Ex Parte Beming et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2013

10595312 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PER BEMING, KAI-ERIK SUNELL, and NIKLAS JOHANSSON
____________________

Appeal 2011-010288
Application 10/595,312
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-010288
Application 10/595,312

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 13-17. Claims 1-12 and 18 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

Appellants’ Disclosed Invention
Appellants disclose an apparatus and method for regulating and
controlling the flow of data in a radio network by counting data units
requested, computing credits to be granted based on the data flow, and
distributing credits to radio channels proportionally (claims 13, 15, and 16;
Spec. 7:1-8:10; Fig. 5).
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claims 13 and 15 under appeal, with emphases added to
the disputed portions of the claims, read as follows:
13. A control method for regulating the flow of data between a first
transmitting radio network node and a second transmitting radio network
node in a radio transmission network, comprising the steps of:
said second transmitting radio network node receiving data from said
first transmitting radio network node to be forwarded to plural user entities
via an air interface; wherein:
the first transmitting radio network node sends a capacity
request to the second transmitting radio network node requesting the
second transmitting radio network node for permission to send an
indicated number of data units that are pending in the first
transmitting radio network node; and,
Appeal 2011-010288
Application 10/595,312

3
the second transmitting radio network node, in response to the
capacity request, sends an allocation frame to the first transmitting
radio network node, said allocation frame indicating the number of
data units the first transmitting radio network node is given
permission to transmit, this latter number being referred to as credits;
wherein the second transmitting radio network node, if buffer
resources for storing of data units at the second transmitting radio network
node are limited for each data flow between the first and second transmitting
radio network nodes, performs the steps of:
counting the instantaneous number of requested data units in each data
flow to obtain a total number of requested data units;
[A] computing the total number of credits to be granted in each data
flow by subtracting from a target buffer filling level for the total number of
data flows the total number of data units currently stored in each of the
buffers and the total number of credits previously given but not yet received;
and,
[B] distributing the total number of credits proportionally to radio
channel qualities indicated by said user entities.
15. A control method for regulating the flow of data between a first
transmitting radio network node and a second transmitting radio network
node in a radio transmission network, comprising the steps of:
said second transmitting radio network node receiving data from said
first transmitting radio network node to be forwarded to plural user entities
via an air interface, wherein:
the first transmitting radio network node sends a capacity
request to the second transmitting radio network node requesting the
second transmitting radio network node for permission to send an
indicated number of data units that are pending in the first
transmitting radio network node; and,
the second transmitting radio network node, in response to the
capacity request, sends an allocation frame to the first transmitting
radio network node, said allocation frame indicating the number of
Appeal 2011-010288
Application 10/595,312

4
data units the first transmitting radio network node is given
permission to transmit, this latter number being referred to as credits;
and,
distributing the number of credits given by the second transmitting
radio network node proportionally to radio channel qualities indicated by
said user entities to which the second transmitting radio network node is
scheduling radio transmission of data units.
The Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art shown in Figures 1-4
and described from page 1, line 6 to page 5, line 31 of Appellants’
Specification (hereinafter, “AAPA”), Calvignac (US 2002/0191642 A1), and
Liu (US 2004/0062192 A1). Ans. 3-7.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over AAPA and Liu. Ans. 7-11.
Principal Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6-9)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1-5), the following principal issue is
presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting (i) claims 13 and 14 under § 103(a)
over the combination of AAPA, Calvignac, and Liu, and/or (ii) claims 15-17
under § 103(a) over the combination of AAPA and Liu, because AAPA fails
to disclose a credit-based flow control mechanism, and Liu fail to disclose
optimizing transmission rate, distributing a total number of credits
proportionally to radio channel qualities indicated by user entities?

Appeal 2011-010288
Application 10/595,312

5
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-9) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.
1-6) contending that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 3-11), and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.
11-16) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and highlight and emphasize certain
findings with regard to the applied prior art.
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 11-15) that (i) page 2, lines 8-24 of
Appellants’ Specification (AAPA) discloses a credit-based flow control
mechanism with a number of credits being sent to individual user entities
over an air interface (see Ans. 11-12), and (ii) Liu’s paragraphs [0024],
[0026], [0034], and [0037] disclose optimization of transmission rates and
the proportional distribution and allocation of power and transmission data
rates based on channel qualities indicated by user entities Channel Quality
Information (CQI) signals from each wireless unit) (see Ans. 14-15).
Appellants fail to address or otherwise rebut the citations to page 2 of the
Specification and paragraphs [0024], [0026], [0034], and [0037] of Liu.
Further, we note our agreement with the Examiner that Calvignac’s
paragraph [0067] (cited by the Examiner at Ans. 5-7) clearly teaches “credit
generation logic,” “a maximum credit register,” “an outstanding credit
register,” and “a decrement counter signal” that all operate together to meet
the claim limitations relating to counting and computing credits for
managing data flow.
Appeal 2011-010288
Application 10/595,312

6
We also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 16) that AAPA and Liu, when
combined, meet the limitations recited in claims 15-17 because Liu discloses
total transmission power and transmission data rate are distributed
proportionally to channel quality information indicated by each wireless
unit.
In view of the foregoing, we agree with the Examiner’s (i) response at
pages 11-16 of the Answer, (ii) determination (Ans. 3-7) that AAPA,
Calvignac, and Liu, when combined meet limitations [A] and [B] recited in
claim 13, and (iii) determination (Ans. 7-11) that AAPA and Liu, when
combined meet the limitations recited in claims 15-17.
Appellants have not adequately shown that the combination of AAPA,
Calvignac, and Liu fails to teach or suggest the subject matter recited in
claim 13 (and claim 14 depending therefrom). Similarly, and because
Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 9) as to claims 15-17 rely on the arguments
presented for claim 13, Appellants have not adequately shown that the
combination of AAPA and Liu fails to teach or suggest the subject matter
recited in claims 15-17.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting (i) claims 13 and 14 under
§ 103(a) over the combination of AAPA, Calvignac, and Liu; and/or (ii)
claims 15-17 under § 103(a) over the combination of AAPA and Liu.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 13-17 are affirmed.
Appeal 2011-010288
Application 10/595,312

7
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

llw