Ex Parte Reumerman et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 18, 2019

12668469 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 18, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/668,469 01/11/2010 Hans-Juergen Reumerman
24737 7590 01/23/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2007P01214WOUS 6629
EXAMINER
HUANG, WEN WU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2019 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS-JUERGEN REUMERMAN, GEORGI OS ORF ANOS,
BERNARD WALKE, JELENA MIRKOVIC, and
THEODORUSJACOBUSJOHANNESDENTENEER
Appeal2018-002075
Application 12/668,469
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1---6, 9, 10, and 14--21, i.e., all pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-002075
Application 12/668,469
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the "invention relates to a method of
reducing interference in a communication system" and more specifically to a
"link adaptation scheme applicable in various communication systems."
Spec. 1:2--4. 2 The Specification explains that (1) a "transmitter first
determines" an "interference level at the transmitter" and (2) "based on the
determined interference level, performs link adaptation" by applying
"channel bundling for adapting the communication link so as to transmit
simultaneously on at least two radio channels from the transmitter to the
receiver." Id. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as
follows:
1. A method of reducing interference in a communication
system supporting multiple radio channel communication
scheme, wherein a communication link is established between a
transmitter and a receiver, the method comprising:
determining an interference level at the transmitter for a
transmission from the transmitter to the receiver;
comparing the determined interference level to a
threshold value, wherein the threshold value is adjusted
dynamically based on a type of the transmission; and
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the
Specification, filed January 11, 2010; "Final Act." for the Final Office
Action, mailed January 31, 2017; "App. Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed
June 22, 2017; "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed October 19, 2017;
and "Reply Br." for the Reply Brief, filed December 18, 2017.
2
Appeal2018-002075
Application 12/668,469
when the determined interference level exceeds the
threshold value, performing a link adaptation, wherein
performing the link adaptation comprises applying a channel
bundling and starting multiple backoff processes in parallel for
adapting the communication link so as to begin the transmission
concurrently on at least two radio channels from the transmitter
to the receiver.
App. Br. 21 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence ofunpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a), the
Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Parantainen et al. ("Parantainen") US 6,456,844 B 1
Stephens US 2005/0136921 Al
Hundal et al. ("Hundal") US 2006/0068715 Al
Flemming et al. ("Flemming") US 2006/0114823 Al
Hart US 2008/0009243 Al
The Rejections on Appeal
Sept. 24, 2002
June 23, 2005
Mar. 30, 2006
June 1, 2006
Jan. 10,2008
Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 10, and 14--21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Hundal, Stephens, Flemming, and
Parantainen. Final Act. 2-12.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Hundal, Stephens, Flemming, Parantainen, and Hart.
Final Act. 12-14.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the§ I03(a) rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we
concur with the Examiner's conclusions concerning unpatentability under
3
Appeal2018-002075
Application 12/668,469
§ 103(a). We adopt the Examiner's findings and reasoning in the Final
Office Action (Final Act. 3-14) and Answer (Ans. 3-5). We add the
following to address and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 10, and 14-21
CLAIM 1: DYNAMICALLY ADruSTING THRESHOLD VALUES
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
Parantainen does not disclose or suggest the following limitation in claim 1:
"wherein the threshold value is adjusted dynamically based on a type of the
transmission." See App. Br. 13-16; Reply Br. 5---6. Specifically, Appellants
assert that (1) "Parantainen only discloses a threshold value with an equal
adaptation step" and (2) the claimed threshold value "differs from
Parantainen because the threshold value used in performing the link
adaptation requires greater flexibility than an equal adaptation step." App.
Br. 15. In addition, Appellants contend that "Parantainen teaches that the
interference threshold values are adapted in such a way that the adaptation
steps are the same for all services." Reply Br. 5.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner correctly finds that Parantainen discloses the disputed
limitation. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 4--5; Parantainen 2:1-15, 3:45-57,
5: 12-59, Abstract. In particular, Parantainen explains that a channel's
interference threshold value "is changed dynamically to correspond to the
operating conditions." Parantainen 3:45-57; see id. Abstract. Depending on
"the quality value of the served radio connections," the "interference
threshold value of the channel is" lowered or raised. Id. at 5: 12-36.
Parantainen also explains that "[i]n one embodiment the interference
threshold value of the channel" may "depend on the type of service
4
Appeal2018-002075
Application 12/668,469
transmitted in the radio connection." Id. at 5:37--48. Specifically, "for data
transmission, the interference threshold value may differ greatly from the
interference threshold used for speech services." Id. at 5:45--48.
Parantainen teaches the disputed limitation because the Specification
similarly explains that "the interference threshold may depend on the type of
transmission" since "more interference is tolerated" when transmitting data
than when transmitting speech. Spec. 5 :24--26.
Appellants' arguments about Parantainen address a different
embodiment with "interference threshold values ... adapted in such a way
that adaptation steps are the same for all services." See App. Br.
14-15(emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 5---6; see also Parantainen 5:49--59.
But even that embodiment teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. In
that embodiment, the interference threshold values for data and speech start
at different levels, i.e., -105 dBm for data and -100 dBm for speech.
Parantainen 5:52-55. Because the interference threshold values for data and
speech start at different levels, changes to those values in equal adaptation
steps produce different values for data and speech at each change. See id.
at 5 :49--59. Those changes dynamically adjust "the threshold value ...
based on a type of the transmission" as recited in claim 1.
Appellants attempt to distinguish claim 1 from Parantainen by
asserting that claim 1 requires threshold values that "change[] independently
of other services and change[] based on the type of service." App. Br.
14--15. That attempt fails because claim 1 does not require dynamic
adjustments to threshold values "independent[] of other services." App.
Br. 21 (Claims App.).
5
Appeal2018-002075
Application 12/668,469
Appellants also attempt to distinguish claim 1 from Parantainen by
asserting that "the threshold value in claim 1 is adjusted dynamically based
on the transmission type and the number of channels bundled." App. Br. 15.
That attempt fails because claim 1 does not require dynamic adjustments to
threshold values "based on ... the number of channels bundled." App.
Br. 21 (Claims App.).
CLAIM 1: APPL YING CHANNEL BUNDLING AND
STARTING MULTIPLE BACKOFF PROCESSES IN PARALLEL
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
Hundal, Stephens, and Flemming do not disclose or suggest the following
limitation in claim 1: "wherein performing the link adaptation comprises
applying a channel bundling and starting multiple backoff processes in
parallel for adapting the communication link so as to begin the transmission
concurrently on at least two radio channels from the transmitter to the
receiver." See App. Br. 9--13; Reply Br. 2-5. In particular, Appellants
contend that Stephens "teaches starting a backoff period independently for
each channel" rather than "starting multiple backoff processes in parallel" as
required by claim 1. App. Br. 10. Appellants also contend that
( 1) "Flemming is not related to channel bundling" and (2) Flemming's
backoff process "is not related to the backoff process to begin the
transmission concurrently on at least two radio channels from the
transmitter." Id. at 11. According to Appellants, "Flemming teaches a
backoff process for a plurality of buffers in a WLAN device attempting to
access the same transmission channel." Id.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
they attack the references individually, while the Examiner relies on the
6
Appeal2018-002075
Application 12/668,469
combined disclosures in the references to teach or suggest the disputed
limitations. See Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 3--4. Where a rejection rests on the
combined disclosures in the references, an appellant cannot establish
nonobviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re Merck
& Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, the Examiner correctly finds that Hundal discloses link
adaptation by applying channel bundling to reduce interference in a
communication system. See Final Act. 3. For instance, Hundal describes "a
technique for increasing the performance of a wireless communication link
operating in the presence of an external source of intermittent interference."
Hundal ,r 2. The technique involves "establishing a redundant link" by using
two bearers, i.e., a "primary" bearer and a "secondary" bearer, "established
over different channels." Id. ,r,r 65---66. By using two bearers, "voice quality
can be improved in the case of multi-path fading or interference generated"
by other systems. Id. ,r 66.
Also, the Examiner correctly finds that Stephens discloses applying
channel bundling and starting multiple backoff processes in parallel. See
Final Act. 4; Ans. 3. In particular, Stephens explains that (1) "[t]he backoff
period is an interval that the device will wait, after a channel becomes free,
before transmitting data," and (2) "[i]f multiple channels become free" and
"remain free during the backoff period, then ... a combination of two or
more of the free channels, may be used to transmit the data." Stephens ,r 16.
A device "may be programmed to always select the maximum number of
free channels possible to transmit the data." Id. ,r 19.
7
Appeal2018-002075
Application 12/668,469
Further, Stephens' Figure 7 illustrates multiple backoff processes
started "in parallel" as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 3. Figure 7 is
reproduced below.
14 12
~
90
\
92
94 Backoff
Aborted
W3~----'--Backoff----O
98
Hole4
Figure 7 shows "a channel usage scenario" with (1) backoffperiod 94
starting at point 92 when channel 4 becomes free, (2) backoff period 98
starting at point 96 when channel 3 becomes free, and (3) device
transmission occurring on channels 3 and 4 after both backoff periods have
ended. Stephens ,r,r 7, 21, Fig. 7. The device starts backoff periods 94 and
98 "in parallel" as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 3. As the Examiner explains,
"the broadest reasonable interpretation of 'starting multiple backoff
processes in parallel' includes ... 'starting multiple backoff processes in
parallel' at different times." Id.
Appellants contend that claim 1 requires "the multiple backoff
processes [to] start at the same time not at 'different times in parallel' as
alleged by the Examiner's Answer." Reply Br. 3; see id. at 4. We disagree.
"[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Hyatt,
8
Appeal2018-002075
Application 12/668,469
211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Here, the Specification explains that
a device may "start multiple transmissions in parallel on the different
channels" by transmitting "on each channel independently" so "the
transmissions on different channels do not usually start at the same time."
Spec. 6: 16-21; see id. Fig. 5. Figure 5 shows the transmissions on different
channels started "in parallel" at different times. Id. Fig. 5; see id. at
6: 16-22. Hence, contrary to Appellants' contention, starting "in parallel"
includes starting at different times as well as starting at the same time. See
id. at 6: 16-22, Fig. 5.
Appellants assert that the Specification "states: 'Once the decision is
made to apply channel bundling, then multiple backoff processes are started
in parallel."' Reply Br. 3 (quoting Spec. 6:12-13); see Ans. 3. Appellants
then assert that "a skilled artisan understands that the 'multiple backoff
processes' are 'started' based on a single event in the same point in time, the
decision to apply channel bundling." Reply Br. 3. But Appellants cannot
rely on unclaimed features for patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348, 1350 (CCPA 1982). Here, claim 1 does not require "starting multiple
backoff processes" based on "the decision to apply channel bundling." App.
Br. 21 (Claims App.).
In addition, the Examiner correctly finds that Flemming discloses
starting multiple backoff processes in parallel. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 4. In
particular, Flemming describes a communication device that transmits
different traffic classes. Flemming ,r,r 15, 31, Abstract, Fig. 2. The device
uses a separate buffer for each traffic class and "one single backoff
generator" for all traffic classes. Id. ,r,r 15-17, 31-32, 3 6, 48, claim 1,
Abstract, Fig. 2. The single backoff generator "may perform a shared
9
Appeal2018-002075
Application 12/668,469
backoff generation" for all traffic classes. Id. ,r 40, Fig. 3. Although the
traffic classes may use the same channel, that does not demonstrate error
because the Examiner relies on Hundal and Stephens to teach or suggest
channel bundling. See Final Act. 3--4.
For the reasons discussed above, the combined disclosures in the
references teach or suggest the disputed limitation. See, e.g., Final Act. 3-5;
Ans. 3--4; Hundal ,r,r 65---66; Stephens ,r,r 15-16, 19, 21, Fig. 7; Flemming
,r,r 15, 31-32, 36, 40, 48, Abstract, Figs. 2-3.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
Appellants argue that the Examiner "appears to apply impermissible
hindsight to reach a legal conclusion of obviousness" when combining
Hundal, Stephens, and Flemming. App. Br. 12. In particular, Appellants
question the motivation to combine "[b ]ecause Hundal and Stephens do not
disclose or suggest 'starting multiple backoff processes in parallel' and
because Flemming is not related to 'performing the link adaptation
comprises applying a channel bundling."' Id.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. "[T]he
law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons
contemplated by the inventor." In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir.
1992); see Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1371
(Fed. Cir. 2017). "[T]he desire to enhance commercial opportunities by
improving a product or process is universal .... " DyStar Textilfarben
GmbH v. CH Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see In re
Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Here, the Examiner correctly finds that the references are properly
"combinable," e.g., because "Stephens teaches running multiple backoff
10
Appeal2018-002075
Application 12/668,469
processes and Flemming is related to efficiently running multiple backoff
processes." Ans. 4; see Final Act. 4--5. For example, Flemming explains
that using a separate backoff generator for each traffic class causes
conventional communication devices to be "unnecessarily hardware
consuming," thus "suffer[ing] from the problem of increased manufacturing
costs," and "less suitable for device miniaturization, e.g., when aiming at
providing WLAN compatible mobile telephones." Flemming ,r 13; see Final
Act. 5 ( citing Flemming ,r 13). Flemming also explains that using a single
backoff generator "may reduce the hardware consumption and thus
manufacturing and product costs" and "may better allow for being
miniaturized." Flemming ,r 14, Abstract. Thus, the Examiner properly finds
that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine
Flemming with the other references "to improve device miniaturization and
power consumption." Final Act. 5.
Further, Stephens identifies a higher data rate as an advantage
achieved by "teaming" multiple channels, i.e., channel bundling. Stephens
,r,r 2, 12. Thus, the Examiner properly finds that a person of ordinary skill
would have been motivated to combine Stephens with the other references
"to improve communication quality and data rate." Final Act. 4.
SUMMARY FOR CLAIM 1
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants' arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under§ 103(a).
Thus, we sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1.
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 9 AND 10
For independent claims 9 and 10, Appellants quote the claim
limitations and assert that "one or more of the limitations" are not disclosed,
11
Appeal2018-002075
Application 12/668,469
taught, shown, or suggested by the references. App. Br. 16-18. Those
assertions do not constitute separate patentability arguments. The applicable
rules "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 Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011).
Because Appellants do not argue patentability separately for claims 9
and 10, we sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of these claims for the same
reasons as claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2, 3, 6, AND 14--21
Claims 2, 3, 6, and 18-20 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1,
while claims 14--17 and 21 depend directly or indirectly from claim 9.
Appellants do not argue patentability separately for these claims. App.
Br. 10-17; Reply Br. 2---6. Thus, we sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of these
claims for the same reasons as claims 1 and 9. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 4 and 5
Claims 4 and 5 depend directly from claim 1. Appellants contend that
"claims 4 and 5 include all the features of claim 1 including all the particular
patentably distinguishing limitations discussed" for claim 1. App. Br. 18.
Appellants also contend that "Hart does not cure any of the defects discussed
herein above with respect to the teachings of' the other references and the
combination of references "fails to teach, show, or suggest all the
limitation[ s] of claim 1 and the claims dependent thereon." Id. at 19.
Those contentions do not constitute separate patentability arguments.
See Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Because Appellants do not argue patentability
12
Appeal2018-002075
Application 12/668,469
separately for claims 4 and 5, we sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of these
claims for the same reasons as claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6, 9, 10, and
14--21.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
13