Ex Parte Garudadri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 15, 2014

11129625 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HARINATH GARUDADRI, PHOOM SAGETONG,
SANJIV NANDA, and STEIN ARNE LUNDBY
____________________

Appeal 2012-001841
Application 11/129,625
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 29-38, 60-69, and 71-92.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.3

1 The Real Party in Interest is Qualcomm Incorporated.
2 Claims 1-28, 39-58, and 70 have been previously cancelled by Appellants
and are not on appeal.
3 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed June 6, 2011 (“App.
Br.”); Reply Brief filed October 28, 2011 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer
mailed September 1, 2011 (“Ans.”); and the original Specification filed May
13, 2005 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2012-001841
Application 11/129,625

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a method for transmitting information
over a constant bit rate communication channel. Abstract. Communication
channels typically transmit data in chunks called “physical layer packets.”
Spec. ¶ [0011]. In conventional systems, mismatch between application
layer data packets and physical layer data packets may result in the loss of
an entire application layer packet. Id. at ¶ [00101]. Application layer
packets encoded in accordance with Appellants’ invention minimize this
potential mismatch by encoding a single application layer packet with a
single physical layer packet. Multiple application layer packets can be
encoded onto a single physical layer packet if full utilization of the physical
layer is desired. Id. at ¶¶ [00128]-[00129].

Claims on Appeal
Claims 29, 60, 71, 72, 82, and 92 are independent claims on appeal.
Claim 29 is illustrative of Appellants’ invention and is reproduced below
with disputed limitations emphasized:
29. A wireless communication device comprising:
A receiver configured to accept a plurality of data
streams from a plurality of constant bit rate communication
channels,
the plurality of data streams comprising data packets
sized so that each individual data packet size matches a physical
layer packet size for physical layer data packets transmittable
over the plurality of constant bit rate communication channels
such that a one to one correspondence exists between the data
packets in each data stream and the physical layer data
packets; and
Appeal 2012-001841
Application 11/129,625

3

a decoder configured to accept the plurality of data
streams from the receiver and to decode the plurality of data
streams into a plurality of decoded data streams, wherein the
decoded data streams are accumulated to produce a variable bit
rate stream.

Evidence Considered
Eyuboglu et al. (Eyuboglu) US 5,541,852 July 30, 1996
Jokinen et al. (Jokinen) US 5,729,534 Mar. 17, 1998
Foore et al. (Foore) US 2001/0021197 A1 Sept. 13, 2001
Kim et al. (Kim) US 2002/0137521 A1 Sept. 26, 2002
Räsänen US 6,647,006 B1 Nov. 11, 2003
Le US 6,680,955 B1 Jan. 20, 2004
Kapadia et al. (Kapadia) US 6,956,875 B2 Oct. 18, 2005
LaRosa et al. (LaRosa) US 7,068,708 B2 June 27, 2006

Examiner’s Rejections
(1) Claims 29, 32-34, 60, 63-65, 72, 75-77, 82, 85-87, and 92 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kapadia,
Eyuboglu, and Kim. Ans. 5-14.
(2) Claim 71 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kapadia, Eyuboglu, Kim, and LaRosa. Id. at 14-17.
(3) Claims 30, 31, 61, 62, 73, 74, 83, and 84 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kapadia, Eyuboglu, Kim, and
Le. Id. at 17-20.
(4) Claims 35, 66, 78, and 88 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kapadia, Eyuboglu, Kim, and Foore.
Id. at 20-22.
Appeal 2012-001841
Application 11/129,625

4

(5) Claims 36, 37, 67, 68, 79, 80, 89, and 90 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kapadia, Eyuboglu, Kim, and
Jokinen. Id. at 22-23.
(6) Claims 38, 69, 81, and 91 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kapadia, Eyuboglu, Kim, and Räsänen.
Id. at 23-25.

Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the Examiner erred in rejecting: (1) claims 29, 32-34, 60, 63-65, 72,
75-77, 82, 85-87, and 92 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Kapadia, Eyuboglu, and Kim; and (2) claims 30 and 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Kapadia,
Eyuboglu, Kim, and Le. In particular, the appeal turns on:
(1) Whether Kim discloses “such that a one to one
correspondence exists between the data packets in each data
stream and the physical layer data packets.” App. Br. 9-11; and

(2) Whether Le discloses “a constant bit rate
communication channel” and “additional signaling.” Id. at 12-
14.

ANALYSIS
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 29, 32-34, 60, 63-65, 72, 75-77, 82, 85-87, and
92 based on Kapadia, Eyuboglu, and Kim

With respect to independent claim 29, the Examiner finds “Kapadia
discloses a receiver configured to accept a plurality of data streams from a
Appeal 2012-001841
Application 11/129,625

5

plurality of constant bit rate communication channels.” Ans. 5 citing
(Kapadia, Abstract; col. 1, ll. 10-20.)
The Examiner acknowledges Kapadia does not explicitly disclose (1)
“the plurality of data streams comprising data packets . . . such that a one to
one correspondence exists between the data packets in each data stream and
the physical layer data packets,” nor (2) “a decoder configured to accept the
plurality of data streams from the receiver . . . to produce a variable bit rate
stream.” Id. at 7. The Examiner then finds (1) Eyuboglu discloses a decoder
configured to accept the plurality of data streams from the receiver and to
decode the plurality of data streams into a plurality of decoded data streams,
wherein the decoded data streams are accumulated to produce a variable bit
rate stream; and (2) Kim discloses the plurality of data streams comprising
data packets sized so that each individual data packet size matches a
physical layer packet size for physical layer data packets transmittable over
the plurality of constant bit rate communication channels such that a one to
one correspondence exists between the data packets in each data stream and
the physical layer data packets. Id. at 8-17 (citing Eyuboglu, FIG. 3, FIG. 5,
col. 5, ll. 4-15; Kim, FIG. 2, ¶¶ [0025], [0033], [0035].) Based on these
factual findings in the same fields of endeavor, the Examiner concludes that:
It would have been obvious . . . to modify the invention
of Kapadia and Eyuboglu, and have the features, as taught by
Kim, in order to guarantee high rate data transmission and a
high throughput during the data transmission through effective
scheduling in a protocol structure capable of providing both a
data service and a multimedia service.

Id. at 14 (citing Kim ¶ [0010].)

Appeal 2012-001841
Application 11/129,625

6

Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s factual findings regarding
Eyuboglu. Instead, Appellants argue: (1) Kim discloses a one-to-one size
correspondence entirely within a physical layer and not across different
layers, and (2) Kim teaches away from a one-to-one correspondence because
“data from different logical channels . . . may be packed within a single TU
packet.” App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 3-4; Spec. ¶ [0014].
We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ arguments. At the outset, we
note that although the PTO gives claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation, “. . . limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). We further note that
Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with Appellants’
independent claim 29. Appellants argue limitations of “different layers” not
recited in claim 29, and we decline to read the argued limitations into the
claims. App. Br. 9-11.
First, we observe that assuming arguendo the limitations from the
Specification are to be read into claim 29, the cited portions of the
Specification fail to disclose an application layer different from a physical
layer. Moreover, as Appellants argue, the data stream may be associated
with the application layer, although we note that this is not necessarily the
case. App. Br. 10. Although Appellants argue the term “each” implies a
one to one correspondence across different layers, we note Appellants’
Specification does not provide a particular definition for “each” that would
support this interpretation. Reply Br. 3-4.
In the absence of an explicit definition by Appellants, we accord the
claim term “each” its ordinary and plain meaning unless the plain meaning is
Appeal 2012-001841
Application 11/129,625

7

inconsistent with Appellants’ own specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d at 321
(discussed below); Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004). (Ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is
clear and unquestionable, absent any indication that their use in a particular
context changes their meaning, are constructed to mean exactly what they
say.). The plain meaning of the term “each” is “each one.”4 The Examiner’s
interpretation of this claim term is reasonable and is consistent with
Appellants’ own Specification. A one to one correspondence which exists
between data packets in each data stream could therefore include data
packets in the same or different layers.
Second, an intended use or “purpose usually will not limit the scope
of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a
context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica,
Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” a
statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. In re
Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Here, claim 29 recites, inter alia: “the plurality of data streams
comprising data packets sized so that . . . such that a one to one
correspondence exists between the data packets in each data stream and the
physical layer data packets.” Because the phrases “so that” and “such that”
merely signal an intended use or purpose for the data packets and physical
layer data packets, the language comprising “so that each individual data
packet size matches a physical layer packet size . . . such that a one to one
correspondence exists between the data packets in each data stream and the

4 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 362 (10th ed. 1997).
Appeal 2012-001841
Application 11/129,625

8

physical layer data packets” is not entitled to patentable weight. Giving
representative claim 29 its broadest reasonable construction, therefore, the
limitations require, inter alia, a receiver configured to accept a plurality of
data streams from a plurality of constant bit rate communication channels,
and a decoder configured to accept the plurality of data streams from the
receiver.
Lastly, with respect to Appellants’ arguments regarding Kim’s alleged
teaching away, we note that these arguments are predicated upon an
assumption that claim 29 discloses different layers between the data packets
and the physical layer data packets. For the reasons disclosed above, we
remain unpersuaded that the Examiner erred.

§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 30, 31, 61, 62, 73, 74, 83, and 84 based on
Kapadia, Eyuboglu, Kim, and Le

With respect to dependent claim 30, the Examiner finds Le discloses a
decoder to estimate a size of data packets received from the constant bit rate
communication channels. Ans. 18 citing (Le, col. 19, ll. 40-67; col. 20, ll. 1-
5.) Appellants dispute the Examiner’s factual findings regarding Le, arguing
that Le’s “‘essentially’ constant bit rate channel,” is not a constant bit rate
channel because the channel’s bit rate varies upon the presence of a voice
sample. App. Br. 12-13 citing (Le, col. 17, ll. 13-15.)
Appeal 2012-001841
Application 11/129,625

9

Again, we are not persuaded by the Appellants’ arguments. Le
discloses that the essentially constant bit rate channel can provide data at
either a constant bit rate of one bit every millisecond, or a variable bit rate of
one hundred bits every hundred milliseconds. See Le, col. 19, ll. 27-30.
With respect to dependent claim 31, the Examiner finds Le discloses a
size of data packets received from the constant bit rate communication
channels is indicated in additional signaling. Ans. 18 citing (Le, col. 19, ll.
40-67; col. 20, ll. 1-15.) Appellants dispute the Examiner’s factual findings
regarding Le, arguing that Le’s “Init_info data cannot be considered as
‘additional signaling,’ because Le clearly teaches that Init_info is sent ‘in-
band,’ not out-of-band.” App. Br. 13 citing (Le, col. 24, ll. 34-47.)
We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ arguments. We accord the
claim term “signaling” its ordinary and plain meaning unless the plain
meaning is inconsistent with Appellants’ own specification. In re Zletz, 893
F.2d at 321 (discussed below); Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358
F.3d at 1372. (Ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and
unquestionable, absent any indication that their use in a particular context
changes their meaning, are constructed to mean exactly what they say.). An
ordinary and plain meaning of the root word “signal” for the term
“signaling” is “a sign or indication.”5 The Examiner’s interpretation of this
claim term is reasonable in light of the above plain meaning and also
consistent with Appellants’ own Specification. An additional signaling
could therefore include in-band Init_info. Appellants argue limitations of
bands not recited in the claim and we decline to read the argued limitations
into the claims.

5 Id. at 1091.
Appeal 2012-001841
Application 11/129,625

10

For the reasons set forth above, Appellants’ contentions have not
persuaded us of any error in the Examiner’s position. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 29 based
on Kapadia, Eyuboglu, and Kim. Likewise, we also sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of dependent claims 30 and 31 based on Kapadia,
Eyuboglu, Kim, and Le.
With respect to remaining independent claims 60, 71, 72, 82 and 92,
and dependent claims 32-38, 61-69, 73-81, and 83-91, Appellants present no
separate patentability arguments. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 32-38, 60-69, and 71-92 for the same reasons discussed
previously. When the patentability of dependent claims is not argued
separately, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they depend.
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d
989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting claims 29-38, 60-69, and 71-92 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 29-38,
60-69, and 71-92.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
Appeal 2012-001841
Application 11/129,625

11

cdc