Ex Parte Braun et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2013

11446264 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2013)

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.
11/446,264 06/05/2006 Volker Braun LUTZ 200725 9497
48116 7590 12/13/2013
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
EXAMINER
D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte VOLKER BRAUN and DIETRICH ZELLER
_____________

Appeal 2011-006941
Application 11/446,264
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 4, and 6 through 10. Claim 5 has been identified as
containing allowable subject matter.

We reverse.
Appeal 2011-006941
Application 11/446,264
2

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for a radio resource
management scheme where high speed downlink shared transport channel
(HS-DSCH) codes in a wideband code division multiple access based
communication (WCDMA) are allocated to a node for use. The node can
additionally, autonomously allocate unused codes. Pages 3 and 4 of
Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and
reproduced below:
1. Method for allocating HS-DSCH channelisation codes in a
WCDMA based wireless communication system using HSDPA [(high
speed downlink packet access)] and having a total number of N HS-
DSCH channelisation codes, whereby
a. a radio network controller allocates M <= N HS-DSCH
channelisation codes for a node B such that the node B can
serve user equipments, the M channelisation codes defining
the minimum code set,
b. the node B identifies which of the N-M channelisation codes
are currently unused for transmissions,
c. the node B autonomously allocates at least one of the unused
channelisation codes for servicing UE's [(user equipments)]
.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 3 and 6 through 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hwang (US 7,317,700 B2, Jan. 8, 2008),
Take (US 2002/0051437 A1, May 2, 2002), Peele (US 6,898,431 B1, May
Appeal 2011-006941
Application 11/446,264
3

23, 2005), Appellants’ admitted prior art (AAPA) and Reilly (US 5,953,668,
Sep. 14, 1999). Answer 4-6.
1

The Examiner has rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Hwang, Take, Peele, AAPA, Reilly and Kim (US 6,552,996
B2, Apr. 22, 2003). Answer 7-8.
ISSUE
Appellants present several arguments on pages 11 through 29 of the
Appeal Brief and pages 4 through 27 of the Reply Brief, directed to the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 7, 8, 9, and 10. The issue
raised by these arguments which is dispositive of the appeal is: did the
Examiner err in finding that the combination of Hwang, Take, Peele, AAPA,
and Reilly, teach a radio controller allocating M<=N channelization codes to
a node B, where node B also identifies which of the codes N-M are unused
and allocates at least one of the unused codes?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding the combination of Hwang, Take, Peele, AAPA, and Reilly
teaches the allocation of codes by the network controller and node as recited
in independent claims 1, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Each of these claims includes a
limitation directed to a radio network controller allocating channels codes to
a node B. The claims also recited that the node B identifies which of the N-

1
Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated December 17,
2010, Reply Brief dated March 9, 2011, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed
on January 12, 2011.
Appeal 2011-006941
Application 11/446,264
4

M codes (those which are not allocated to the node) are unused and assigns
at least one of those codes for servicing user equipment. The Examiner
relies upon Hwang to teach the controller allocating codes to a Node B
(answer 4 and 11), Take to show codes are tagged as unused, Peele and
AAPA to show an explicit finding of unused codes, and Reilly to show a
node B acting autonomously to find and allocate unused channels. Answer
4, 5, and 11. We disagree with the Examiner’s findings that the combination
of these references teaches the claimed subject matter.
Specifically, while Hwang teaches allocation of codes to nodes and
Reilly teaches nodes autonomously allocating codes, neither of the
references suggest that the two should work together in allocating codes as
claimed. That is, the Examiner has not shown that Reilly teaches that codes
are assigned to the node by a controller and that the node can then allocate
unused codes, which are not allocated to the node, to user equipment.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 7, 8, 9, and 10 and the rejections of dependent claims.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 4, and 6
through 10 is reversed.
2

2
We have decided the appeal before us. However, should there be further
prosecution of these claims; the Examiner should consider whether claim 7,
which recites a computer program product, is directed to statutory subject
matter. See our recent precedential decision
Ex parte Mewherter Appeal No. 2012-007692 (PTAB 2013) Precedential,
and guidance in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”)
§ 2106(I), Ed. 8, Rev. 9 (Aug. 2012).
Appeal 2011-006941
Application 11/446,264
5

REVERSED

ELD