on the
control channel;
in a second state of the terminal, transmitting control
information including a channel quality indication in a second
set of time slots in the time interval on the control channel, the
second set of time slots having fewer time slots than or the
same number of time slots as the first set of time slots; and
sharing the control channel for communicating control
information among a plurality of terminals in the second state.
1 The ground of rejection states claims 6 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Raith, Hsu, and Moulsey. Final Act. 21—23.
We find the omission of Koo in the ground of rejection harmless, and treat
claims 6 and 25 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Raith, Hsu, Koo, and Moulsey.
2
Appeal 2015-008047
Application 12/270,938
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1,4, and 27 over Raith and Hsu
The Examiner finds Raith and Hsu teach all limitations of claim 1.
Final Act. 4—6.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
i. Raith (Figs. 9A, 9B) does not show mobile terminals in
different states, and does not show mobile terminals transmitting control
information in different sets of time slots. See App. Br. 7—8.
ii.
[CJlaim 1 requires that the channel quality indication, being
included in the control information, be transmitted in different
sets of time slots in dependence on which state the terminal is
in. While Hsu discloses a mobile station transmitting a quality
indication to a base station, Hsu does not disclose that a mobile
station can have two states and that a quality indication can be
transmitted in different sets of time slots in dependence on the
state the mobile station is in.
App. Br. 9.
iii.
The mobile station in Raith has not been admitted by the base
station and is not receiving data transmission from the base
station. The mobile station in Raith cannot calculate the quality
indication, as taught by Hsu, “as a function of frame error rate
or a function of throughput which function may be calculated
by the mobile station over a plurality of data transmissions over
the forward channel from the base transceiver station to the
mobile station.'''’ See Hsu, col. 2,11. 36-41.
App. Br. 9-10; see also Reply Br. 3^4.
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner.
Nor do we see any error in the Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Appellants’ arguments (i) and (ii),
3
Appeal 2015-008047
Application 12/270,938
[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
Here, the Examiner finds Raith’s full-rate mode and half-rate mode
teach the recited (claim 1):
in a first state of a terminal, transmitting control
information in a first set of time slots in a time interval on the
control channel;
in a second state of the terminal, transmitting control
information ... in a second set of time slots in the time interval
on the control channel, the second set of time slots having
fewer time slots than or the same number of time slots as the
first set of time slots.
Final Act. 5 (citing Raith, col. 15,11. 55—58); see also Ans. 2—3.2 The
Examiner further finds Hsu’s mobile station transmitting a channel quality
indication to a base station teaches the recited (claim 1) “including a channel
quality indication.” Final Act. 6 (citing Hsu, col. 2,11. 15—61). We agree
with and adopt these finding as our own.
Raith (col. 15,11. 54—64) discloses:
FIG. 8 illustrates a standardized frame which comprises
both control channels and traffic channels. In this particular
example, time slots 1 and 4 are utilized as control channels and
time slots 2, 3, 5 and 6 are utilized as traffic channels in the full
rate mode of the system. Of course, different arrangements are
also possible, and the illustrated arrangement is intended to be
2 The Answer does not include page numbers; however, we reference the
Answer with page numbers.
4
Appeal 2015-008047
Application 12/270,938
exemplary only. In a half rate mode of transmission which will
be described in connection with FIG. 9B, only time slot 1 in
each frame is utilized as a control channel, while the slots 2-6
are utilized as traffic channels, this arrangement again being
exemplary only.
Hsu (col. 2,11. 15—61) discloses a mobile station sending a channel
quality indication to a base station.
In particular, we find Raith teaches in a first state of a terminal
(Raith’s full-rate mode), transmitting control information in a first set of
time slots (Raith, time slots 1 and 4, Fig. 9A) in a time interval on the
control channel; in a second state of the terminal (Raith’s half-rate mode),
transmitting control information in a second set of time slots (Raith, time
slot 1, Fig. 9B) in the time interval on the control channel, the second set of
time slots having fewer time slots than or the same number of time slots as
the first set of time slots. See Raith, col. 15,11. 54—64, Figs. 9 A, 9B.
In light of Hsu’s teachings of sending a channel quality indication, we
agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to a
skilled artisan to modify Raith such that a channel quality indication is
included in the control information transmitted in the second state of the
terminal. See Hsu, col. 2,11. 15—61; see also Final Act. 6 (“The motivation
for such a modification provides for control of quality of service by
utilization of mobile station measurement feedback on a reverse channel.”);
Ans. 3^4.
Contrary to Appellants’ argument (iii), the modification to Raith need
not incorporate any specific channel quality indication calculation. Rather,
the modification to Raith incorporates the general concept of sending a
channel quality indication.
5
Appeal 2015-008047
Application 12/270,938
In more detail, when Hsu’s teaching (Hsu, col. 2,11. 15—61) of a
mobile station transmitting a channel quality indication to a base station is
combined with Raith’s teaching (Raith, col. 15,11. 54—64, Figs. 9 A, 9B) of
Raith’s full-rate mode and half-rate mode, including control channel time
slots, modifying Raith’s control channel time slots to include a channel
quality indication to a base station would have been a predictable use of
prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious
improvement. As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. Ag
Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson’s-Black Rock[,
Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are
illustrative—a court must ask whether the improvement is more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as
claim 4, which is not separately argued with particularity.
Regarding claim 27, Appellants present the same principal arguments
as presented for claim 1. See App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 4—5.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27 for the
same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
6
Appeal 2015-008047
Application 12/270,938
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2,3,5,7,22-24,26, and 28-32
over Raith, Hsu, and Koo
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 7
First, Appellants argue claims 2, 3, 5, and 7 are patentable for the
same reasons as claim 1. App. Br. 12—14. This argument does not show any
error in the Examiner’s findings or conclusions for reasons discussed above
with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the Examiner finds Koo teaches the recited (claim
2) “in the second state of the terminal, receiving power control information
for the terminal in the second set of time slots in the time interval.” Final
Act. 8 (citing Koo 129); see also Ans. 7—8.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
Koo does not disclose that a mobile terminal transmits or
receives control information at different rates depending on the
state the mobile terminal is in. (The terminal in Koo, when in
the active state, may transmit or receive data transmission, not
control information, at different rates.) Koo does not disclose
different sets of time slots are used to transmit control
information depending on what state a terminal is in. Koo does
not disclose that the power control information/signal is
transmitted in the second set of time slots.
Further, to any person skilled in the art, the different
terminal states disclosed in Koo (i.e., control hold state, active
state, etc.) are not the system modes disclosed in Raith (i.e., full
rate mode and half rate mode). The former refers to the states
of a terminal. The latter refers to the mode of a system and
does not affect the terminals inside the system (see Raith,
Figs[.] 9a and 9b, depicting the same rate assigned to the
mobile stations in both the full rate mode and the half rate
mode).
App. Br. 12-13.
7
Appeal 2015-008047
Application 12/270,938
Regarding Appellants’ argument, Koo teaches the recited (claim 2)
“receiving power control information for the terminal.” See Koo 129 (“the
base station transmits the resource allocation message to the mobile
station”). The other recitations of claim 2 are taught by Raith and Hsu.
Modifying Raith’s control channel time slots to include power control
information would have been a predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the Examiner finds Koo teaches the recited (claim
3) “the control information transmitted in the second set of time slots in the
second state of the terminal includes a pilot from the terminal.” Final Act. 9
(citing Koo 129); see also Ans. 8—9.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
Claim 3 requires that the control information transmitted
in the second set of time slots in the second state of the terminal
includes a pilot from the terminal. The Office cites Koo
(^[0029]) for disclosing this limitation. The cited portion of
Koo discloses two messages, a resource allocation message and
an extended release message. Both messages are messages
from a base station to a terminal. These messages do not
include “a pilot from the terminal.” For this reason and the
reasons stated for claim 1, claim 3 is patentable over Raith in
view of Hsu and Koo.
App. Br. 13.
Regarding Appellants’ argument, Koo teaches the recited (claim 3)
“pilot from the terminal.” See Koo 129 (“The mobile station and the base
station initiate continuous transmission of a pilot signal and PCBs at an
action time set in the resource allocation message and transit to the low rate
8
Appeal 2015-008047
Application 12/270,938
transmission substate 220 in step 410.”). The other recitations of claim 3 are
taught by Raith and Hsu. Modifying Raith’s control channel time slots to
include a pilot from the terminal would have been a predictable use of prior
art elements according to their established functions—an obvious
improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.
Claim 5 recites “the first set of time slots comprises every time slot in
the time interval.”
The Examiner finds “Koo discloses wherein the control information
communicated at the second rate in the second state of the terminal
comprises a pilot.” Final Act. 10 (citing Koo ^fl[ 29, 37).
Appellants argue:
Claim 5 requires that the first set of time slots comprises
every time slot in the time interval. The rejection of claim 5
does not seem to be based on the current content of claim 5.
Claim 5 does not recite channel quality index or measurement
as the rejection seems to imply. Correction by the Office is
respectfully requested.
App. Br. 13.
In response, the Examiner explains:
Koo discloses a mobile station and base station initiating
continuous transmission of a resource allocation message i.e.
control information, at a low rate active state, i.e. first state,
using a dedicated control channel at a rate of 9.6 Kbps, i.e. first
rate. The Examiner equates this continuous transmission to
Applicants!”] every slot of N. Therefore as the claims are
reasonably interpreted in their broadest sense, the Examiner
believes that Koo indeed does render the Applicants’]
invention obvious.
Ans. 9.
9
Appeal 2015-008047
Application 12/270,938
We do not see any error in the contested finding of the Examiner. Nor
do we see any error in the Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness.
We are persuaded Koo reasonably describes the first set of time slots
comprises every time slot in the time interval. See Koo (| 29) (emphasis
added) (“The mobile station and the base station initiate continuous
transmission of a pilot signal and PCBs at an action time set in the resource
allocation message and transit to the low rate transmission substate 220 in
step 410.”).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7, for which further
particular arguments are not presented. See App. Br. 13—14.
Claims 22—24, 26, and 28—32
Appellants argue claims 22—24 and 26 are patentable for the same
reasons as claims 1—3 and 7. See App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 4. We do not see
any error in the Examiner’s findings or conclusions for reasons discussed
above.
Appellants argue claims 28 and 29 are patentable for the same reasons
as claim 27. See App. Br. 15. We do not see any error in the Examiner’s
findings or conclusions for reasons discussed above.
Appellants argue claims 30—32 are patentable for the same reasons as
claims 22 and 27. See App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 5. We do not see any error in
the Examiner’s findings or conclusions for reasons discussed above.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22—24, 26,
and 28—32.
10
Appeal 2015-008047
Application 12/270,938
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 6 and 25 over
Raith, Hsu, Koo, and Moulsey
Appellants argue Moulsey does not overcome the purported
deficiencies of Raith and Hsu. See App. Br. 15—16.
For reasons discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 22, from
which claims 6 and 25 depend, respectively, Raith and Hsu do not have
these deficiencies. Thus, we do not see any error in the Examiner’s findings
and conclusions with respect to claims 6 and 25.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 25.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7 and 22—32 is 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)(1).
AFFIRMED
11