Ex Parte JungDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201813933020 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation