Ex Parte Aghili et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 21, 2017

12241256 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2017)

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.
12/241,256 09/30/2008 Behrouz Aghili IPH-2-1865.01.US 6786
24374 7590 04/25/2017
VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C.
DEPT. ICC
UNITED PLAZA
30 SOUTH 17TH STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
EXAMINER
ESMAEILIAN, MAJID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2017 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):
eoffice @ volpe-koenig. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BEHROUZ AGHILI, MARIAN RUDOLF,
STEPHEN G. DICK, and PRABHAKAR R. CHITRAPU
Appeal 2015-003062
Application 12/241,256
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 21—25 and 29—33, which are all pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as INTERDIGITAL PATENT
HOLDINGS, INC. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-003062
Application 12/241,256
Introduction
The claimed invention relates to wireless communications. Spec. | 5.
For background, Appellants discuss the GSM (Global System for Mobile
communications) Release 7 specification (see Spec. 6— 23), and state that
no method has been provided for how a WTRU [wireless
transmit/ receive unit] should deal with a configured time-based
PAN [piggybacked ACK/NACK (positive/negative
acknowledgement)] field received in the DL [downlink] when
simultaneously using EGPRS-2 UL [enhanced general packet
radio services-2 uplink] . . . transmissions in the UL. Similarly,
no method has been provided for how a WTRU should deal
with TB-FANR [time-based fast acknowledgement/non-
acknowledgement reporting] mode when using EGPRS-2 DL [-
downlink] . . . transmissions in the DL.
Spec. 123.
Claim 21 is representative (dispositive limitation shown in italics)'.
1. A method for performing, by a wireless
transmit/receive unit (WTRU), time-based fast positive
acknowledgement (ACK)/ negative acknowledgement (NACK)
response (FANR) operation, the method comprising:
transmitting a radio block including a plurality of radio
link control (RLC) data blocks; and
receiving a radio block including a piggybacked
ACK/NACK (PAN) field, wherein the PAN field comprises a
variable number of bits, wherein both a quantity and a value of
the variable number of bits is based on both a quantity of the
plurality of RLC data blocks and a decoding status of the
plurality of RLC data blocks, wherein the decoding status
indicates header decoding failings and missed or erroneously
decoded RLC data blocks of the plurality of RLC data blocks.
App. Br. 16 (Claims App’x).
2
Appeal 2015-003062
Application 12/241,256
References and Rejections
Claims 21—25 and 29—33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Parolari (US 2010/0011273 Al; pub. Jan. 14, 2010) and
Sebire et al. (US 2008/0056303 Al; pub. Mar. 6, 2008) (“Sebire”). Final
Act. 6—10.
ANALYSIS
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the issue before us is whether the
Examiner errs in rejecting claim 21 as obvious in view of Parolari and
Sebire.2 3See App. Br. 10—14.
In rejecting claim 21, the Examiner finds Parolari teaches all
requirements, except for the recited “piggybacked ACK/NACK (PAN)
field” in the received radio block, which the Examiner finds Sebire teaches.
Final Act. 6—7. Appellants argue the Examiner errs, inter alia,3 because in
2 Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting both the other independent
claim (29), which recites limitations similar to independent claim 21 and
stands rejected for the same reasons, and all dependent claims (22—25 and
30-33) solely based on the arguments for claim 1 (see Final Act. 6—10).
App. Br. 14. Except for our final disposition, we do not further discuss infra
claims 22—25 and 29—33.
3 Because we have identified a dispositive issue, we do not address
Appellants’ other arguments. We also note, in an ex parte appeal, the Board
“is basically a board of review—we review . . . rejections made by patent
examiners.” Ex parte Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (BPAI 2001).
Review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 “is not a process whereby the examiner . . .
invite[s] the [Bjoard to examine the application and resolve patentability in
the first instance.” Ex parte Braeken, 54 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (BPAI 1999).
The Board’s primary role is to decide based on the findings and conclusions
presented by the Examiner. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1). We express no
opinion as to the validity of the pending claims in view of additional
explanation and/or references. Although we have authority to reject claims
3
Appeal 2015-003062
Application 12/241,256
the Examiner’s combination of Parolari and Sebire, “the quantity of the bits
in the PAN field would have nothing to do with the decoding status of the
RLC data blocks, and the value of the bits in the PAN field would have
nothing to do with the quantity of the RLC data blocks,” as required by
claim 21. App. Br. 14.
The Examiner answers that
Given the broadest reasonable interpretations considering
Applicant’s specification, Examiner disagrees. If 2 RLC [radio
link control] bitmaps creates 4 decoding statuses (2A2=4) (i.e.,
00, 01, 10, 11), then one can see and understand that 3 RLC
bitmaps creates 9 (3A2=9) decoding statuses (i.e., 000, 001,
011, 111, 100, 101, 111, 010, 110), or 4 RLC bitmaps will
create 16 (4A2) possible decoding statuses. As such, the
decoding statuses of RLC data block is understood to correlate
to the bits in the ACK/NACK, or reversely, the bits in the
ACK/NACK correlates to the decoding statuses of plurality of
RLC data blocks.
Ans. 7.
The Examiner’s examples show how many decoding statuses of RLC
blocks may be represented by variable length PAN fields of 2, 3, or 4 bits.
In each example, the given quantity of PAN field bits can represent all
combinations of possible values for the corresponding decoding statuses. In
other words, in the Examiner’s examples, the quantity of the variable
number of PAN field bits is based on the number of RLC blocks but is
independent of any decoding status value. Claim 21, however, requires a
quantity of the variable number of bits in the PAN field to be a function of
(“based on”) both the quantity of RLC data blocks and a decoding status of
the RLC data blocks. The Examiner does not explain how or why the
under 37 C.L.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when we elect not
to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02.
4
Appeal 2015-003062
Application 12/241,256
quantity of the variable number of PAN field bits in the given examples is
based on a decoding status, as recited.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 21.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 21—25 and
29-33.
REVERSED
5