Ex Parte Ogawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

12597491 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/597,491 12/02/2009
125116 7590 10/31/2016
James Edward Ledbetter
Dickinson Wright PLLC
1825 Eye Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Y oshihiko Ogawa
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.
009289-09178 1529
EXAMINER
AHN,SUNGS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2016 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 YOSHIHIKO OGAWA,
DAICHI IMAMURA, TAKASHI IWAI, and TOMOFUMI TAKATA
Appeal2015-006441
Application 12/597,491
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, SCOTT E. BAIN, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 6--21, 2 which are all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Panasonic Intellectual
Property Corporation of America. (App. Br. 3.)
2 Claims 1-5 were cancelled previously. (See Final Office Action (mailed
July 14, 2014) ("Final Act.") 2.)
Appeal2015-006441
Application 12/597,491
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention relates "to a wireless
communication terminal apparatus, wireless communication base station
apparatus and wireless communication method." (Spec. i-f 1.) Claim 6 is
illustrative, and is reproduced below:
6. A wireless communication terminal apparatus comprising:
an applying section configured to apply, to a cyclic shift
sequence that is generated by cyclically shifting a first sequence
with a determined cyclic shift value and that is used as a
reference signal, one of phase rotation and cyclic shift
corresponding to a frequency difference between a determined
frequency and a transmission band of the reference signal, the
determined frequency being common between a plurality of
cells; and
a transmitter configured to transmit the reference signal to
which one of the phase rotation and the cyclic shift is applied.
Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Baum et al.
("Baum")
Kim et al.
("Kim")
US 200710189404 Al
US 2007/0133386 Al
Aug. 16, 2007
June 14, 2007
Claims 6-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baum in view of Kim. (See Final Act. 4--9.)
2
Appeal2015-006441
Application 12/597,491
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 the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
Appeal Brief. (Ans. 2-3.) However, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
With respect to claim 6, the Examiner finds that:
Baum disclose[s] the pilot sequence implemented with constant
amplitude and zero auto-correlation (CAZAC - first sequence)
sequence . . . corresponds to CAZAC sequence applied with
different cyclic shift as the reference signal disclosed in
Applicant's specification paragraph [0005]) applied with
different cyclic time shift (frequency difference) applied in either
time domain or frequency domain. Baum further disclose the
applying different cyclic shift (frequency difference) for same
pilot signal (reference signal) occupying the specific subcarriers
(transmission frequency band of the reference signal) in either
time domain (Fig. 8B) or frequency domain (Fig. 8C) where
frequency offset applied from specific starting frequncy [sic]
(frequency common in cell) ....
(Ans. 2-3, emphasis added.) The Examiner further finds that Kim teaches or
suggests calculating the frequency difference between a determined
frequency and a transmission band of the reference signal:
Kim further disclose the communication system in same endevor
[sic] where disclose the estimating the cell search and the
synchronization using the position of pilot subcarriers
(transmission band of the reference signal) having specific
estimated cyclic shifting (frequency offset/difference) from same
frequency reference point (determined frequency common
between a plurality of cells) showing different cell have different
cyclic shift from same reference point. ...
3
Appeal2015-006441
Application 12/597,491
(Ans. 3.) According to the Examiner, the "combined teachings of
Baum and Kim as whole disclose the claimed limitation in claim 6 with
a reasonable expectation of improving the cell search and the
synchronization of the base station and mobile station during the
handover between cells for mobile station with distributed pilot
subcarriers." (Id.)
Appellants contend that neither Baum nor Kim teaches or suggests
"one of phase rotation and cyclic shift corresponding to a frequency
difference between a determined frequency .... " (App. Br. 8-12.)
Specifically, according to Appellants, neither Baum nor Kim teaches or
suggests the limitation at issue because "Baum merely discloses a general
cyclic shift sequence ... [and] Kim does not disclose that the pilot sequence
itself, which is mapped on the pilot subcarriers, is cyclic-shifted (i.e., phase
rotation in the frequency domain.)" (Reply 4--5.) Appellants further contend
that the Examiner "has resorted to impermissible hindsight reasoning using
the applicants' disclosure as a guide, in formulating the rejections.
[Specifically, the Examiner] has impermissibly pieced together two distinct
references by selectively picking various unrelated pieces of each reference
and combining these pieces in a highly selective manner." (App. Br. 13.)
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred. For example,
Appellants do not explain with sufficient specificity why the cyclic shift
sequence in the prior art is different from the limitation at issue. In re Lovin,
652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("the Board reasonably interpreted
Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a
mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the
corresponding elements were not found in the prior art."); In re Geisler, 116
4
Appeal2015-006441
Application 12/597,491
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). To the extent the Specification provides explanation of the
limitation at issue, Appellants do not point to the Specification to show how
the claimed invention performs the limitation at issue differently from the
cited references. Moreover, we do not find paragraphs 6 and 96 of the
Specification, referenced by Appellants in their Reply Brief (page 4),
informative on this issue. Furthermore, "one cannot show non-obviousness
by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based
on combinations of references." See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981 ).
We are similarly not persuaded that the Examiner "has impermissibly
pieced together two distinct references by selectively picking various
unrelated pieces of each reference and combining these pieces in a highly
selective manner." (App. Br. 13.) Here, Examiner has articulated reasoning
with a rational underpinning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention would combine Baum and Kim. (Final Act. 5;
Ans. 3.) See KSR Int'! Co., v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415, 418 (2007).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 6 and thus, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 6. Appellants do not make any separate, substantive patentability
arguments regarding independent claims 10-12 and dependent claims 7-9
and 13-21, but instead rely solely on their arguments with respect to claim 6.
(App. Br. 13.) Therefore, we also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
of claims 7-21.
5
Appeal2015-006441
Application 12/597,491
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 6--21.
AFFIRMED
6