14329539 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2018)

Ex Parte KIM et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 27, 2018

14329539 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/329,539 07/11/2014 66547 7590 06/29/2018 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 2IOE Melville, NY 11747 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Soeng-Hun KIM 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. 678-3162 CON 3990 EXAMINER CHANG,TOMY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2456 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/29/2018 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): pto@farrelliplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SOENG-HUN KIM, GERT-JAN VAN LLESHOUT, and HIMKE VAN DERVELDE 1 Appeal2018-000437 Application 14/329,539 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to "method and apparatus for transmitting and receiving a status report of Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ) in an ARQ layer" (Spec. 1: 17-18). 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. Appeal2018-000437 Application 14/329,539 Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method at a receiving device comprising an automatic repeat request (ARQ) entity and a hybrid ARQ (HARQ) processor in a mobile communication system, the method comprising: receiving, by the HARQ processor, a packet from a transmitting device; receiving, by the ARQ entity, the packet from the HARQ processor; determining, by the ARQ entity, whether a status report by the receiving device is triggered based on at least one triggering condition; constructing, by the ARQ entity, the status report comprising a status of the received packet at a transmission opportunity indicated by the HARQ processor, if the status report is triggered; and transmitting, by the HARQ processor, the status report to the transmitting device. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-36 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 as directed to a non-statutory judicial exception. The Examiner rejected claims 1-36 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(e) based upon the teachings ofTorsner (US 2007/0008990 Al; published Jan. 11, 2007). The Examiner rejected claims 1, 10, 19, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(e) based upon the teachings of Herrmann (US 2010/0172445 Al; published July 8, 2010). 2 Appeal2018-000437 Application 14/329,539 The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6-12, 15-21, 24--30, and 33-36 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) based upon the teachings of Hebsgaard (US 2005/0094632 Al; published May 5, 2005) and Torsner. ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 USCÂ§ 101 The Examiner finds claims 1-3 6 are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and are therefore an abstract idea (Final Act. 2). Particularly, the Examiner states independent claims 1, 10, 19, and 28 "recite the general steps of receiving a[ stet] by a[ stet] ARQ entity a packet from a HARQ processor" (Final Act. 2--4 ). We do not agree. Appellants' claims recite an apparatus and method used in a mobile communication system including a transmitter and a receiver including an automatic repeat request (ARQ) entity and a hybrid ARQ (HARQ) processor. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the claims are directed to a general purpose computer that perform a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation; rather, "the claims are directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the field of electronic devices in [a] mobile communication system" (App. Br. 8; See also App. Br. 7, citing page 17 of the Specification). We agree with Appellants the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-36 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. 3 Appeal2018-000437 Application 14/329,539 Rejections under 35 USCÂ§ 102 The Examiner rejected claims 1-36 as anticipated by Torsner (Final Act. 4--8). Appellants contend, although the Examiner cites to paragraphs 31, 55, 62, 64, and 77 of Torsner (Final Act. 4--6), the Examiner has not explained how the "HARQ processor (the L2 MAC sub-layer in Torsner) receiv[ es] a packet from a transmitting device, and the ARQ entity ( the MAC-ARQ sub-layer in Torsner) receiv[es] the packet from the HARQ processor" (italics deleted) (App. Br. 11). We agree with Appellants the Examiner has failed to identify, inter alia, the operations in Torsner that correspond to the claimed limitation "receiving, by the ARQ entity, the packet from the HARQ processor" (id.). The Examiner rejected claims 1, 10, 19, and 36 as anticipated by Herrmann (Final Act. 8-9). Appellants contend, although the Examiner cites to paragraphs 22, 52, and 53 of Hermann, the Examiner has not explained where Hermann teaches "constructing, by the ARQ entity, the status report comprising a status of the received packet at a transmission opportunity indicated by the HARQ processor, if the status report is triggered," as claimed (italics omitted) (App. Br. 18). We agree with Appellants the Examiner has failed to identify where in Hermann this limitation is found. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-36 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102. Rejection under 35 USCÂ§ 103 The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6-12, 15-21, 24--30, and 33-36 as obvious over Hebsgaard and Torsner (Final Act. 9-15). The Examiner finds 4 Appeal2018-000437 Application 14/329,539 Hebsgaard does not teach the steps of receiving by the HARQ processor, receiving by the ARQ entity, and constructing, by the ARQ, the status report, but relies on Torsner for disclosing these limitations (Final Act. 10- 11 ). As we agree supra, that T orsner does not teach these claim limitations, Torsner does not cure the deficiencies of Hebsgaard (see App. Br. 19--21 ). Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6-12, 15-21, 24--30, and 33-36 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-36 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 is reversed. The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-36 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102 is reversed. The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6-12, 15-21, 24--30, and 33-36 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 is reversed. REVERSED 5