Ex Parte Karabinis et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201410914515 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 10/914,515 08/09/2004 Peter D. Karabinis 9301-89 5796 20792 7590 09/25/2014 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC PO BOX 37428 RALEIGH, NC 27627 EXAMINER PASIA, REDENTOR M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2474 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/25/2014 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 PETER D. KARABINIS and SANTANU DUTTA ____________________ Appeal 2012-005130 Application 10/914,515 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-005130 Application 10/914,515 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 14, 18, 22, and 26–32. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11–13, 15–17, 19– 21, and 23–25 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to wireless systems, methods and devices employing forward- and/or return-link carriers having different numbers of sub-band carriers. Abs. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A wireless communications system comprising: a forward link carrier comprising a plurality of OFDM/OFDMA forward link subcarriers comprising identical forward link subcarrier bandwidth therebetween; and a return link carrier comprising only a single return link subcarrier comprising a return link subcarrier bandwidth that is different than the forward link subcarrier bandwidth, wherein the forward link carrier comprising the plurality of OFDM/OFDMA forward link subcarriers and the return link carrier comprising only the single return link subcarrier together form a bidirectional communications link for one wireless user device. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Frodigh US 5,726,978 Mar. 10, 1998 Walton US 2003/0128658 A1 July 10, 2003 Appeal 2012-005130 Application 10/914,515 3 REJECTION1 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 14, 18, 22, and 26–32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walton and Frodigh. Ans. 5– 23. APPELLANTS’ CONTENTION “The mere existence of one or more frequency subchannels in Walton et al.’s MIMO-OFDM system . . . does not disclose or suggest treating forward and return links differently such that a plurality of forward link subcarriers are provided but only a single return link subcarrier is provided.” App. Br. 8. ISSUE ON APPEAL Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6–12) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 4–5), the issue presented on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in finding Walton’s description of frequency subchannel groups ranging in number between 1 ≤ NG ≤ NF teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of a plurality of forward link subcarriers and a single return link subcarrier.2 1 Appellants argue the rejection of independent claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 14, 18, and 22 on the basis of claim 1 alone. App. Br. 12. Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 26–32. Id. Therefore, based on Appellants’ arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 14, 18, 22, and 26–32 based on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). 2 We note claim 1 recites “a return link carrier comprising only a single return link subcarrier.” Although the “comprising” transition is considered open ended and not limiting of additional elements (i.e., equivalent to “including at least”), for purposes of this opinion we consider the limitation restrictive of any additional elements to exclude additional return link subcarriers beyond the recited single return link subcarrier. Appeal 2012-005130 Application 10/914,515 4 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments 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. 4–23) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 23–28) and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. Appellants contend “Walton et al.’s MIMO-OFDM system does not disclose or suggest treating forward and return links differently such that a plurality of forward link subcarriers are provided but only a single return link sub carrier is provided.” App. Br. 7. Appellants argue there is no reason provided by Walton to treat the forward link differently from the return link in terms of the number of subcarriers. App. Br. 7–8. In support of their contention Appellants direct attention to various portions of Walton that “appear[] to describe downlink and uplink as having the same number of subcarriers.” App. Br. 9. The Examiner responds by finding Walton teaches “[t]he number of subchannel group includes the range 1 ≤ NG ≤ NF.” Ans. 25. Because Walton allows for different treatment of downlink and uplink configurations based on system design and the efficient use of resources, the Examiner finds the available transmission channels are allocated such that channels are utilized by a proper set of one of more terminals in the MIMO-OFDM system. Id. citing Walton ¶ 9. The Examiner concludes Walton teaches or suggests treating the downlink and uplink differently including a Appeal 2012-005130 Application 10/914,515 5 “configuration of a bidirectional communications link includes a downlink comprises of a plurality of subchannel groups, while the uplink comprises of a single (i.e. 1) subchannel group.” Id. Addressing Appellants’ argument Walton teaches downlinks and uplinks having the same rather than a different number of subcarriers (App. Br. 9–12), the Examiner finds the cited portions disclose various embodiments but Walton is not limited to these embodiments. Ans. 27. We agree with the Examiner. Appellants have provided insufficient evidence or argument to persuade us Walton’s number of subchannel groups in the range 1 ≤ NG ≤ NF, i.e., one or more, fails to teach or suggest both a single subchannel group and a plurality of subchannel groups used for the forward and return links. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner Walton allows for different downlink and uplink configurations based on system design, i.e., as a matter of design choice. In particular, Walton teaches single and plural (i.e., ≤ NF ) subchannel groups, depending on system design factors. Although we affirm the rejection based on the Examiner’s findings and conclusions for the reasons supra, we note in passing there are only a finite number of types of downlink and uplink configurations—a configuration having one subchannel group and a configuration having more than one subchannel group. Accordingly, the disputed return link carrier comprising only a single return link subcarrier (when it might otherwise include plural subcarriers) and a forward link carrier comprising plural forward link subcarriers (when the alternative is one) is one of a finite number of predicable (in the present case, four possible) configurations. We further note a finite number of configurations or solutions within the skill Appeal 2012-005130 Application 10/914,515 6 and understanding of ordinarily skilled artisans can be indicative of obviousness: When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). For the reasons supra and in the absence of sufficient evidence or argument in rebuttal to the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and, for the same reasons, independent claims 4, 7, 10, 14, 18, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Walton and Frodigh together with the rejection of dependent claims 26–32 not separately argued. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding Walton’s description of frequency subchannel groups ranging in number between 1 ≤ NG ≤ NF teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of a plurality of forward link subcarriers and a single return link subcarrier. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 14, 18, 22, and 26–32 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)(iv). Appeal 2012-005130 Application 10/914,515 7 AFFIRMED tc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation