Ex Parte Lindoff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 24, 2014

11943440 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BENGT LINDOFF, ROBERT BALDEMAIR, ERIK DAHLMAN,
and STEFAN PARKVALL
____________________

Appeal 2012-009839
Application 11/943,440
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-009839
Application 11/943,440

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1–22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal read as follows (emphasis added):
1. A method of indicating which of a first subcarrier spacing
and a second subcarrier spacing is presently in use in a cellular
communication system, the method comprising:
in response to the first subcarrier spacing presently being in
use, generating a first type of synchronization signal;
in response to the second subcarrier spacing presently being in
use, generating a second type of synchronization signal; and
transmitting whichever of the first type of synchronization
signal and the second type of synchronization signal was generated,
wherein a time domain representation of the second type of
synchronization signal includes a plurality of instances of the first
type of synchronization signal.

Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 6–8, 10, 13, 15–17, and 19–
22 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of
Laroia (US 2006/0083159 A1) and Chang (US 2007/0195914 A1). 1
2. The Examiner rejected dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 14, and
18, as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of
Laroia, Chang, and other references in several combinations.

1 As to the rejection of all independent claims (1, 6, 10, 15, and 19–22),
separate patentability is argued only for claim 1. Except for our ultimate
decision, the remaining claims are not discussed further herein.
Appeal 2012-009839
Application 11/943,440

3

Appellants’ Contention
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because, given paragraph 0052 of Laroia:
Keeping in mind that tone interspacing is not, by itself, believed
to be indicative of subcarrier spacing, it is apparent that Laroia's
beacons do not indicate which subcarrier spacing is presently in
use. To the contrary, Laroia teaches, in paragraph [0069], that
the Wireless Terminal (WT) must measure the frequency
separation between tones and then calculate the bandwidth
employed by the sector base station:
[0069] .... In sub-step 1118, the WT determines
tone-interspacing. For example, consider that an
exemplary first type beacon signal will include two
tones separated by 10 tone index units irrespective
of the bandwidth employed or the sector cell of the
system. The WT, knowing this fixed relationship,
can measure the separation in terms of frequency
and calculate the inter-tone spacing or the width of
a single tone, and knowing the number of tones
used in the system, can calculate the bandwidth
employed by the sector base station. In sub-step
1120, the WT determines the frequency of a base
tone or reference tone for the band, e.g., from a
reference type beacon signal.
(Emphasis added.)
It is evident, then, that Laroia fails to disclose Appellants’
claimed “in response to the first subcarrier spacing presently
being in use, generating a first type of synchronization signal;
in response to the second subcarrier spacing presently being in
use, generating a second type of synchronization signal; and
transmitting whichever of the first type of synchronization
signal and the second type of synchronization signal was
generated .... ”
(App. Br. 11).
Appeal 2012-009839
Application 11/943,440

4
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellants’ above recited contention.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1–22 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, these claims have not been shown to be
unpatentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–22 are reversed.

REVERSED

lv