Ex Parte Frenger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2017

14711898 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 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.
14/711,898 05/14/2015 Pal FRENGER 0110-657 CON/P26142
US2
1734
113648 7590 11/01/2017
Patent Portfolio RnilHers PT T C
EXAMINER
P.O. Box 7999
Fredericksburg, VA 22404-7999
ALIA, CURTIS A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2414
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2017 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):
Mailroom@ppblaw.com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAL FRENGER, PETER LARS SON, and
NIKLAS JOHANSSON
Appeal 2017-006406
Application 14/711,89s1
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 22, 23, 25—39, 41, and 42. We have jurisdiction over the
pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (publ) as the real
party in interest. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2017-006406
Application 14/711,898
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to selecting a
resource portion of a transmission based on information included in the
transmission or information previously received, and inserting a signal in the
selected resource portion of the transmission. (Abstract.)
Independent claim 22, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
22. A method performed by an intermediate device in a
multi-hop wireless network, comprising:
receiving a transmission to forward to a device;
synchronizing with the received transmission based on a
format of the transmission;
selecting an unused resource portion of the received
transmission based on information included in the received
transmission or information previously received;
inserting a reference signal or a control signal in the
selected unused resource portion of the received transmission;
and
forwarding the received transmission that includes the
reference signal or the control signal to the device.
App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 22, 23, and 25—39 on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1—16 of Frenger U.S. Patent 9,065,528 B2, iss. June 23, 2015, in
view of Okuda et al, Multihop Relay Extension for WiMAXNetworks —
Overview and Benefits of IEEE 802.16j Standard 3 FUJITSU Sci, Tech, J.
292—302 (July 2008) (hereinafter “Okuda”). (Final Act. 4.)
2
Appeal 2017-006406
Application 14/711,898
The Examiner rejected claims 41 and 42 on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1—16 of U.S. Patent 9,065,528 B2, in view of Okuda and Naden et al.
(EP 1916782 Al, pub. Apr. 30, 2008) (hereinafter “Naden”). (Final Act. 5.)
The Examiner rejected claims 22—24, 28—39, 41, and 42 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Naden, in view of Okuda. (Final
Act. 7.)
The Examiner rejected claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Naden, in view of Okuda and Chen et al (EP 1890433 A2,
pub. Feb. 20, 2008) (hereinafter “Chen”). (Final Act. 16.)
The Examiner rejected claims 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Naden, in view of Okuda and Unger (EP 1937006
Al, pub. June 25, 2008). (Final Act. 17.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue:2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Naden and
Okuda teaches or suggests the independent claim 22 limitations,
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 28, 2016) (herein, “App.
Br.”); the Reply Brief (Feb. 6, 2017) (herein, “Reply Br.”); the Final Office
Action (mailed Feb. 26, 2016) (herein, “Final Act.”); the Advisory Action
(mailed Apr. 29, 2016) (herein, “Adv. Act.”); and the Supplemental
Examiner’s Answer (mailed Jan. 27, 2017) (herein, “Ans.”) for the
respective details.
3
Appeal 2017-006406
Application 14/711,898
selecting an unused resource portion of the received
transmission based on information included in the received
transmission or information previously received;
inserting a reference signal or a control signal in the
selected unused resource portion of the received transmission;
and
forwarding the received transmission that includes the
reference signal or the control signal to the device.
(App. Br. 8-14.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants’
arguments, and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal
is taken (Final Act. 2—19); (2) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 1—2); and (3) the
corresponding findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—24).
We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner, and
emphasize the following.
In finding the combination of Naden and Okuda teaches or suggests
the claim limitations at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Naden
of inserting either a first set or a second set of frame control information, and
propagation of the sub-frame through all intermediate stations. (Final Act.
8; Naden || 14, 25; Figs. 5, 7; 86.) The Examiner further relies on the
disclosure in Okuda of the relay amble placed in a portion reserved for that
specific information in previously formed gaps, with the relay amble
4
Appeal 2017-006406
Application 14/711,898
configured to maintain relay synchronization between the different stations.
(Final Act. 8, Ans. 21; Okuda at 298 col. 1, Fig. 4.)
Appellants first argue that:
Naden discloses inserting data into an unused portion of a
frame and replacing a first preamble with a second preamble,
which would involve inserting reference or control signals into
a used portion of the frame. Okuda discloses a relay station
removing a Relay Amble from a portion of a frame, which does
not involve inserting reference or control signals as claimed.
(App. Br. 8, emphasis in original.)
We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, that Naden’s “DL-MAP information inserted into the preamble set is
not ‘data’ per se, but control information, since DL-MAP information is
control information.” (Ans. 20, citing Naden || 25, 29, 28, 5.) The
Examiner additionally finds that Okuda’s “relay amble can be configured
and used in order to maintain relay synchronization between the different
stations” (Ans. 21, citing Okuda at 298 col. 1) and the relay amble “is placed
in a portion reserved for that specific information” (Final Act. 8, citing
Okuda at 298 col. 1 and Fig. 4) with the portion “reserved in previously
formed gaps.” (Ans. 21, citing Okuda at 298 col. 1.) Thus the combination
of Naden and Okuda teach the insertion of control data in unused resource
portions.3
Appellants point to Okuda to argue that “[tjhere is no disclosure that
the frame including the Relay Amble transmitted by the multihop relay base
3 Appellants do not argue a special meaning of the claimed “unused resource
portions;” the disclosure indicates that “the unused channel resources of the
received signal may correspond to a frequency/time instance that does not
include information.” (Spec. 6:31—32.)
5
Appeal 2017-006406
Application 14/711,898
station (MR-BS) is a received transmission as claimed.” (Reply Br. 5,
citing Okuda Fig. 4.) We do not agree. Okuda’s Figure 4 labels the first
frame (“Frame k”) as both an “(MR-BS)” (corresponding to Appellants’
interpretation as a Base Station) and as a “Parent RS,” or Parent Receiving
Station. Thus, at a minimum, Okuda teaches or suggests receipt of a
transmission in which a Relay Amble is inserted.
Appellants further argue that “Okuda discloses the RS removing the
Relay Amble and not inserting reference or control signals as claimed.”
(App. Br. 11, emphasis in original; see also Reply Br. 10.) We are not
persuaded. According to Okuda, “[t]he relay amble was specified in order to
allow the subordinated RSs to properly track the parent RS
synchronization.” (Okuda at 296 14, emphasis added.) Thus, at a
minimum, Okuda teaches or suggests insertion by a relay station of a relay
amble intended to act as a control signal for “subordinated” relay stations,
and is not necessarily removed by the relay station, as argued by Appellants.
Additionally, Appellants separate arguments regarding the teachings of each
reference does not persuade us the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Naden and Okuda teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation, as discussed above. See Advisory Act. 2.
Appellants make a similar argument regarding backward
compatibility (see Reply Br. 10-11) that is not persuasive as this argument
too relies on the assumption that in Okuda, only a base station may insert a
relay amble.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 22, as well as independent claims 32 and 39 not separately argued
(App. Br. 14), and all dependent claims not separately argued with
6
Appeal 2017-006406
Application 14/711,898
particularity. (Id. at 14.) We also sustain the Examiner’s non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 22, 23, 25—39, 41, and
42 not separately argued with particularity. (Id. at 15.)
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the rejection of claims 22—24,
28—39, 41, and 42 as being unpatentable over Naden and Okuda.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22, 23, and 25—39
on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over U.S.
Patent 9,065,528 B2 and Okuda.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 41 and 42 on the
ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over U.S. Patent
9,065,528 B2, Okuda, and Naden.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 22, 23, 35—39, 41, and 42 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7