Ex Parte Bachl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

12051393 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/051,393 03/19/2008
48116 7590 07/05/2016
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rainer BACHL
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.
LUTZ 200874US01 1446
EXAMINER
ALI,FARHAD
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2478
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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@faysharpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAINER BACHL, MATTHIAS SCHNEIDER,
and ANTONELLA F ANIUOLO
Appeal2014-006462
Application 12/051,393 1
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-10, all the pending claims in the
present application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b)(l).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Lucent Technologies
Inc. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-006462
Application 12/051,393
Invention
Appellants' invention relates to the management of two packet
streams being transmitted in a wireless communication system. When
transmission resources are being allocated to the second data stream for
transmission of a data packet, an analysis is performed to determine whether
retransmission of the data packet (if necessary) would cause collisions with
transmissions associated with the first packet stream. A parameter
specifying a number N of retransmissions permitted for the data packet is
transmitted as part of the initial grant of transmission resources to the mobile
terminal. (Abstract.)
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative:
1. A method of managing coexisting packet streams
in a wireless communication system, wherein a first packet
stream of the coexisting packet streams utilizes transmission
resources of the wireless communication system at fixed time
intervals and a second packet stream of the coexisting packet
streams utilizes transmission resources of the wireless
communication system at dynamically determined time
intervals, the method comprising:
setting up a schedule defining allocations of transmission
resources for the first packet stream;
receiving a request for an initial grant of transmission
resources for a transmission of a data packet of the second
packet stream from a sending unit of the second packet stream;
in the process of allocating transmission resources of the
wireless communication system to the second packet stream,
analysing the schedule of transmission resources allocated to
the first packet stream and thereby determining whether a
retransmission of the data packet associated with the second
packet stream is possible to collide with a transmission of a data
2
Appeal2014-006462
Application 12/051,393
packet associated with the first packet stream according to the
schedule; and
transmitting a parameter specifYing a number N of
retransmissions possible without such collision as part of the
initial grant of transmission resources to the sending unit of the
second packet stream.
Rejection
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Teague et al. (US 2006/0291393 Al; Dec. 28, 2006) and
Novak et al. (US 2009/0022098 Al; Jan. 22, 2009).
ANALYSIS
"a parameter specifying a number N of retransmissions
... as part of the initial grant of resources"
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Teague and Novak teaches or suggests a parameter specifying the number of
retransmissions as part of the initial grant of resources?
Novak teaches the use of a technique where user data not successfully
transmitted in a first transmission may be retransmitted in a subsequent
transmission. (Novak i-fi-1264--274, 282-283, Fig. 26.) For example, if a
first transmission includes 20 sub-packets for 20 respective users, and three
of them are not successfully transmitted, these three may be transmitted in a
subsequent transmission. (Id.) Resources allocated for each transmission
are signaled by an information element, with "resources allocated for the
K-th transmission ... signaled by an Information Element (IE_Tx-K)." (Id.
i1266.)
3
Appeal2014-006462
Application 12/051,393
The Examiner finds the disputed limitation of claim 1, regarding
transmitting a parameter as part of the initial grant of transmission resources
to the sending unit, is taught or suggested by Novak. (Final Action 4--5;
10-12.) The Examiner cites Novak's teaching or suggestion of a maximum
number of retransmissions, and the allocation by the base station of
resources for retransmissions, which use information elements IE_TX-k, for
"k = 2, ... , maximum number of retransmission." (Final Action 10-11;
citing Novak i-fi-1268-273.) Because Novak's information elements include
information regarding the assignments for transmissions and the maximum
number of retransmissions, and because Novak teaches that the receiving
wireless station may "derive its resource allocation" from the information in
the information elements, the Examiner finds Novak teaches or suggests
transmission of the number N of possible retransmissions as part of the
initial grant of transmission resources to the sending unit of the second
packet stream. (Final Action 4--5, 10; Answer 8-10.) The Examiner finds
that, while Novak discloses a maximum number of retransmissions to be
applied, Appellants' Specification also includes the possibility that "a
maximum number of retransmissions is inherent to the communication
system." (Answer 9, citing Spec. 9; see also Claim 3, in which the number
N is "pre-defined.")
Appellants contend that "Novak ... does not specifically address the
issue of how many retransmissions are possible without collision" and "there
is no discussion of possible collisions or transmitting a parameter specifying
a number N of retransmissions possible without such collision as part of the
initial grant of transmission resources." (Appeal Br. 9.) Appellants argue
that the information elements IE_TX merely "take into consideration the
4
Appeal2014-006462
Application 12/051,393
number of retransmissions required in the current frame due to the failures in
the previous frames based on the H-ARQ feedback." (Id.)
We agree with the Appellants that the finding by the Examiner that
the transmission of a parameter specifying a number N of retransmissions
possible as part of the initial grant is not taught or suggested by Novak.
Novak's initial transmission (IE_TX-1) includes information regarding the
assignment of resources in the initial transmission. (Novak i-fi-1266-273.)
For each subsequent transmission IE_TX-k, information is included
regarding the assignment of resources in the respective transmission. (Id. i-fi-1
266, 274--279.) The Examiner is correct that Novak discusses a fixed limit
to the number of such subsequent transmissions. (Final Action 4; Answer
8-10.) However, this fixed limit is not taught or suggested as being
transmitted as part of the initial grant of transmission resources, as required
in the disputed limitation, and thus Novak's fixed limit does not teach or
suggest the disputed limitation.
The Examiner is also correct that in Novak, the wireless station may
use the information in the transmissions of information elements in order to
"derive its resource allocation." (Final Action 4--5; Answer 11.) However,
in Novak, the information elements are not sent as part of the initial
transmission, but rather each contains information regarding the success of
prior transmissions. Novak describes two approaches, one in which
subsequent transmissions contain a bitmap ("ACK-NAK-echo bitmap")
describing the success of the prior transmission (Novak i-fi-1278, 279, 282,
283, Fig. 26) and the other in which user identifiers are used in the
information element to indicate what retransmissions will occur in the
transmission (id. i-fi-1275-277, 284, Fig. 25.) In either case, the information
5
Appeal2014-006462
Application 12/051,393
element IE-TX-n, other than for the initial transmission, is based on
feedback regarding the success of the prior transmission(s). Thus, while a
wireless station may, as the Examiner finds, derive its resource allocation
from the contents of information elements, the cumulative information that
the Examiner finds teaches transmission to the wireless station of a
parameter relating to the number of retransmissions possible for a data
packet of the second data stream is not transmitted as part of the initial grant
of transmission.
Therefore, we find Appellants' arguments persuasive because the
Examiner has not shown how Novak teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection
of claim 1 and dependent claims 2-8, not separately argued. Additionally,
independent claims 9 and 10 are argued on substantially similar grounds,
and thus we will not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of these
claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1-10 over
Teague and Novak.
REVERSED
6