Ex Parte Hoshino et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

12160408 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/160,408 07/09/2008
52989 7590
James Edward Ledbetter
1875 Eye Street
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20006
04/01/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Masayuki Hoshino
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.
009289-08169 1748
EXAMINER
HU,RUIMENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2016 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 MASA YUKI HOSHINO and KENICHI MIYOSHI
Appeal2014-009587
Application 12/160,408
Technology Center 2600
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-10. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Periyalwar (US 2003/0195016 Al; Oct. 16, 2003) and Lastinger et al. (US
2005/0282553 Al; Dec. 22, 2005). Ans. 3-7.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Periyalwar, Lastinger, and Osseiran et al. (US 7,437,166 B2; Oct. 14, 2008).
Ans. 7-9.
We affirm.
Appeal2014-009587
Application 12/160,408
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "performing frequency scheduling
and beam forming." Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced
below:
1. A radio transmitting apparatus comprising:
a storage section that comprises a pre-set storage that
associates each resource block of a plurality of resource blocks,
into which a frequency domain is divided, with only one beam
direction of a plurality of beam directions, on a one-on-one
basis, wherein each of the plurality of beam directions is
formed by assigning a weight to transmission data to be
transmitted from a plurality of antennas;
a resource control section that allocates one of the
resource blocks, in accordance with said pre-set storage, to one
of the users based on received quality; and
a transmission section that transmits transmission data,
using the allocated resource block, in an associated beam
direction, wherein the associated beam direction in the one
beam direction of a plurality of beam directions with which the
allocated resource block is associated on the one-on-one basis.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-9 OVER
PERIY AL WAR AND LASTINGER
The Examiner finds Periyalwar and Lastinger teach all limitations of
claim 1. Ans. 3--4, 10-11. The Examiner finds Periyalwar teaches all
limitations of claim 1, except for the pre-set storage that associates each
resource block with only one beam direction, for which the Examiner relies
on Lastinger. Ans. 3--4; see also Periyalwar, Fig. 3 (storage section
associating each resource block (channels 104) with multiple beam
directions (BEAM 1 to BEAM 12)); Lastinger i-f 156, Fig. 43 (associating
2
Appeal2014-009587
Application 12/160,408
each resource block (six channels Cl to C6) with only one beam direction
(six physical non-overlapping sectors 276, 278, 280, 282, 284, 286)).
The Examiner reasons:
[I]t would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the
selection techniques taught by Lastinger et al. into the art of
Periyalwar as to include the further embodiment of figure 43 for
minimal interfering channel allocation.
Ans. 4.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1.
Appellants note that Lastinger nowhere describes local storage
146 as storing an association of frequency resource blocks with
beam directions. Lastinger merely refers to beam steering in
paragraphs 0101 and 0103, but discusses nothing about
associating frequency resource blocks with beam directions or
storing same in a storage unit.
App. Br. 10.
11.
However, the Appellants submit that Fig. 43 merely
discloses channel assignments for adjacent, non-overlapping
physical sectors of a cell, providing about 360-degree coverage.
Lastinger fails to describe any relationship between local
storage 146 shown in Fig. 23 and Fig. 43. That is, Lastinger
fails to disclose that storage 146 stores the association shown in
Fig. 43.
App. Br. 10.
111. "Fig. 43 merely shows the association between a sector and a
channel, and clearly does not show an association between a resource block
and a beam direction." App. Br. 11.
3
Appeal2014-009587
Application 12/160,408
The Examiner persuades us that Periyalwar and Lastinger teach all
limitations of claim 1. We see no error in the Examiner's findings. Nor do
we see any error in the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
Regarding Appellants' arguments i and ii, the Examiner finds
Periyalwar (Fig. 3) discloses a storage section associating each resource
block (channels 104, Fig. 3) with multiple beam directions (BEAM 1 to
BEAM 12; Fig. 3). Ans. 3, 10. We agree with and adopt this finding as our
own. The Examiner also finds Lastinger (i-f 156; Fig. 43) discloses
associating each resource block (six channels Cl to C6; Fig. 43) with only
one beam direction (six physical non-overlapping sectors 276, 278, 280,
282, 284, 286; Fig. 43). Id. at 4, 10-11. We also agree with and adopt this
finding as our own.
When combined, Periyalwar and Lastinger teach all limitations of
claim 1. Even if we assume that Lastinger does not disclose storage 146
storing the association shown in Lastinger, Figure 43 (Appellants'
arguments i and ii), this does not change our decision because Periyalwar
discloses the recited storage section. The Examiner's reliance on Lastinger
is for the additional teaching of associating each resource block with only
one beam direction.
4
Appeal2014-009587
Application 12/160,408
Regarding Appellants' argument iii, we find this argument unavailing
for the same reasons as set forth by the Examiner. Ans. 10-11. Lastinger
(Fig. 43; i-f 82) discloses associating channels (resource blocks) and beam
directions on a one-to-one basis. Also when this teaching is combined with
Periyalwar, the combination teaches or suggests the subject matter of claim
1.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as
the Examiner's rejections of claims 2-9, which are not separately argued
with particularity.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 10 OVER
PERIY AL WAR, LASTINGER, AND 0SSEIRAN
Appellants do not argue claim 10 with particularity. See App. Br. 12.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10, for the reasons
explained above with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10 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 ).
AFFIRMED
5