Ex Parte Tseng

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 19, 2016

12507792 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/507,792 0712212009
106622 7590 10/21/2016
Blue Capital Law Firm, P.C.
650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1530
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Li-Chih Tseng
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.
1291-149.101 6704
EXAMINER
TORRES, JOSEPH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2112
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/21/2016 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):
docketing@bluecapitallaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LI-CHIH TSENG
Appeal2015-006851
Application 12/507,792
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-006851
Application 12/507,792
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method for improving a Hybrid Automatic
Repeat Request (HARQ) operation in a user equipment
(UE) of a wireless communication system, the UE
operating in an HS-SCCH less operation mode, the
method comprising:
decoding a first data of an HARQ procedure
corresponding to a first Transmission Time Interval
(TTI);
delivering the first data to an upper layer
reordering entity and reporting a positive
acknowledgement (ACK) corresponding to the first data
after the first data is successfully decoded;
considering data stored in a first soft buff er
corresponding to the first TTI has been decoded
successfully;
receiving a second data of the HARQ procedure
corresponding to a second TTI which occurs later than
the first TTI and the second TTI is associated with the
first TTI to determine whether the second data is a
retransmission of the first data of the HARQ procedure;
and
reporting a positive ACK corresponding to the
second data of the HARQ procedure corresponding to the
second TTL
2
Appeal2015-006851
Application 12/507,792
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-2, 7, 9-10, and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Vayanos (US 6,901,063 B2; May
31,2005). 1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Vayanos and Heo
(US 7,764,661 B2; July 27, 2010).2
3. The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Vayanos, Heo, and Appellant's
Admitted Prior Art (Spec. ,-r 8). 3
4. The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Vayanos and Seidel
(US 7,657,815 B2; Feb. 2, 2010).4
1 The patentability of claims 2, 7, 9-10, and 15 is not separately argued from
that of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 4--5. Except for our ultimate decision,
claims 2, 7, 9-10, and 15 are not discussed further herein.
2 The patentability of claims 3 and 11 is not separately argued from that of
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 5---6. Except for our ultimate decision, claims 3 and
11 are not discussed further herein.
3 The patentability of claims 4 and 12 is not separately argued from that of
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 5---6. Except for our ultimate decision, claims 4 and
12 are not discussed further herein.
4 The patentability of claims 5 and 13 is not separately argued from that of
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 5---6. Except for our ultimate decision, claims 5 and
13 are not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal2015-006851
Application 12/507,792
5. The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Vayanos and Appellant's
Admitted Prior Art. 5
6. The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Vayanos and Technical
Specification (3GPP TS 25.308 V7.1.0 Technical Specification (2006-12)). 6
Appellant's Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because:
Appellant respectfully submits that Vayanos fails to disclose the
following claim elements recited in claims 1 and 9: "considering
data stored in a first soft buffer corresponding to the first TTI has
been decoded successfully," "receiving a second data of the
HARQ procedure corresponding to a second TTI which occurs
later than the first TTI and the second TTI is associated with the
first TTI to determine whether the second data is a retransmission
of the first data of the HARQ procedure," and "reporting a
positive ACK corresponding to the second data of the HARQ
procedure corresponding to the second TTL"
The Examiner argues that the claim element "considering data
stored in a first soft buffer corresponding to the first TTI has been
decoded successfully" is taught by Vayanos at Col. 20:46-47.
Vayanos at Col 20:46-47 states, "[i]fthe HARQ channel is in the
Inactive state, [this] indicat[es] that the prior packet transaction
is completed." However, Appellant respectfully submits that a
5 The patentability of claims 6 and 14 is not separately argued from that of
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 5---6. Except for our ultimate decision, claims 6 and
14 are not discussed further herein.
6 The patentability of claims 8 and 16 is not separately argued from that of
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6. Except for our ultimate decision, claims 8 and
16 are not discussed further herein.
4
Appeal2015-006851
Application 12/507,792
"completed packet transaction" is not the same as determining
whether data corresponding to the first TTI has been decoded
successfully. Appellant respectfully submits that a completed
packet transaction does not necessarily mean that the first TTI
has been decoded successfully. In other words, it is possible that
a packet transaction may be completed, but the data may not be
success/ ully decoded. For at least this reason, Appellant
respectfully submits that the claims are not anticipated.
Furthermore, in contrast to the claimed invention, Vayanos
discloses that if a packet has not been successfully decoded and
recovered, a NAK is generated to indicate that the packet was
not successfully decoded and recovered. See e.g., Vayanos
Reference, Fig. 9B: step 962, 21:41-43. Moreover, Vayanos
does not disclose the analysis of the data in a soft buffer as
recited in the claims. In sharp contrast, Vayanos discloses that
data in the soft buffer is purged. See e.g., Vayanos Reference,
Fig. 9B: step 954, Fig. 9C: step 974, 21:64-66. For at least this
reasons, Appellant respectfully submits that the claims are not
anticipated.
Appeal Br. 4--5, emphasis added.
2. In the Reply Brief, further as to above contention 1, Appellant also
contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because:
In the response to the Examiner's Answer, Appellant respectfully
submits that Vayanos fails to disclose the following claim
elements recited in claims 1 and 9: "considering data stored in a
first soft buff er corresponding to the first TTI has been decoded
successfully," "receiving a second data of the HARQ procedure
corresponding to a second TTI which occurs later than the first
TTI and the second TTI is associated with the first TTI to
determine whether the second data is a retransmission of the first
data of the HARQ procedure," and "reporting a positive ACK
corresponding to the second data of the HARQ procedure
corresponding to the second TTL"
Reply Br. 4.
5
Appeal2015-006851
Application 12/507,792
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
conclusions. Except as noted herein, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which the appeal is
taken (Final Act. 2-14); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-10) in response to the Appellant's Appeal
Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We
highlight the following.
As to Appellant's above contentions 1 and 2, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. We agree with the Examiner that Vayanos teaches all the
claim elements of claim 1. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 3-5 (citing Vayanos col. 20,
11. 46-60). We disagree with Appellant that Vayanos fails to teach
considering data stored in a first soft buff er corresponding to a first
transmission time interval (TTI) has been decoded successfully. See Appeal
Br. 4. Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Vayanos teaches an
acknowledgment (ACK) is provided in response to a correctly recovered
packet after the packet is decoded, and further teaches the ACK is an
acknowledgment of a successful decoding of the packet. See Ans. 5. With
respect to Appellant's remaining arguments (Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 5), we
agree with the Examiner that the arguments are not commensurate with the
scope of claim 1. See Ans. 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
6
Appeal2015-006851
Application 12/507,792
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-2, 7, 9-10, and
15 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 3---6, 8, 11-14, and
16 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 1-16 are not patentable.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-2, 7, 9-10, and 15 as
being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 3---6, 8, 11-14, and 16
as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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