Ex Parte Khandekar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 22, 2014

11022538 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte AAMOD KHANDEKAR and AVNEESH AGRAWAL

____________________

Appeal 2012-003354
Application 11/022,538
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before FRED E. McKELVEY, HUNG H. BUI, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GALLIGAN, 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 1–3, 6–25, 39, and 40. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 The Real Party in Interest is QUALCOMM Incorporated.
2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed on July 11, 2011
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed November 30, 2011 (“Reply Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer mailed September 28, 2011 (“Ans.”); and original
Specification filed December 22, 2004 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2012-003354
Application 11/022,538

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Appellants’ application relates to data transmission in communication
systems and is directed to techniques for using multiple modulation schemes
for a single packet. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 7.
Claims 1, 17, 21, 39, and 40 are independent claims. Claim 1 is
reproduced below (limitations in dispute in italics):
1. A method of transmitting data in a communication system,
comprising:
encoding a data packet to obtain a plurality of code bits for the
data packet;
forming a plurality of blocks of code bits with the plurality of
code bits;
determining a packet format for the data packet, wherein:
the packet format is determined, at least in part, by a
channel condition; and
the packet format predetermines a modulation scheme
and an associated spectral efficiency for each of the plurality of
blocks, wherein at least two of the blocks have different modulation
schemes; and
mapping the code bits in each of the plurality of blocks in
accordance with the predetermined modulation scheme used for the
block to generate modulation symbols for the block, wherein a
plurality of blocks of modulation symbols are generated for the
plurality of blocks of code bits.

Appeal 2012-003354
Application 11/022,538

3

Evidence Considered
Langberg et al., US 5,852,630 Dec. 22, 1998
Ha et al., US 2003/0147474 A1 Aug. 7, 2003
Hwang et el., US 2004/0151256 A1 Aug. 5, 2004
Balachandran et al., US 6,778,558 B2 Aug. 17, 2004

Examiner’s Rejections
(1) Claims 1–3, 6–17 and 19–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Ha and Balachandran. Ans. 5–18.
(2) Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ha, Balachandran, and Hwang. Ans. 18–19.
(3) Claims 39 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ha, Balachandran, and Langberg. Ans. 19–20.

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1–3, 6–17, and 19–25 over Ha and
Balachandran.

With respect to independent claims 1, 17, and 21, the Examiner found
that Ha discloses all claim limitations except for the limitations that a data
packet format is determined, at least in part, by a channel condition and that
at least two of the blocks of that data packet have different modulation
schemes. Ans. 5–6, 12–13, 15–16. The Examiner relied on Balachandran
for a disclosure of these claim limitations. Ans. 6, 13, 16. Based on these
factual findings, the Examiner concluded that:
it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made
to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and
method of transmitting data of Ha, by making use of the
Appeal 2012-003354
Application 11/022,538

4

technique taught by Balachandran, in order to improve the
signal quality and noise cancellation.

Ans. 7, 13, 16. The Examiner further stated:
Both references are within the same field of digital
communication, and in particular of incremental redundancy
closed loop feedback system, the modification does not change
a fundamental operating principle of Ha, nor does Ha teach
away from the modification (Ha merely discloses a preferred
embodiment). The combination has a reasonable expectation of
success in that the modifications can be made using
conventional and well known engineering and/or programming
techniques, the communication system taught by Balachandran
is not altered and continues to perform the same function as
separately, and the resultant combination produces the highly
predictable result of transmitting data in a communication
wherein the packet format is determined by a channel condition
and wherein block codes contain at least two of the blocks have
different modulation schemes.
Ans. 7, 14, 16–17.
Appellants challenge the combination of Ha and Balachandran,
arguing that the modulation scheme selection methods of the two references
are incompatible. App. Br. 12–17, Reply Br. 3–5. Appellants argue that Ha
discloses selecting a modulation scheme for an entire data packet such that
the sub-packets within the data packet are modulated via the same scheme.
App. Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 3–4. Appellants further argue that, in
Balachandran, the modulation scheme is fixed within each time slot.
App. Br. 13 (citing Balachandran, col. 1, l. 60). The modulation scheme is
chosen based on the number of blocks to be transmitted in the time slot.
App. Br. 13, 16 (citing Balachandran, col. 3, ll. 60–67); Reply Br. 4.
Appellants also argue that the blocks of data in Balachandran are different
from the sub-packets in Ha and in the claims. App. Br. 10–12. As such,
Appeal 2012-003354
Application 11/022,538

5

Appellants still further argue that Ha’s technique of selecting a modulation
scheme for an entire data packet and Balachandran’s technique of choosing a
modulation scheme for each time slot based on the number of blocks in that
slot are not compatible and that the selection of one modulation scheme
would obviate the need for the other modulation scheme. App. Br. 14–16.
In response, the Examiner states that Balachandran discloses adaptive
modulation for the packet data channel and breaking up an uncoded data
frame into data blocks for transmission to improve efficiency. Ans. 22. The
Examiner further responds that “the rationale is by using a known technique
by Balachandran to a known method by Ha wherein both known work in the
same field of endeavor and the variations are predictable to one of ordinary
skill in the art.” Ans. 22. Appellants counter that the Examiner has not
shown how Ha and Balachandran would be combined since, they argue, the
modulation selection schemes of these two references are incompatible, nor
has the Examiner proven that the references would be combined in a manner
that would meet the claim limitations. Reply Br. 4–5.
We agree with the Examiner, and do not find Appellants’ arguments
persuasive. The record supports the Examiner’s findings that Balachandran
discloses adaptive modulation for modulating packet data which can be
combined with the teachings of Ha. For example, Balachandran states:
Adaptive data rate schemes based on a combination of
incremental redundancy coding and adaptive modulation are
described earlier for circuit data. . . . These schemes achieve
high throughput under delay constraints. Provided herein in
accordance with the invention is a detailed description of the
application of these techniques to 136+ packet data services.
Balachandran, col. 3, ll. 44–60 (emphasis added). Figure 4 from
Balachandran is reproduced below:
Appeal 2012-003354
Application 11/022,538

6

Figure 4 illustrates a transmitter 115 and a receiver 130
communicating frames over a packet data channel 100. Balachandran, Fig.
4, col. 6, ll. 36–61. As the Examiner found, the frames are broken into
blocks for transmission. Ans. 6 (citing Balachandran, col. 1, ll. 15–62).
Balachandran discloses that the modulation decision unit 278, as shown in
Figure 4, determines a modulation scheme based in part on channel quality
feedback signal 125. Balachandran, col. 5, l. 22 – col. 6, l. 8; col. 6, l. 36 –
col. 7, l. 4. Balachandran further discloses that “[t]he adaptive modulator
250 modulates and transmits the layer 1 frames 120 through the packet data
channel 100 to the channel demodulator 255 at the receiver 130.”
Balachandran, col. 6, ll. 42–46. Furthermore, Balachandran explicitly
discloses that the “packet data channel is capable of supporting multiple
modulations.” Balachandran, col. 4, ll. 25–26. Balachandran discloses
QPSK, 8 PSK, and 16 PSK as available modulation schemes. Balachandran,
col. 3, ll. 61–67, Table 1.
Appeal 2012-003354
Application 11/022,538

7

Therefore, we find that the evidence in the record is sufficient to
support the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner has established that the
combination of Ha and Balachandran would have rendered obvious the
subject matter of claims 1–3, 6–17, and 19–25. Appellants’ arguments are
directed to the individual disclosures of each of Ha and Balachandran rather
than to what these references disclose as a whole. “Non-obviousness cannot
be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is
based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck
&Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Ha and Balachandran must be
read, not in isolation, but for what they fairly teach in combination with each
other. Id.
For the reasons set forth above, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–
3, 6–17, and 19–25 is sustained.

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claim 18 over Ha, Balachandran, and
Hwang.

Claim 18 depends from claim 17. Appellants rely on their arguments
with respect to claim 17 and do not advance any additional arguments for
patentability of claim 18. Because the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 is
sustained, the rejection of claim 18 is likewise sustained.

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 39 and 40 over Ha, Balachandran,
and Langberg.

Claims 39 and 40 are claims to an integrated circuit and a computer
program product, respectively. Appellants rely on their arguments with
respect to claims 1, 17, and 21 and do not advance any additional arguments
Appeal 2012-003354
Application 11/022,538

8

for patentability of claims 39 and 40. Because the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1, 17, and 21 is sustained, the rejection of claims 39 and 40 is likewise
sustained.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 6–25, 39 and 40.
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

tj