Ex Parte Hong et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 17, 2019

14824694 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/824,694 08/12/2015 Songnam Hong
152435 7590 04/19/2019
Sage Patent Group/Zacco
PO BOX 30789
RALEIGH, NC 27622-0789
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.
3000-305 4059
EXAMINER
VALLECILLO, KYLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2112
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2019 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):
zaccoinstructions@sagepat.com
outsourcing@zacco.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SONGNAM HONG, DENNIS HUI, and IV ANA MARIC
Appeal2018-007853
Application 14/824,694 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-007853
Application 14/824,694
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to rate-
compatible polar codes for use in a wireless communications system. Spec.
,r,r 1, 5. According to the Specification, because of the time-varying nature
of communications channels, wireless broadband systems require "flexible
and adaptive transmission techniques." Spec. ,r 3. For example, the
Specification describes that in Incremental Redundancy (IR) systems, parity
bits are sent in an incremental fashion based on the quality of the time-
varying channel. Spec. ,r 3. However, "IR systems require the use of rate-
compatible punctured codes." Spec. ,r 3. Thus, Appellants' disclosed and
claimed invention relates to adapting existing polar codes, which are not
rate-compatible, to become rate-compatible by using parallel concatenated
polar codes. Spec. ,r,r 4--5.
Claim 15 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
15. A method of operation of a transmit node in a wireless
communications system, comprising:
encoding a plurality of information bits at a plurality of
different code rates via a plurality of polar code generator
matrices to produce coded bits at the plurality of different code
rates;
concatenating the coded bits produced at one or more of
the plurality of different code rates to provide a plurality of coded
bits at a desired code rate; and
transmitting the plurality of coded bits.
2
Appeal2018-007853
Application 14/824,694
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 6-9.
ANALYSIS 2
Appellants dispute the Examiner's conclusion that the pending claims
are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. App. Br. 13-20; Reply
Br. 2-9. In particular, Appellants argue the pending claims are not directed
to an abstract idea (e.g., a mathematical concept) but instead are directed to
an improvement to the capability of a wireless communication system. App.
Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 3-5, 9. Additionally, Appellants assert that
RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017), as
relied on by the Examiner, does not conclude that all applications related to
encoding and decoding of data are patent ineligible, but that the court did not
find the claims at issue in that case to be patent eligible. App. Br. 17-18.
Appellants argue the pending claims are more analogous to the patent-
eligible claims in Enfzsh, 3 DDR, 4 and BASCOM. 5 App. Br. 19-20 ( asserting
the claims overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
December 15, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed July 18, 2018
("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed May 18, 2018 ("Ans."); and
the Final Office Action, mailed July 20, 2017 ("Final Act."), from which this
Appeal is taken.
3 Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
4 DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
5 BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d
1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
3
Appeal2018-007853
Application 14/824,694
telecommunications networks to improve the overall capability of the system
and provide a particular application of encoding and decoding that
transforms the alleged abstract idea into a practical application).
The Supreme Court's two-step framework guides our analysis of
patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bankint'l, 573
U.S. 208,217 (2014). In addition, the Office recently published revised
guidance for evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101,
specifically with respect to applying the Alice framework. USPTO, 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) ("Office Guidance"). If a claim falls within one of the statutory
categories of patent eligibility (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter) then the first inquiry is whether the claim is directed
to one of the judicially recognized exceptions (i.e., a law of nature, a natural
phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. As part of this
inquiry, we must "look at the 'focus of the claimed advance over the prior
art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a whole' is directed to excluded
subject matter." Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d
1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Per Office Guidance, this first inquiry has two
prongs of analysis: (i) does the claim recite a judicial exception ( e.g., an
abstract idea), and (ii) if so, is the judicial exception integrated into a
practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Under the Office Guidance, if the
judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, see infra, the
claim is patent eligible under§ 101. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55. If the claims
are not directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry ends. See McRO, Inc. v.
Bandai Namco Games Am., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
However, if the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., recites a
judicial exception and does not integrate the exception into a practical
4
Appeal2018-007853
Application 14/824,694
application), the next step is to determine whether any element, or
combination of elements, amounts to significantly more than the judicial
exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217; 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Although the independent claims each broadly fall within the statutory
categories of patentability, the Examiner concludes the claims are directed to
"a process for performing an encoding operation." Final Act. 6. The
Examiner finds "standard encoding and decoding, [is] an abstract concept
long utilized to transmit information." Final Act. 6 (quoting RecogniCorp,
855 F.3d at 1326). Further, the Examiner finds the claims ( e.g., independent
claim 1) are directed to the abstract idea of encoding and merely recite an
additional mathematical equation to change the encoded data into new data
(i.e., the claimed plurality of coded bits at a desired code rate). Ans. 8
(citing RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1326-28). Additionally, the Examiner
finds the claims use functional language to achieve a purported improvement
to channel throughput, but that Appellants "do[] not claim an improved or
unconventional 'encoder' or 'transmitter."' Ans. 10. Further, the Examiner
finds the Specification does not provide technical details of the tangible
components. Ans. 10. Accordingly, the Examiner determines the claim is
not directed to a solution to a technical problem. Ans. 10. Moreover, the
Examiner finds the claims lack an inventive concept because "neither the
claims nor the specification describes a system architecture as the technical
innovation." Ans. 11.
As an initial matter, we do not understand the court's conclusion in
RecogniCorp to hold that all claims directed to any type of encoding are
abstract ideas, such as a mathematical concept. Rather, the court concluded
the pending claims "reflect[] standard encoding and decoding."
RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1326 (emphasis added). Further, the court
5
Appeal2018-007853
Application 14/824,694
explained, "RecogniCorp has not alleged a particularized application of
encoding and decoding." RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1328.
Here, although the claims generally relate to an encoding method, we
conclude the claims are directed to rate-compatible polar encoding. As
described in the Specification, it was known that polar codes "achieve
symmetric capacity of binary-input discrete memoryless channels under a
low-complexity Successive Cancellation (SC) decoder. . . . [But] the finite-
length performance of polar codes under SC is not competitive over other
modem channel coding schemes .... " Spec. ,r 2. In other words, existing
polar codes "are not rate-compatible and, as such, are not suitable for use in
a future wireless communications system, particularly one that utilizes
HARQ-IR [(Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request based on Incremental
Redundancy)] .... " Spec. ,r 4. By using parallel concatenated polar codes
(such as via a polar encoder comprising a plurality of polar encoders
encoding at different rates), a transmit node may "use polar codes having
different coding rates to adapt to time-varying channel conditions." Spec.
,r,r 5---6. Thus, Appellants' disclosed ( and claimed) encoders do not reflect
standard encoding. Cf RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1326. Accordingly, we
conclude Appellants' claims are not directed to an abstract idea of merely
any type of encoding, but rather the patent-eligible concept of rate-
compatible polar encoding.
Further, as the court discussed in Enfzsh, claims that improve an
existing technology might not succumb to the abstract idea exception of
patent eligibility. Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1335. In Enfish, the court framed the
first step of the Alice inquiry as whether the focus of the claims is on a
specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities or, instead on an
abstract idea that merely uses a computer as a tool for carrying out the
6
Appeal2018-007853
Application 14/824,694
abstract idea. Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. As discussed above, the claimed
rate-compatible polar encoder is directed to an improvement in wireless
communication systems. See Spec. ,r 27 ("The disclosed rate-compatible
polar code satisfies the condition that the set of parity bits of a higher rate
code should be a subset of the set of parity bits of a lower rate code, which
can be used for Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) based on
Incremental Redundancy (HARQ-IR) systems.").
Moreover, analysis under the Office Guidance does not alter our
conclusion. The Examiner finds the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
See Final Act. 6. In particular, the Examiner finds the claims are directed to
a process for performing an encoding operation, which is a mathematical
concept (i.e., a mathematical relationship between the original data and
encoded data) and, therefore, an abstract idea. See Final Act. 6; see also 84
Fed. Reg. at 52; RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1326-27 (concluding the pending
claims were "directed to the abstract idea of encoding and decoding").
Claim 15 is reproduced below and includes the following claim
limitation(s) that recite performing an encoding operation, emphasized in
italics:
15. A method of operation of a transmit node in a wireless
communications system, comprising:
encoding a plurality of information bits at a plurality of
different code rates via a plurality of polar code generator
matrices to produce coded bits at the plurality of different code
rates;
concatenating the coded bits produced at one or more of
the plurality of different code rates to provide a plurality of coded
bits at a desired code rate; and
transmitting the plurality of coded bits.
7
Appeal2018-007853
Application 14/824,694
More particularly, a standard encoding operation comprises encoding
a plurality of information bits at a particular rate (i.e., the claimed element of
encoding a plurality of information bits).
Although the Examiner finds the claims recite an abstract idea, "an
invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an
abstract concept." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. Accordingly, we next determine
whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical
application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. To determine whether the judicial
exception is integrated into a practical application, we identify whether there
are "any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial
exception(s)" and evaluate those elements to determine whether they
integrate the judicial exception into a recognized practical application. 84
Fed. Reg. at 54--55 (emphasis added); see also Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure ("MPEP") § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017,
Jan. 2018).
Here, we find the additional limitations integrate the concept of
standard encoding into a practical application. In particular, we find the
claim does not merely encode a plurality of information bits at a particular
rate, but rather, encodes the plurality of information bits at a plurality of
rates via a plurality of polar code generator matrices and further
concatenates the plurality of information bits encoded at a plurality of
different rates to provide a plurality of coded bits at a desired code rate. As
discussed above, and as described in the Specification, the use of a plurality
of polar code generator matrices to encode a plurality of information bits at
different code rates and concatenating the coded bits provides a rate-
compatible polar encoder, which provides an improvement over the use of
existing polar codes (which are not rate compatible) in wireless
8
Appeal2018-007853
Application 14/824,694
communication systems. See Spec. ,r 4; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("An
indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a
discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and
explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the
claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the
prior art.").
For the reasons discussed supra, we conclude that Appellants' claims
are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
REVERSED
9