Ex Parte Afrashteh et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 17, 2012

11393889 (B.P.A.I. May. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/393,889 03/31/2006 Alireza Afrashteh NXTL 0313 8586
57541 7590 05/18/2012
SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION
6391 SPRINT PARKWAY
MAILSTOP: KSOPHT0101-Z2100
OVERLAND PARK, KS 66251-2100
EXAMINER
GELIN, JEAN ALLAND
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ALIREZA AFRASHTEH, MASOUD OLFAT, DOUGLAS A.
HYSLOP, and RAJESH M. GANGADHAR
____________

Appeal 2010-002837
Application 11/393,889
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before THOMAS A. HAHN, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
ANDREW CALDWELL, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002837
Application 11/393,889

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-8, 10-17, 19-27, and 29-37, which are all the claims
remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a method for an asymmetric
frequency division duplexing operation. Title.

Representative Claim
Claim 1. A method for performing asymmetric frequency
division duplexing (FDD), the method comprising the acts of:

allocating a first bandwidth for an uplink portion of an
FDD data transmission; and

allocating a second bandwidth for a downlink portion of
the FDD data transmission;

wherein the first bandwidth and the second bandwidth
have different sizes, and

wherein allocating the first bandwidth is independent of
allocating the second bandwidth.

Prior Art
Stanwood US 2004/0017825 A1 Jan. 29, 2004
Ozluturk US 2004/0179581 A1 Sep. 16, 2004

Appeal 2010-002837
Application 11/393,889

3
Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19-27, and 29-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ozluturk and Stanwood.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Ozluturk and
Stanwood teaches or suggests “allocating the first bandwidth is independent
of allocating the second bandwidth” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that the combination of Ozluturk and Stanwood
does not teach “allocating the first bandwidth [that] is independent of
allocating the second bandwidth” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8; Reply
Br. 1. The Examiner finds that paragraphs 6, 10, and 11 of Ozluturk teach
“allocating the first bandwidth [that] is independent of allocating the second
bandwidth.” The Examiner interprets this limitation as encompassing a
request for information before there is a response to the request. The
Examiner also interprets this limitation as encompassing allocating
bandwidths on different frequencies. Ans. 7.
Appellants respond that Ozluturk teaches that the higher bandwidth
must be an integer multiple of the lower bandwidth. Appellants conclude
that Ozluturk teaches allocation of higher and lower bandwidths that are
dependent upon each other by integer amounts. Reply Br. 1. Appellants
then rebut the Examiner’s interpretations that a bandwidth must first be
requested before a bandwidth is provided, and that uplink and downlink
bandwidths are not on the same frequency. Reply Br. 2-4.
Appeal 2010-002837
Application 11/393,889

4
We agree with Appellants for the reasons given by Appellants on
pages 1-4 of the Reply Brief. Independent claims 10, 19, and 29 each
contain a limitation similar to that of claim 1 for which the rejection fails.
We do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 10, 19, and 29, and
corresponding dependent claims 2-8, 11-17, 20-27, and 30-37 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Ozluturk and
Stanwood teaches or suggests “allocating the first bandwidth is independent
of allocating the second bandwidth” as recited in claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-8, 10-17, 19-27, and 29-37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ozluturk and Stanwood is reversed.

REVERSED

kis