Ex Parte LIM et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2016

12360959 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/360,959 01/28/2009
68103 7590 07/29/2016
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yeon-JuLIM
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
0201-0209 7380
EXAMINER
SKRIPNIKOV, ALEX
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2416
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2016 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):
usdocketing@jeffersonip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YEON-JU LIM, HWAN-JOON KWON, HAK-JU LEE, JAE-
YOEL KIM, SUNG-RYUL YUN, HONG-SIL JEONG, and SERO
MYUNG
Appeal2015-003028
Application 12/360,959
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. EV ANS, and STEVEN M.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 1--48. App. Br. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE. 2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed October 8, 2014, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief
Appeal2015-003028
Application 12/360,959
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to configuring broadcast service data in a digital
broadcasting communication system. App. Br. 2.
The Invention
Claims 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, and 36 are independent. The claims have not
been argued separately and therefore stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some
formatting added:
1. A method for configuring broadcast service data in a
digital broadcasting communication system, the method
compnsmg:
mapping, in a frame, a first contiguous zone,
corresponding to an entirety of broadcast service data of a first
type in the frame, and a second contiguous zone, corresponding
to an entirety of broadcast service data of a second type in the
frame,
wherein the broadcast service data included in the first
contiguous zone and the second contiguous zone is sliced
according to a number of service slicings allocated for each
zone,
wherein a number of service slicings for the first
contiguous zone is different from a number of service slicings
for the second contiguous zone, and
(filed January 16, 2015, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed
November 17, 2014, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed January 27, 2014,
"Final Act."), and the Specification (filed January 28, 2009, "Spec.") for
their respective details.
2
Appeal2015-003028
Application 12/360,959
wherein each of the first contiguous zone and the second
contiguous zone is a contiguous area in the frame.
References and Rejection
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Yoshida et al.
Kim et al.
6,144,707 Nov. 7, 2000
US 2011/0188501 Al Provisional Apr. 13, 2007
Claims 1--48 stand rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kim and Yoshida. Final Act. 2-22.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Final Rejections of Claims 1--48 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We agree with Appellants'
conclusions. We provide the following explanation to highlight and address
specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We consider
Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief,
pages 5-11.
Mapping, in a frame
The Examiner finds Kim discloses a method comprising mapping in a
frame a first zone, corresponding to an entirety of broadcast service data of a
first type, and a second zone, corresponding to an entirety of broadcast
service data of a second type, in the frame. Final Act. 23 (citing Kim, Figure
8).
3
Appeal2015-003028
Application 12/360,959
Appellants contend, contrary to the Examiner's finding, that Figure 8
discloses the operations of a packet multiplexer which performs operations
prior to outputting data that is subsequently constituted into a frame. App.
Br. 6. Appellants argue the output of the packet multiplexer is randomized
prior to being assembled into a frame. App. Br. 7. Thus, according to
Appellants, Kim fails to disclose mapping a frame. Id.
The Examiner finds Appellants do not define the claim term "frame."
Ans. 23. The Examiner finds Kim discloses a frame within the IEEE
Dictionary meaning, i.e., "a cyclic set of consecutive timeslots in which the
relative position of each timeslot can be identified." Id.
Appellants traverse the Examiner's finding that Appellants failed to
define the claim term "frame." Appellants argue the Examiner's definition
is the most general definition of a frame provided by the IEEE, such that a
frame of a token ring network (see IEEE 802.5) from 1985 and a frame from
a cellular Long Term Evolution (LTE) netv,rork comport \vith the basic
definition of a frame. Reply Br. 3. Appellants further argue, however, the
present application does not relate to networks from 1985 and thus, the basic
definition of a frame relied upon by the Examiner is unreasonable given the
recitations regarding frames in the present application and given the
understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. Id. Appellants contend the
Specification recites:
[i]n the physical layer structure, a control channel refers to a
channel that transmits a control message for a transmission
scheme in the physical layer. If the basic unit of a transmission
signal is defined as a frame, one frame can be composed of a
plurality of services and include a service index, location
information, modulation scheme/ coding rate, and cell identifier
(ID) for each service. The control channel can be transmitted
4
Appeal2015-003028
Application 12/360,959
independently of a data channel in every frame, since the
service configuration and its associated information can vary
frame by frame. Since demodulation for the control channel
should be performed first in order for a terminal to receive a
service channel, the control channel should be situated first in
the frame.
Reply Br. 3 (citing Spec., i-f 5).
We agree with Appellants that the Specification defines the claim
term "frame" such that the basic IEEE definition, adopted by the Examiner
is not reasonable.
Contrary to the Examiner's finding that Figure 8 of Kim discloses
mapping a frame (Final Act. 23), Kim discloses "FIG. 8 is a view showing
the operation of a packet multiplexer." Kim, i-f 30. Moreover, the figure text
does not recite "frame." See Kim, Figure 8. As argued by Appellants (App.
Br. 7), the packet multiplexer outputs multiplexed fields to a data
randomizer. Kim, i-f 127. We find the cited portions of Kim fail to teach or
suggest mapping various data zones in a frame, as recited in each of
independent claims 1, 8, 15, 22, 29 and 36.
A frame with a first contiguous zone, corresponding to an entirety of
broadcast service data of a first type, and a second contiguous zone,
corresponding to an entirety of broadcast service data of a second type
The Examiner finds Kim does not disclose the claimed first and
second contiguous zones. Final Act. 3. However, the Examiner finds
Yoshida discloses apparatus for receiving broadcasting signals comprising a
first contiguous zone, for a fast information channel (FIC), and a second
contiguous zone, for a main service channel (MSC). Id.
5
Appeal2015-003028
Application 12/360,959
Appellants contend Yoshida discloses the "FIC thus formed transmits
control information, such as multiplex configuration information (MCI) and
other information." App. Br. 9 (quoting Yoshida, col. 8, 11. 6-8). Thus,
appellants argue, the fast information channel (FIC) is not a "contiguous
zone, corresponding to an entirety of broadcast service data," as claimed. Id.
at 10.
The Examiner responds the FIC contains data explaining a digital
audio broadcasting signal and, therefore, the FIC is used for broadcast data.
Ans. 25-26.
Appellants reply one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
a broadcast signal may include control information, wherein the control
information of the broadcast signal excludes broadcast data. Reply Br. 6.
Appellants disclose a "frame consists of a P2 preamble and more than one
service traffic." Spec., i-f 78. Appellants further disclose "the P2 preamble
transmits control information including scheduling information indicating at
which location in the frame each service traffic is transmitted, it is located
ahead of service data so that the terminal can demodulate the P2 preamble
first." Id. Thus, Appellants' Specification differentiates "control
information" from "service data."
Each of independent claims 1, 8, 15, 22, 29 and 36 recite "an entirety
of broadcast service data" which we find is not taught by the fast
information channel (FIC) of Yoshida.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1--48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED.
6
Appeal2015-003028
Application 12/360,959
REVERSED
7