11440402 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 5, 2010)

Ex Parte Moon et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesNov 5, 2010

11440402 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 5, 2010)

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. 11/440,402 05/24/2006 Hi-Chan Moon 678-0477 RE 6988 66547 7590 11/05/2010 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, LLP 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER JAGANNATHAN, MELANIE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2468 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/05/2010 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte HI-CHAN MOON, CHAE-MAN LIM, SEUNG-JOO MAENG, SOON-YOUNG YOON, HYEON-WOO LEE, HEE-WON KANG and JAE-MIN AHN ____________________ Appeal 2010-012389 Application 11/440,402 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2010-012389 Application 11/440,402 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 54-61. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Exemplary Claim Exemplary independent claim 54 under appeal reads as follows: Claim 54. A synchronization (sync) signal transmission method in a communication system, the method comprising: transmitting by a primary sync signal transmitter two primary sync signals at first and second locations in a frame; and transmitting by a secondary sync signal transmitter two secondary sync signals at third and forth locations in the frame, different from the first and second locations in the frame, wherein the two secondary sync signals are uniquely assigned to a cell group and have frame sync, and wherein the first location is offset by a predetermined time from a starting point of the frame, and the second location is offset by the predetermined time from a half point of a total length of the frame. Rejection(s) and Appellants’ Contentions Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 54-61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable Jamal et al. U. S. Patent 5,930,366 (hereinafter “Jamal”) because (App. Br. 4): The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error at least because Jamal does not disclose or suggest the transmitting or receiving of two primary sync signals at first and second locations in a frame, and two secondary sync signals at third and fourth locations in a frame; wherein the second location is offset by the predetermined time from a half point of a total length of the frame, as recited in each of independent Claims 54, 56, 58 and 60. Appeal 2010-012389 Application 11/440,402 3 Issues on Appeal Whether the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 54-61 as being obvious? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiners’ rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. Further, although we agree with the Examiner’s reasoning when the “frame consists of two slots” (Answer 4:21), we note that this analysis is overly narrow as the same reasoning is true for all frames consisting of an even number of slots with respect to the first slot of the frame and the first slot after the half point of the frame. Also, although there is a t1 and a t2 time period in the Jamal reference, the claim requires that these be different. The Examiner simply states that the reference teaches “t2 different from a t1” without further explanation (Ans. 11:14). We note that the reference prefers that they be equal to simplify detection processing (col. 6, l. 22). However, this preference does not preclude the time periods being unequal. Rather, an artisan would recognize that Jamal contemplates that they may be different and that the detection processing would therefor be more complex. Appeal 2010-012389 Application 11/440,402 4 CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 54-61 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) Claims 54-61 are not patentable. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 54-61 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)(v). AFFIRMED KIS THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, LLP 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747