Ex Parte Wentink

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 16, 2019

12888221 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/888,221 09/22/2010
15055 7590 01/18/2019
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Maarten Menzo W entink
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.
093536 4021
EXAMINER
KANG, SUK JIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2019 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):
qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com
P AIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAAR TEN MENZO WENTINK
Appeal2018-005605
Application 12/888,221 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1, 4--16, 19-31, and 34--51, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to "wireless
communications and, more particularly, to transmit opportunity scheduling in uplink
spatial division multiple access (SDMA)." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1 Appellants identify Qualcomm Incorporated as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-005605
Application 12/888,221
1. A method for wireless communications, comprising:
receiving, from a plurality of apparatuses, a plurality of request
messages for a transmission slot for a spatial division multiple access
(SDMA) transmission; and
transmitting a transmit opportunity (TXOP) start frame to each
apparatus of the plurality of apparatuses to indicate a start of an SDMA
TXOP, wherein the TXOP start frame comprises:
an indication of the apparatuses that are scheduled to transmit during
the SDMA TXOP;
an indication of one or more spatial streams assigned to each of the
apparatuses for transmission during the SDMA TXOP; and
a value for a back-off timer that indicates when a request for
acknowledgement can be transmitted by at least one apparatus of the
plurality of apparatuses.
References and Rejections2
Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 14, 16, 19, 24, 25, 29, 31, 34, 39, 40, 44, and 46-49 stand
rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Seokl (US
2012/0002634 Al; Jan. 5, 2012), Seok2 (US 2014/0105201 Al; Apr. 17, 2014), and Park
(US 2009/0207769 Al; Aug. 20, 2009). Final Act. 2-8.
Claims 5-7, 15, 20-22, 30, 35-37, and 45 stand rejected under pre-AIA § 35
U.S.C. I03(a) as being unpatentable over Seokl, Seok2, and Meylan (US 2007/0058605
A 1; Mar. 15, 2007). Final Act. 8-10.
Claims 8, 11-13, 23, 26-28, 38, and 41--43 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Seokl, Seok2, Park, and Ishibashi (US
2005/0025167 Al; Feb. 3, 2005). Final Act. 11-13.
Claim 50 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable
over Seokl, Seok2, Park, and Ho (US 2005/0003843 Al; Jan. 6, 2005). Final Act. 13-
14.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Rejection dated June 7, 2017 ("Final
Act."); (2) Appeal Brief dated November 15, 2017 ("App. Br."); (3) Examiner's Answer
dated March 13, 2018 ("Ans."); and (4) Reply Brief dated May 11, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2018-005605
Application 12/888,221
Claim 51 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable
over Seokl, Seok2, Park, and Takizawa (US 2006/0271969 Al; Nov. 30, 2006). Final
Act. 14--15.
ANALYSIS 3
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' contentions and
the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants' contention that the Examiner erred
in determining the cited portions of Seok 1, Seok2, and Park collectively teach "a transmit
opportunity (TXOP) start frame ... comprises ... a value for a back-off timer that
indicates when a request for acknowledgement can be transmitted by at least one
apparatus of the plurality of apparatuses," as recited in independent claim 1. See App.
Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 2---6.
The Examiner maps the claimed "transmit opportunity (TXOP) start frame" to
Seokl 's clear to send (CTS) frame. See Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds the combined
teachings of Seok 1 and Seok2 do not teach the claimed "a value for a back-off timer that
indicates when a request for acknowledgement can be transmitted by at least one
apparatus of the plurality of apparatuses." Final Act. 4. The Examiner then cites Park's
paragraphs 43--45, and maps the claimed "request for acknowledgement" to Park's
request to send (RTS) frame. See Final Act. 4.
Claim 1 recites "a transmit opportunity (TXOP) start frame ... comprises ... a
value for a back-off timer that indicates when a request for acknowledgement can be
transmitted by at least one apparatus of the plurality of apparatuses." In the Examiner's
proposed combination, the CTS frame precedes the R TS frame, as the CTS frame
indicates when the R TS frame can be transmitted. However, that sequence contradicts
the knowledge of one skilled in the art. As pointed out by Appellants (Reply Br. 4) and
3 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the
appeal, we do not need to reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal2018-005605
Application 12/888,221
repeatedly demonstrated by Seokl and Park, one skilled in the art would understand a
CTS frame is in response to--and does not precede-a RTS frame. See Seokl ,r 52
("The CTS frame is transmitted in response to the RTS"), ,r 62 ("Upon receiving an RTS
frame from an STA, an AP transmits the CTS frame in response to the RTS frame."), Fig.
4, ,r,r 48-51; Park ,r,r 43, 45. In particular, one skilled in the art would understand the
R TS/CTS sequence is a handshaking mechanism for eliminating collision between notes:
when a first node wants to transmit data to a second node, it sends a R TS frame. If the
second node replies with a CTS frame, then the first node may transmit data to the second
node. See Park ,r,r 43, 45; Seokl Fig. 4; ,r,r 48-52, 62.
Based on a preponderance of the evidence, Appellants have persuaded us the
Examiner erred. Therefore, we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1.
Each of independent claims 9, 16, 24, 31, 3 9, and 46-49 recites a claim limitation
that is substantively similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claims 9, 16, 24,
31, 39, and 46-49. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 9, 16, 24, 31, 39, and 46-49.
We also reverse the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent claims 4--8,
10-15, 19-23, 25-30, 34--38, 40-45, 50, and 51. Although the Examiner cites additional
references for rejecting some dependent claims, the Examiner has not shown the
additional references overcome the deficiency discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
4
Appeal2018-005605
Application 12/888,221
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4--16, 19-31, and 34--51.
REVERSED
5