Ex Parte Kwon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

13798472 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/798,472 03/13/2013 Young Hoon Kwon HW 83453648US02 6622
74365 7590 09/29/2017
Slater Matsil, LLP/HW/FW/HWC
17950 Preston Road, Suite 1000
Dallas, TX 75252
EXAMINER
LIU, JUNG-JEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2017 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):
uspatent@huawei.com
docketing @ slatermatsil. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOUNG HOON KWON, YUNSONG YANG, and
ZHIGANG RONG
Appeal 2017-003853
Application 13/798,4721
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-17, 22-27, 30, 31, and 34-45, which are
all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is the Applicant,
Futurewei Technologies, Inc. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-003853
Application 13/798,472
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ application relates to downlink transmission in a wireless
network. Spec. 12. In this wireless network, a station transmits a null data
packet (NDP) power save (PS)-Poll frame including a short training field, a
long training field, and a signaling field. Id. 1 6. The station also receives
data in accordance with the NDP PS-Poll frame. Id. ^ 6. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. A method of communicating in a wireless network, the
method comprising:
transmitting, by a station to an access point (AP), a null
data packet (NDP) power save (PS)-Poll frame comprising
a short training field (STF),
a long training field (L TF), and
a signaling (SIG) field comprising
a frame type indicator,
a transmitter address (TA),
a receiver address (RA),
a preferred modulation and coding scheme (MCS),
wherein the preferred MCS is recommended to the AP
for downlink transmission, and
an uplink data indicator (UDI); and
receiving, by the station, buffered data in accordance
with the NDP PS-Poll frame.
The Examiner’s Rejection2
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-17, 22-21, 30, 31, and 34^45 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2013/0329620
2 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants argue the Examiner improperly rejected
2
Appeal 2017-003853
Application 13/798,472
Al; Dec. 12, 2013), Merlin et al. (US 2013/0170345 Al; July 4, 2013), and
Kang et al. (US 2012/0093052 Al; Apr. 19, 2012). Final Act. 7-37.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in consideration of
Appellants’ contentions and the evidence of record. Appellants persuade us
the Examiner fails to establish the claims are unpatentable over the cited
prior art.
The Examiner finds Kim teaches or suggests “a null data packet
(NDP) power save (PS)-Poll frame,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 37 (citing
Kim H 82, 106). In particular, the Examiner finds Kim teaches transmitting
an NDP Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) subsequent to a null data packet
announcement frame. Id. (citing Kim | 82). The Examiner further finds
Kim teaches transmitting a PS-Poll frame that requests the recipient transmit
a frame in response. Id. (citing Kim 1106).
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Kim discloses a NDP
frame and a PS-Poll frame as separate frames instead of a PS-Poll frame
which is also an NDP frame, as claimed. Br. 7. We agree. The Examiner
has established that Kim allows transmission of NDP frames and PS-Poll
frames. See Ans. 37. However, the Examiner has failed to establish that
Kim’s system uses both NDP and PS-Poll in the same frame. Instead, the
Examiner merely alleges Appellants are arguing the references individually
and copies the cited portions of Kim without explanation. See Ans. 37-38.
claims 36-38, 40, 41, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph. Br. 6-
7. However, as indicated by the Examiner in the Answer (Ans. 36), this
rejection was previously withdrawn and not present in the Final Action.
3
Appeal 2017-003853
Application 13/798,472
The Examiner further finds Merlin teaches or suggests “a null data
packet (NDP) power save (PS)-Poll frame,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 38
(citing Merlin Fig. 5). In particular, the Examiner finds Merlin teaches a
control frame (500) that includes control information in the control INFO
field (530). Id. The Examiner asserts, “[t]he control information may
include NULL data packet (NDP) and power save poll (PS-poll), and adding
any predetermined control information into a frame is obvious.” Id.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Merlin teaches a system
that discloses NDP and PS-Poll frames as separate frames, not a single PS-
Poll frame that is also an NDP frame. Br. 7 (citing Merlin | 56). We agree.
The Examiner has established that Merlin allows transmission of NDP
frames and PS-Poll frames. See Ans. 38. However, the cited portions of
Merlin do not teach using both NDP and PS-Poll frames in a single frame,
and the Examiner has failed to adequately explain or make supported factual
findings to the contrary.
On this record we, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 15, 27, and 31, which recite commensurate limitations, or dependent
claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-14, 16, 17, 22-26, 30, and 34^15.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7,
9-17, 22-27, 30, 31, and 34^15.
REVERSED
4