Ex Parte COHN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

14653863 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/653,863 06/19/2015
18052 7590 08/23/2018
Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC
Rosetta Center
629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000
Cleveland, OH 44114
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Daniel COHN
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.
KRAUP226WOUS 1048
EXAMINER
KERVEROS, DEMETRIOS C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2117
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2018 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@eschweilerlaw.com
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL COHN and YARON ALPERT
Appeal2018-001347
Application 14/653,863
Technology Center 2100
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 16-20 and 22-27, constituting the only
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse. 2
1 The real party in interest is Lantiq Israel Ltd. App. Br. 1.
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed June 19, 2015, the
Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed February 3, 2017, the Appeal
Brief ("App. Br.") filed June 26, 2017, the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.")
mailed September 29, 201 7, and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed
November 20, 2017.
Appeal2018-001347
Application 14/653,863
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to reformatting datagram segments at a source
device for retransmission when a destination device indicates a failure to
receive a transport container containing datagram segments. Spec. ,r,r 87,
91, Fig. 4. For example, datagram segments may be too large to be
processed at the receiving device. Spec. ,r 4. Reformatting the data
segments at the transmitting device into smaller segments for retransmission
may overcome the transmission failure. Spec. ,r 5.
In the claimed invention, the source device notifies the destination
device that the datagram segments have been reformatted and are ready for
transmission. See claim 16, infra. After receiving notification from the
destination device that it can accept the reformatted datagram segments, the
source device transmits the reformatted datagram segments to the destination
device. Id.
Claim 16, reproduced below with disputed language emphasized, is
illustrative of the claimed invention:
16. A source device for sending datagrams contained in an
aggregated packet structure comprising transport containers
each containing a segment of a respective datagram, the source
device comprising:
a transmitter, the transmitter comprising:
a detector circuit configured to obtain information
if a transmission of a transport container by the
transmitter has failed;
a disassembler circuit configured to disassemble
the transport container in which transmission has failed;
and
a container creator circuit configured to create a
plurality of new transport containers, the new transport
containers to include at least one of fragments or portions
2
Appeal2018-001347
Application 14/653,863
of the datagram segment contained in the transport
container in which transmission has failed,
wherein the transmitter is configured to send sequence
information indicating a conversion between a sequence of the
transport containers of the aggregated packet structure
comprising the transport container in which transmission has
failed and a sequence of the transport containers of the
aggregated packet structure comprising the new transport
containers,
wherein the source device is configured to reformat and
retransmit datagrams in which transmission has failed, wherein
the reformatting is performed without splitting datagrams, and
wherein the source device is further configured to:
notify a destination device that the reformatted
datagram segments have been reformatted and are
ready to be transmitted using the transmitter,
receive notification from the destination device
that the destination device can accept the reformatted
datagram segments, and
thereafter transmit the reformatted datagram
segments to the destination device using the
transmitter.
App. Br. ("Claims App 'x").
REJECTIONS
Claims 16-20 and 22-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
based on Pani (US 7,817,669, October 19, 2010). Final Act. 4--8.
ANALYSIS
Claims 16 and 2 6
Appellants argue the features emphasized in claim 16, supra, and
similar features in claim 26, are not disclosed by Pani. App. Br. 4--6; Reply
3
Appeal2018-001347
Application 14/653,863
Br. 1--4. We agree with Appellants' arguments and do not sustain the
rejection of claim 16 or 26.
In rejection claims 16 and 26, the Examiner relies on Pani. Figure 1
of Pani is shown below.
106
108
118
120 --;,----i
WTRU / UfRAN -f
................. ···········.CJ!
AM RLC ENTITY 100
Pani' s Figure 1 shows retransmission control entity 112,
segmentation/concatenation entity 106, header insertion entity 108,
transmission buffer 116, and header setting entity 118.
Pani discloses an acknowledged mode (AM) radio link control (RLC)
entity 100 includes a transmitting side 1 OOa and a receiving side 1 OOb. Pani
2:52-53; see also Pani 1:23-30 regarding acronym meanings. A peer AM
RLC entity, with which the AM RLC entity 100 communicates, is similarly
configured. Pani 2:53-54. In the transmitting side 100a, the AM RLC
entity 100 receives RLC service data units (SDUs) from upper layers, which
are segmented and concatenated at unit 106 into acknowledged mode data
4
Appeal2018-001347
Application 14/653,863
(AMD) PDUs for which a header is added by an RLC header insertion entity
108. Pani 2:61---67. The RLC PDU is then sent to transmission buffer 116
and is also stored in retransmission buffer 110 in case retransmission is
needed. Pani 3:1-7.
At the receiving side 100b, retransmission control entity 112 either
deletes or retransmits RLC PDU s buffered in retransmission buffer 110
based on a status report received from the peer AM RLC entity. Pani 3: 8-
11. The status report may include a positive acknowledgement (ACK) to
indicate successful transmission of an RLC PDU, or a negative
acknowledgement (NACK) to indicate a transmission failure of a RLC PDU.
Pani 3:8-13. An ACK results in deletion of the RLC PDU from the
retransmission buffer 110. Pani 4:3-8. However, upon receiving a NACK
from the receiving peer entity, retransmission control entity 112 at the AM
RLC entity 100 may effect retransmission of the RLC PDU. Pani 3:13-18,
Fig. 1. In so doing, retransmission control entity 112 may send the NACKed
RLC PDU to segmentation/concatenation entity 106 for re-segmentation.
Pani 3:13-18. Re-segmentation may involve an RLC PDU or its
corresponding RLC service data units (SDUs) at higher layers. Pani 3:39-
41, 4:6-17. After re-segmenting, header setting entity 118 completes the
header of the RLC PDU stored in transmission buffer 116 for
retransmission. Pani 3 :42--43, 51-54.
In arguing against the rejection, Appellants state
The source device is also configured to notify a destination
device that the reformatted datagram segments are ready to be
transmitted, and receive notification from the destination
device that the destination device can accept the reformatted
datagram segments. Thereafter, the source device transmits
the reformatted datagram segments to the destination device.
5
Appeal2018-001347
Application 14/653,863
Consequently, in claim 16, the source device that transmits the
original notification that reformatted data segments are ready
for transmission ( to a destination device) then awaits
notification from the destination device that it can accept the
reformatted datagram segments, and then only after receipt of
such notification does the source device go ahead and transmit
the reformatted datagram segments.
App. Br. 4.
Claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification in which they appear. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As a general rule,
functions or steps recited in a claim are not construed to require a particular
order. Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323,
1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001). However, when logic or grammar so dictates, the
functions or steps are required to be performed in the order recited.
Mformation Tech. v. Research in Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392, 1398-99 (Fed.
Cir. 2014).
Logically, in claims 16 and 26, the source device must notify the
destination device that reformatted datagram segments are ready for
transmission before receiving notification that the destination device can
accept those reformatted datagram segments. The destination device cannot
know of the existence of reformatted datagram segments and evaluate its
capability to accept them until the source device notifies the destination
device that those segments have been reformatted and are ready for
transmission. Also, the claims recite the source device "thereafter" transmits
reformatted datagram segments to the destination device, meaning that
transmission follows receiving notification of following the receiving of
notification from the destination device. Thus, we agree with Appellants the
6
Appeal2018-001347
Application 14/653,863
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims requires a particular order of
performance of the functions and steps.
The Examiner relies on Pani's adding a RLC PDU header to a
transmission buffer 116 at AM RLC entity 100 (source device) as disclosing
the notification to the peer entity ( destination device) that reformatted RLC
PDUs are ready for transmission. Ans. 3 (citing Pani 3:42-54). As
Appellants note (App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 2-3), however, the header does not
notify the peer entity that reformatted PDU s are ready for transmission
because the header and reformatted PDU travel together to the peer entity.
Thus, when the header is received at the peer entity and it is thereby notified,
the reformatted PDU has already been received at the peer entity along with
the header and is no longer ready for transmission.
The Examiner further relies on Pani's ACK or NACK as disclosing
the peer entity is ready to accept reformatted datagram segments. Ans. 4.
However, as Appellants note (App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 3--4), an ACK or
NACK acknowledges that a PDU has been received correctly or incorrectly
following receipt of the acknowledged PDU. The Examiner has not shown
Pani's ACK or NACK indicates the peer entity can accept particular
reformatted PDU s that are ready for transmission, in addition to indicating
success or failure of a PDU transmission.
Furthermore, the claims expressly recite that the reformatted datagram
segments ( or containers carrying them) are transmitted to the receiving
device "thereafter," meaning after the transmitting device receives
notification the destination device can accept them, as Appellants argue.
App. Br. 4. As the ACK or NACK retrospectively indicates whether a PDU
transmission was a success or failure, the Examiner has not shown Pani' s
7
Appeal2018-001347
Application 14/653,863
AM RLC entity 100 transmits reformatted datagram segments ( or containers
carrying them) after notification from the peer entity that it can accept those
reformatted datagram segments.
In the Answer, the Examiner also finds the Specification (i-f 122)
describes
in an 802.11 WLAN system, the receiver notifies the
transmitter of a failed MPDU transmission. The transmitter
will transmit, with the new sequence numbers, and the receiver
will use these sequence numbers to reorder the MSDU s, and
thus to prepare the MSDUs for retransmission, which
clearly corresponds to a negative acknowledgement (NACK)
delivered to the retransmission control entity 112 disclosed by
Pani.
Ans. 5. Even if the Examiner is correct that a receiver's notification to the
transmitter of a failed MPDU transmission equates to Pani's NACK, the
Examiner has not shown that Pani's NACK discloses the argued claim
limitations.
To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently. In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). Also,
unless a reference discloses within the four comers of the
document not only all of the limitations claimed but also a11 of
the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited
in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the
thing claimed, and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
Net 1ifoney!JV, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
As the noted functions and steps of the claimed invention have not been
8
Appeal2018-001347
Application 14/653,863
shown to be disclosed in the cited prior mi, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 16 and 26.
Remaining Claims
For the reasons stated for claims 16 and 26, we also do not sustain the
rejection of the remaining claims, which are dependent therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 16-20 and 22-27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
REVERSED
9