Ex Parte MA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 4, 2014

11835666 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JIANGLEI MA, MO-HAN FONG,
HANG ZHANG, JUN LI,
MING JIA, PEIYING ZHU, and
WEN TONG
____________

Appeal 2011-010981
Application 11/835,666
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
J. JOHN LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.

WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-010981
Application 11/835,666

2
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-19, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
Claim 20 is cancelled (App. Br. App’x A, p. E). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ disclosure “relates to wireless network communications
and [in] particular to . . . increasing wireless communication network
spectral efficiency for mobile stations operating in multiple environments,
such as indoor and outdoor and/or time division duplex having different
uplink and downlink transmission ratios.” Spec. ¶ 0003. Claim 1, which is
illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A wireless communication method, comprising:
establishing a first wireless communication numerology
corresponding to a first operational mode;
establishing a second wireless communication
numerology corresponding to a second operational mode, the
first wireless communication numerology being different than
the second wireless communication numerology;
selecting one of the first operational mode and the second
operational mode; and
using one of the first wireless communication
numerology and the second wireless communication

1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Nortel Networks
Limited. App. Br. 1. The record indicates an assignment from Nortel
Networks Limited to Rockstar Bidco, LP, from Rockstar Bidco, LP to
2256355 Ontario Limited, and from 2256355 Ontario Limited to Research in
Motion Limited. See “STATEMENT UNDER 37 CFR 3.73(b)” (filed Apr.
17, 2012).
Appeal 2011-010981
Application 11/835,666

3
numerology corresponding the selected operational mode,
communication in the first operational mode and the second
operational mode using substantially similar initial access
channels.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Ogino US 2003/0050089 A1 Mar. 13, 2003
Walton US 2003/0125040 A1 July 3, 2003
Wu US 2005/0107115 A1 May 19, 2005
Mantravadi US 2005/0176436 A1 Aug. 11, 2005
Teague US 2006/0018258 A1 Jan. 26, 2006

Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ogino and Mantravadi. 2 Ans. 4-9.
Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ogino, Mantravadi, and Wu. Ans. 9-10.
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ogino, Mantravadi, and Teague. Ans. 10-12.
Claims 9, 10, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ogino, Mantravadi, and Walton. Ans. 13-14.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs (“App.
Br.” filed Jan. 18, 2011; “Reply Br.” filed June 3, 2011) and the Answer
(“Ans.” mailed Apr. 8, 2011) for the respective positions of Appellants and
the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the

2 The initial statement of rejection (Ans. 4) only identifies claim 1.
However, the detailed discussion of the rejection (Ans. 5-9) includes claims
2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, and 18. See App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2011-010981
Application 11/835,666

4
Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
ISSUE
Independent claims 1 and 11 are argued together. See App. Br. 3-7.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are not separately argued with
particularity. See App. Br. 7-9. Therefore, we discuss the appeal by
reference to claim 1. The issues raised by Appellants’ contentions are as
follows:
Does the combination of Ogino and Mantravadi teach or suggest
“establishing a first wireless communication numerology corresponding to a
first operational mode[,] [and] establishing a second wireless communication
numerology corresponding to a second operational mode, the first wireless
communication numerology being different than the second wireless
communication numerology” (the “numerology limitation”), as recited in
claim 1?
Does the combination of Ogino and Mantravadi teach or suggest
“communication in the first operational mode and the second operational
mode using substantially similar initial access channels” (the “access
channel limitation”), as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
The Numerology Limitation
The Examiner finds that Ogino teaches the numerology limitation.
Ans. 5 (citing Ogino, ¶¶ 0005, 0019-0022). The Examiner maps the recited
“wireless communication numerology” to Global Positioning System (GPS)
signal strength thresholds and time delays used by Ogino’s mobile station to
Appeal 2011-010981
Application 11/835,666

5
transition from an indoor mode to an outdoor mode, and the converse. See
Ogino, ¶ 0005. More particularly, when the mobile station is in indoor mode
and the GPS signal strength exceeds a threshold value, the mobile station
transitions to outdoor mode. When the mobile station is in the outdoor mode
and the signal strength drops below a signal threshold, indicating an absence
of GPS signal, for a pre-set period of time, the mobile station transitions to
indoor mode. See Ogino, ¶¶ 0019-0027.
Appellants contend that “Ogino merely adjusts user-related
functions to make it easier on the user to use the device, but does not
teach or disclose establishing different channel parameters, i.e.
numerology, to optimize spectral efficiency depending on the mode of
operation and the different channel conditions.” App. Br. 5. We are not
persuaded of error.
We give the phrase “wireless communication numerology” its
broadest reasonable construction in light of the Specification, In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), without importing limitations into the
claims from the Specification, SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc.,
358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The phrase “wireless communication
numerology” appears in the Specification in the claims (Spec. 28-31, 33-36)
and in the “Summary of Invention” section of the Specification (Spec.
¶¶ 0011-0012). The Specification defines “numerology” as “operating
parameters.” Spec. ¶ 0005 (“While techniques for reducing susceptibility to
these interferences are known, these techniques employ methods which
establish operating parameters (also referred to as ‘numerology’), such as
cyclic prefix (‘CP’) length and fast fourier transform (‘FFT’) length based
on the expected worst case operating environment.” (Emphasis added.)).
Appeal 2011-010981
Application 11/835,666

6
The Specification gives as examples of numerology CP length (Spec.
¶ 0005), FFT length (id.), OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division
Multiplexing (Spec. ¶ 0004)) numerologies (Spec. ¶ 0010), and OFDM
operating parameters (Spec. ¶ 0011). However, such examples are non-
limiting. Accordingly, we construe “wireless communication numerology”
to be operating parameters related to wireless communication.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the “wireless communication
numerology” of Appellants’ claim 1 is not limited to OFDM numerology.
See Ans. 15. We further conclude that the “wireless communication
numerology” is not limited to numerology that “establish[es] different
channel parameters” (App. Br. 5), or that “affect[s] spectral efficiency”
(Reply Br. 4) as asserted by Appellants. One of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized that a GPS signal is encompassed by “wireless
communication.” We agree with the Examiner that Ogino’s GPS signal
thresholds and time periods are operating parameters, i.e., numerology. See
Ans. 15. We find that, because the signal thresholds and time periods are
operating parameters that relate to GPS communication, they are
encompassed by “wireless communication numerology.” We agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 5) that Ogino teaches that a first wireless communication
numerology (e.g., a GPS signal threshold) is established corresponding to a
first operational mode (e.g., indoor mode), a second wireless communication
numerology (e.g., a GPS signal threshold and a time period) is established
corresponding to a second operating mode (e.g., outdoor mode), and that the
second wireless communication numerology is different in at least one
respect from the first wireless communication numerology. See Ogino, ¶
0005.
Appeal 2011-010981
Application 11/835,666

7

The Access Channel Limitation
The Examiner finds that Mantravadi, when combined with Ogino,
teaches the access channel limitations. Ans. 5-6 (citing Mantravadi, ¶¶ 59-
60, 82-83). The Examiner explains that “Mantravadi teaches of channel
interference detection, where the usage of a single initial access channel is
used, and where according to channel conditions, appropriate numerology is
used.” Ans. 17 (citation omitted).
Appellants contend that “[s]ince Mantravadi does not teach or
disclose different modes, Mantravadi cannot possibly disclose the ‘first
operational mode and the second operational mode using substantially
similar initial access channels.’” App. Br. 7. We are unpersuaded of error.
The Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based on a combination
of Ogino and Mantravadi, not Mantravadi alone. The Examiner relies on
Ogino, not Mantravadi, to teach the first and second operating modes. Ans.
5. “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
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.
Id. at 425 (citations omitted).
As explained by the Examiner (Ans. 17), Mantravadi teaches an
OFDM system that estimates the channel gain from pilot symbols
Appeal 2011-010981
Application 11/835,666

8
transmitted on P pilot subbands and cancelling the interference. Mantravadi,
¶¶ 0082-0083, Abstract; Figs. 1, 2. Implicit in the need to estimate channel
gain to cancel interference is the understanding by one of ordinary skill in
the art that interference changes for different operating conditions. See
Spec. ¶¶ 0005-0006. When considered in conjunction with Ogino’s teaching
of first and second operational modes, Mantravadi’s teaching of operating
under different interference conditions with channel gain estimates used to
cancel interference suggests a plurality (e.g., a first and second) of
operational modes. Mantravadi teaches that the estimate is performed using
the pilot symbols received on the P pilot subbands, which teaches or
suggests that the P pilot subbands (i.e., “initial access channels”) are
substantially similar under varying operating conditions, i.e., the first and
second operational modes.
Summary
Appellants have failed to persuade us of error in the rejection of claim
1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection over Ogino and Mantravadi of (1)
claim 1; (2) independent claim 11, which was argued together with claim 1;
and (3) claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 14, 17, and 18, which depend from claim 1 or
11 and were not separately argued with particularly. Claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 10,
13, 15, 16, and 19 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 or 11 and
were not separately argued with particularity. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejections of (4) claims 3 and 13 over Ogino, Mantravadi, and Wu; (5)
claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 over Ogino, Mantravadi, and Teague; and (6) claims
9, 10, and 19 over Ogino, Mantravadi, and Walton.

Appeal 2011-010981
Application 11/835,666

9
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-19 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc