Wi-LAN Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 17, 2021

2020006048 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2021)

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.
15/666,387 08/01/2017 Yoav Nebat WIN-P00567US4 1247
10585 7590 03/17/2021
Volpe Koenig - Wi-lan
30 South 17th Street
Suite 1800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
EXAMINER
PHAM, TITO Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/17/2021 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):
eoffice@volpe-koenig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
Appeal 2020-006048
Application 15/666,387
1
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK
OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte
YOAV NEBAT, SINA ZAHEDI, and DENNIS CONNORS
Appeal 2020-006048
Application 15/666,387
Technology Center 2400
Before
CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC B. CHEN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS,
Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Appeal 2020-006048
Application 15/666,387
2
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We heard oral arguments on
March 4, 2021.
We
REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to processing a multicast broadcast
data stream. Spec. Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed
limitation emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for use by a base station, the method
comprising:
receiving, by the base station, a single message
including information indicating a pattern of sub-intervals
within a time divided interval and information indicating
resources for use in broadcasting multicast broadcast
service data, wherein the base station belongs to the
multicast broadcast region which includes a plurality of
base stations;
receiving, by the base station, a multicast broadcast
data stream; and
broadcasting, by the base station, the multicast
broadcast data stream in at least one sub-interval of the
pattern of sub-intervals using the indicated resources, as
an orthogonal frequency division multiplex signal.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
REJECTION
Appeal 2020-006048
Application 15/666,387
3
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Venkatachalam and Connors. Final Act.
2–9.
OPINION
The Examiner finds Venkatachalam’s fixed broadband wireless
access system using a single multicast connection identifier discloses
the majority of limitations recited by claim 1 except for the disputed
limitation of a single message including information indicating a
pattern of sub-intervals within a time divided interval. Final Act. 3. To
remedy the noted deficiency, the Examiner applies Connors’s macro-
diversity region frame that provides a time reference, frame offset
information, and system clock information used to synchronize the
transmission of the macro-diversity region data at a plurality of base
stations for teaching the disputed limitation. Id. at 4. According to the
Examiner:
The macro-diversity region frame indicates a pattern (see
figure 10: the pattern could be No=197, 198, 199: one
frame after another or Ts= 561, 561, 561 and then 562,
562, and 562 or transmission time T is at every 0.005
(T=561.985, 561.990, 561.995, 562.000 . . . ) of sub-
intervals (OFDMA frame or frame time of 5m) within a
time divided interval (1 sec or 200 frame) and broadcast
in at least one sub-interval of the pattern of sub-intervals
(frame/sub-interval is transmitted by the base station
(paragraph 98). OFDM frames are sent periodically to
base station. The frames are sub-intervals for a time
divided interval of 1 sec in figure 9).
Id.
Appellant contends Connors fails to disclose a single message
including multiple time stamps, “at best show[ing a] time stamp
included in each macro-diversity region frame.” Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant argues as follows:
Appeal 2020-006048
Application 15/666,387
4
There is no “single message” in Connors. If, for the
sake of argument only, the claimed “single message” in
Connors were considered to correspond to any one of the
individual macro-diversity region frames, then that
individual macro-diversity region frame only includes a
time-stamp of that frame and that frame only. No pattern
information can be gleaned from that individual macro-
diversity region frame. Instead, in Connors, it would be
necessary to receive all macro-diversity region frames,
and then process all of the respective time stamps to
determine any sort of pattern information. This is different
than the claimed “single message including information
indicating a pattern of sub-intervals within a time divided
interval.”
Id. at 9–10.
The Examiner responds, taking the position that a broadest
reasonable interpretation of a message includes multiple frames
collectively providing multiple time stamps, as follows:
In digital communication, how does one skilled in
the art quantify a “single message?” Is it a packet, a
single frame as argued by the Appellant, or information
necessitated to convey content? Under broadest
reasonable interpretation, the Examiner considers “single
message” as information necessary to convey a
point/content which, in this case, a base station receives
information including pattern of sub-intervals (frames) to
synchronize transmission of macro-diversity region data
with other base stations in the region as shown in figure
10 which includes several frames.
Ans. 10. Thus, the Examiner finds Connors’s collection of
periodically sent OFDM frames, each including respective frame
transmission time information, teaches the disputed pattern of sub-
intervals within a time divided interval. Id. at 11.
Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible Examiner
error. Connors describes each macro-diversity region as providing
timing information for a respective base station rather than multiple
times constituting a pattern, as follows:
Appeal 2020-006048
Application 15/666,387
5
Each macro-diversity region frame generated by the
macro-diversity region control module 150 may be time-
stamped before being sent to MRDP-MBSC. The time-
stamp of each frame will indicate the actual time the base
station transmission frame from each base station
receiving the macro-diversity region frame will be
transmitted over the air. The time-stamps may include a
time reference, for example, UTC time in seconds and a
frame offset from the UTC time.
Connors ¶ 98. Although it may be true that, as posited by the
Examiner, a message may include multiple frames, the record before
us does not support such a finding. Because the Examiner fails to
provide sufficient evidence or reasoned explanation why multiple
frames containing timing information for different base stations are
reasonably interpreted as constituting a single message, we agree
with Appellant that Connors fails to teach the disputed limitation.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced
by Appellant, we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s other
arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 or the rejection of independent claims 7 and 13
that include similar limitations. Furthermore, we do not sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 2–6, 8–12, and 14–20 which stand with
their respective base claims.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Venkatachalam and Connors.
DECISION SUMMARY
REVERSED
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOAV NEBAT, SINA ZAHEDI, and DENNIS CONNORS
Appeal 2020-006048
Application 15/666,387
Technology Center 2400

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC B. CHEN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We heard oral arguments on March 4,
2021.
We REVERSE.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed August 1, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed October 1, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed February
14, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer, mailed June 23, 2020.
2 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Wi-LAN Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-006048
Application 15/666,387
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to processing a multicast broadcast data
stream. Spec. Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation
emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for use by a base station, the method comprising:
receiving, by the base station, a single message including
information indicating a pattern of sub-intervals within a time
divided interval and information indicating resources for use in
broadcasting multicast broadcast service data, wherein the base
station belongs to the multicast broadcast region which includes
a plurality of base stations;
receiving, by the base station, a multicast broadcast data
stream; and
broadcasting, by the base station, the multicast broadcast
data stream in at least one sub-interval of the pattern of sub-
intervals using the indicated resources, as an orthogonal
frequency division multiplex signal.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Venkatachalam US 2008/0259835 A1 Oct. 23, 2008
Connors US 2008/0259905 A1 Oct. 23, 2008

REJECTION
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Venkatachalam and Connors. Final Act. 2–9.
OPINION
The Examiner finds Venkatachalam’s fixed broadband wireless access
system using a single multicast connection identifier discloses the majority
of limitations recited by claim 1 except for the disputed limitation of a single
Appeal 2020-006048
Application 15/666,387
3
message including information indicating a pattern of sub-intervals within a
time divided interval. Final Act. 3. To remedy the noted deficiency, the
Examiner applies Connors’s macro-diversity region frame that provides a
time reference, frame offset information, and system clock information used
to synchronize the transmission of the macro-diversity region data at a
plurality of base stations for teaching the disputed limitation. Id. at 4.
According to the Examiner:
The macro-diversity region frame indicates a pattern (see figure
10: the pattern could be No=197, 198, 199: one frame after
another or Ts= 561, 561, 561 and then 562, 562, and 562 or
transmission time T is at every 0.005 (T=561.985, 561.990,
561.995, 562.000 . . . ) of sub-intervals (OFDMA frame or frame
time of 5m) within a time divided interval (1 sec or 200 frame)
and broadcast in at least one sub-interval of the pattern of sub-
intervals (frame/sub-interval is transmitted by the base station
(paragraph 98). OFDM frames are sent periodically to base
station. The frames are sub-intervals for a time divided interval
of 1 sec in figure 9).
Id.
Appellant contends Connors fails to disclose a single message
including multiple time stamps, “at best show[ing a] time stamp included in
each macro-diversity region frame.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues as
follows:
There is no “single message” in Connors. If, for the sake
of argument only, the claimed “single message” in Connors were
considered to correspond to any one of the individual macro-
diversity region frames, then that individual macro-diversity
region frame only includes a time-stamp of that frame and that
frame only. No pattern information can be gleaned from that
individual macro-diversity region frame. Instead, in Connors, it
would be necessary to receive all macro-diversity region frames,
and then process all of the respective time stamps to determine
Appeal 2020-006048
Application 15/666,387
4
any sort of pattern information. This is different than the claimed
“single message including information indicating a pattern of
sub-intervals within a time divided interval.”
Id. at 9–10.
The Examiner responds, taking the position that a broadest reasonable
interpretation of a message includes multiple frames collectively providing
multiple time stamps, as follows:
In digital communication, how does one skilled in the art
quantify a “single message?” Is it a packet, a single frame as
argued by the Appellant, or information necessitated to convey
content? Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner
considers “single message” as information necessary to convey
a point/content which, in this case, a base station receives
information including pattern of sub-intervals (frames) to
synchronize transmission of macro-diversity region data with
other base stations in the region as shown in figure 10 which
includes several frames.
Ans. 10. Thus, the Examiner finds Connors’s collection of periodically sent
OFDM frames, each including respective frame transmission time
information, teaches the disputed pattern of sub-intervals within a time
divided interval. Id. at 11.
Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
Connors describes each macro-diversity region as providing timing
information for a respective base station rather than multiple times
constituting a pattern, as follows:
Each macro-diversity region frame generated by the macro-
diversity region control module 150 may be time-stamped before
being sent to MRDP-MBSC. The time-stamp of each frame will
indicate the actual time the base station transmission frame from
each base station receiving the macro-diversity region frame will
be transmitted over the air. The time-stamps may include a time
Appeal 2020-006048
Application 15/666,387
5
reference, for example, UTC time in seconds and a frame offset
from the UTC time.
Connors ¶ 98. Although it may be true that, as posited by the Examiner, a
message may include multiple frames, the record before us does not support
such a finding. Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
reasoned explanation why multiple frames containing timing information for
different base stations are reasonably interpreted as constituting a single
message, we agree with Appellant that Connors fails to teach the disputed
limitation.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant, we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 or the
rejection of independent claims 7 and 13 that include similar limitations.
Furthermore, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2–6, 8–12,
and 14–20 which stand with their respective base claims.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Venkatachalam and Connors.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103(a) Venkatachalam,
Connors
1–20

REVERSED