Ex Parte KWON et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 9, 2017

12431457 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2017)

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.
12/431,457 04/28/2009 Hwan-Joon KWON 678-1379 CON 5186
66547 7590 03/13/2017
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2017 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):
pto @ farrelliplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HWAN-JOON KWON, DONG-HEE KIM, and
YOUN-SUN KIM
Appeal 2014-003351
Application 12/431,457
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2014-003351
Application 12/431,457
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 12—14, 16, 17, 19, and 20. Claims 6 and 11 are
indicated to be allowable. Claims 3, 5, 8, 10, 15, and 18 are canceled. We
have jurisdiction over the rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to controlling a reverse traffic rate in a mobile
communication system. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with a
disputed limitation emphasize in italics, is representative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method for controlling an uplink Traffic-to-pilot Power
Ratio (TPR) in a mobile station of a mobile communication
system, the method comprising:
receiving TPR control information over a downlink
control channel;
determining, by the MS, an allowed maximum TPR of
uplink data to be transmitted in a second transmission interval,
the allowed maximum TPR being determined by applying a used
TPR in a first transmission interval to a value indicating to
increase or decrease the used TPR in the first transmission
interval according to the TPR control information; and
controlling a TPR of the uplink data to be transmitted in
the second transmission interval based on the determined
allowed maximum TPR,
wherein the first transmission interval and the second
transmission interval are included in a same Hybrid Automatic
Retransmission reQuest (HARQ) process.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
2
Appeal 2014-003351
Application 12/431,457
Hwang
You
Alin
US 2002/0060997 A1 May 23, 2002
US 2003/0063595 A1 Apr. 3, 2003
US 7,143,330 B2 Nov. 28, 2006
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 12—14, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art
(AAPA), Hwang, and Ahn. Final Act. 4—7.
Claims 16 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over AAPA, Hwang, Ahn, and You. Final Act. 7—8.
Appellants contend the requirement of “a same Hybrid Automatic
Retransmission reQuest (HARQ) process” should be interpreted as depicted
in Figure 9 to include each time interval corresponding to the same
Automatic Repeat request Channel Indicator (ACID) consistent with
Technical Specification 3GPP TS 25.319 V10.1.0, section 9.2.1.1 rather than
the broader interpretation used by the Examiner in rejecting the independent
claims. App. Br. 5—12.
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 (Final Act. 2—8)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—8) and concur with the
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTION
ANALYSIS
3
Appeal 2014-003351
Application 12/431,457
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
This appeal turns on the interpretation of “included in a same [HARQ]
process.” Claim 1. Appellants argue “the recitation ‘the first transmission
interval and the second transmission interval are included in a same Hybrid
Automatic Retransmission reQuest (HARQ) process,’ is clearly illustrated in
FIG. 9 of the present application and the description thereof.” App. Br. 7.
According to Appellants, as shown in the figure, “each time interval
corresponding to a same ACID1 would be considered as being in ‘the same
HARQ process’ [recited by the independent claims].” App. Br. 8.
Appellants argue this interpretation is supported by a related 3 GPP Technical
Specification2 and “is terminology known to a person having ordinary skill
in the art.” Id.
The Examiner finds Appellants’ “claim does NOT define what the
first/second interval can/can’t be nor does it define what is/isn’t involved in
the ‘same HARQ process.’” Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds the claims
do not require the transmission intervals be defined by the 3GPP Technical
Specification. Ans. 6. Accordingly, the Examiner rejects Appellants’
proffered narrow interpretation and, instead, interprets the limitation to mean
“wherein [the] transmissions are part of the SAME data transmission, [e.g.,]
are in the same transmission interval of an on-going HARQ process.” Final
Act. 3; Ans. 3 (emphasis omitted). Therefore, the Examiner finds Hwang’s
1 ARQ (Automatic Repeat reQuest) Channel Indicator
2 3GPP TS 25.319 V10.1.0 (2010-06) 3rd Generation Partnership Project;
Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Enhanced uplink;
Overall description; Stage 2 (Release 10) (Uploaded June 18, 2010)
(Available for download at
http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/25_series/25.319/25319-al0.zip).
4
Appeal 2014-003351
Application 12/431,457
data packet transmissions are included in the same HARQ process or
interval when a data packet is retransmitted at a higher power level in
response to a negative acknowledgement (NAK) message received in
connection with an earlier transmission. Ans. 5. Accordingly, the Examiner
finds Hwang teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Id. The Examiner
further finds “Ahn[’s] . . . power control in a mobile/cellular network using
an ACK/NAK protocol in a HARQ environment [also teaches or suggests
the disputed] claim limitations.” Id.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Appellants’ arguments are
based on an unduly narrow interpretation of the meaning of “included in a
same Hybrid Automatic Retransmission reQuest (HARQ) process.” When
construing claim terminology during prosecution before the Office, claims
are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, reading claim language in light of the specification as it would
be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad, of Sci.
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Neither Appellants’ claims
nor Specification define what is meant by included in a same HARQ
process. Instead, Appellants direct attention to a disclosed example, arguing
“each time interval corresponding to a same ACID would be considered as
being in ‘the same HARQ process.’” App Br. 8. However, the Specification
merely describes a non-limiting example of “a common HARQ operation,”
and does not limit “a same HARQ process” to Appellants’ interpretation.
Appellants’ reliance on an illustration found in the 3GPP Technical
Specification is also unpersuasive because there is neither a claim
requirement for the transmission intervals to comply with that or any other
specification nor does the 3GPP Technical Specification provide a clear
5
Appeal 2014-003351
Application 12/431,457
definition of what is meant by in the same HARQ process. Furthermore, we
note the referenced 3 GPP Technical Specification appears to be dated June
2010,3 over one year after the filing date of Appellants’ application and,
therefore, is not persuasive evidence of what one of ordinary skill at the time
of the invention would have understood to be meant by included in the same
HARQ process. Therefore, we find no error in the Examiner’s broad but
reasonable interpretation of what is meant by being included in a same
HARQ process and agree the applied combination including Hwang teaches
or suggests the disputed limitation of the independent claims.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of independent claim 1 and, for
the same reasons, independent claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
AAPA, Hwang, and Ahn together with the rejection of dependent claims 2,
4, 9, 12—14, 17, and 20 which were not argued separately with particularity.
We further sustain the rejection of dependent claims 16 and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over AAPA, Hwang, Ahn, and You, as these dependent
claims also not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 12—
14, 16, 17, 19, and 20.
3 The cover page of 3GPP Technical Specification TS 25.319 version 10.1.0
indicates a date of “2010-06”; the 3GPP website indicates TS 25.319 was
uploaded on June 18, 2010 (see https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/
Specifications/SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=l 174) and revised
on December 1, 2016 (see https://portal.3gpp.org/ChangeRequests.aspx?q=
l&versionId=36593&release=184).
6
Appeal 2014-003351
Application 12/431,457
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
7