Ex Parte Jung

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 31, 2018

13933020 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/933,020
23990 7590
DOCKET CLERK
FILING DATE
07/01/2013
06/04/2018
P.O. DRAWER 800889
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jung-Soo Jung
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.
P20221-US
(SAMSOS-20221)
CONFIRMATION NO.
7806
EXAMINER
HUYNH, CHUCK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2018 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):
patents@munckwilson.com
munckwilson@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUNG-SOO JUNG
Appeal2017-011525
Application 13/933,020 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 6, 10, 15, 21-23, 25-27, 29-31, 33-36, and 38. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. App. Br. 4.
2 Claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-14, 16-20, 24, 28, 32, 37 were cancelled previously.
App. Br. Claims App'x 1-5.
Appeal2017-011525
Application 13/933,020
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention relates to a beam forming-based communication
system. Spec. ,r,r 2, 6.
Claims 1, 6, 10, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is representative:
1. A method for transmitting a signal by a
transmitting apparatus in a beam forming-based communication
system, the method comprising:
allocating a different period for transmission of a
synchronization signal to each of a plurality of transmission
beams of the transmitting apparatus; and
transmitting the synchronization signal through each of
the plurality of transmission beams based on the different
period allocated corresponding to each of the plurality of
transmission beams.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, 10, 15, 21-23, 25-27, 29-31, 33-
36, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Wong (U.S. 6,233,466
B 1; issued May 15, 2001 ).
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites, "a different period for transmission." App. Br.
Claims App'x 1. The Examiner determines that the broadest reasonable
interpretation encompasses different periods of time, including non-
contemporaneous periods of the same time duration. See Ans. 11. Based on
this claim interpretation, the Examiner finds Wong discloses different
periods of time ("slots") for transmission. Final Act. 10-13; Wong col. 6, 11.
45--47.
2
Appeal2017-011525
Application 13/933,020
Appellant argues "the different periods [in claim 1] means that time
intervals [] are different from each other." App. Br. 15, 16, 17; Reply Br. 5,
6. Under this narrower claim interpretation, Appellant argues Wong does
not disclose a "different period," because Wong's time periods are all the
same duration (i.e., 0.625ms in length). App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 2-7.
Appellant's argument is not persuasive, because it is based on an
overly narrow claim interpretation and therefore not commensurate with the
scope of the claim. The Examiner's broader claim interpretation is
reasonable. As the Examiner correctly points out, limitations from the
specification are not read into the claim. Ans. 11. Rather, the words of a
claim must be given their plain meaning, unless the plain meaning is
inconsistent with the specification. In re Zietz, 893 F.2d 319,321 (Fed. Cir.
1989). Here, the Specification does not express an intent to deviate from the
plain meaning of the term "different period." We agree with the Examiner
that the plain meaning of "different period" is not restricted to "periods of
different time intervals" (Ans. 11 ), but rather, merely requires periods
different from each other in any aspect, including being non-
contemporaneous, i.e., happening at different moments in time.
Claims 6, 10, and 15 require similar limitations as required in claim 1.
Accordingly, we are not apprised of error with respect to the Examiner's
rejection based on anticipation of claims 1, 6, 10, and 15 by Wong.
Claim 21
Claim 21 recites, "the different period allocated corresponding to each
of the plurality of transmission beams." App. Br. Claims App'x 2.
Appellant argues the Examiner's rejection of claim 21 is in error for the
same or similar reasons presented for claim 1. App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 2-
3
Appeal2017-011525
Application 13/933,020
7. As discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellant's claim
interpretation argument with respect to the claim term "different period."
Accordingly, we are not apprised of error with respect to the Examiner's
rejection based on anticipation of claim 21 by Wong.
Claim 22
Claim 22 recites, "wherein the frequency resources corresponding to
the plurality of transmission beams are different from each other." App. Br.
Claims App'x 2.
The Examiner finds Wong discloses using frequency division multiple
access (FDMA) where the frequency channels would be distinct for each
transmission beam. Ans. 14; Wong 1:20-30; see also Wong 1:20-2:63.
Appellant argues Wong does not disclose that the frequency resources
for the transmission beams are different from each other. App. Br. 19--20.
However, Appellant does not address the Examiner's explicit findings.
Appellant's argument summarizes the Wong reference, restates the claim
limitation at issue, and argues that Wong does not disclose that limitation
without any more explanation as to why. As such, Appellant does not
particularly show error in the Examiner's finding.
Claims 26, 30, 31, 34, and 35 require similar limitations as required in
claim 22, and the claims are argued together. Accordingly, we are not
apprised of error with respect to the Examiner's rejection based on
anticipation of claims 22, 26, 30, 31, 34, and 35 by Wong.
Claim 23
Claim 23 recites a different period allocated "according to ... a
distance between a target region of each of the plurality of the transmission
beams and the transmitting apparatus." App. Br. Claims App'x 2-3.
4
Appeal2017-011525
Application 13/933,020
The Examiner finds Wong discloses the different period allocated
according to the distance of the subscriber ( target region of the transmission
beam) from the base station (transmitting apparatus). Final Act. 6; Ans. 14;
Wong 9:20-28.
Appellant argues Wong does not disclose a different period allocated
"based on a region of each of the plurality of the transmission beams." App.
Br. 21; Reply Br. 8.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. Appellant, in
paraphrasing the claim language, has not specifically pointed out how the
Examiner's finding regarding the actual claim language, i.e., "a distance
between a target region of each of the plurality of the transmission beams
and the transmitting apparatus," is in error. See App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 8.
Claims 27, 33, and 36 require similar limitations as required in claim
23, and the claims are argued together. Accordingly, we are not apprised of
error with respect to the Examiner's rejection based on anticipation of claims
23, 27, 33, and 36 by Wong.
Claim 25
Claim 25 recites, "allocating a frequency resource with a different
period for transmission of a reference signal to each of the plurality of
transmission beams." App. Br. Claims App'x 3.
The Examiner finds Wong discloses allocation of a frequency
resource with different time slots to transmit a reference signal
(BCCH/PCH) to each of the transmission beams. Final Act. 6; Ans. 15;
Wong 6:43---65, 60---67, Fig. 2A; see also Wong 1:20-2:63.
Appellant argues Wong does not disclose the limitations of claim 25.
App. Br. 22; Reply Br. 9. However, Appellant does not address the
5
Appeal2017-011525
Application 13/933,020
Examiner's explicit findings, and thus, has not apprised us of error in the
Examiner's rejection. Appellant's argument merely summarizes the Wong
reference, restates the claim limitation at issue, and argues that Wong does
not disclose that limitation without any more explanation as to why.
Claims 29, 34, and 38 require similar limitations as claim 25, and the
claims are argued together. Accordingly, we are not apprised of error with
respect to the Examiner's rejection based on anticipation of claims 25, 29,
34, and 38 by Wong.
On the record before us, Appellant has not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 6, 10, 15, 21-23, 25-27, 29-31, 33-36,
and 3 8 as anticipated by Wong.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 6, 10, 15, 21-23, 25-27, 29-31,
33-36, and 38 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6