Ex Parte Mukherjee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2013

11540571 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte BISWAROOP MUKHERJEE
_____________

Appeal 2010-011583
Application 11/540,571
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, BRYAN F. MOORE, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-011583
Application 11/540,571

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-16 and 19-24. App. Br. 5. Claims 17 and 18 have been
indicated to be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to methods and systems for scheduling
OFDM frames. Spec. 1:6-7.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method of scheduling OFDM frames, each frame
comprising at least one OFDM symbol, each OFDM symbol
comprising a plurality of subcarriers, the method comprising:
for each packet to be scheduled assigning the packet a
plurality of scheduling metrics;
producing at least one ordering of packets using the
metrics;
using the at least one ordering to select a set of packets to
send in a current frame;
for each OFDM frame, constructing the OFDM frame
from packets assigned to the frame by placing each packet in a
respective rectangular time-frequency burst within the OFDM
frame, at least some of the OFDM frames including packets for
multiple users;
transmitting the OFDM frames using at least one transmit
antenna.

REFERENCES
Ganz US 6,049,549 Apr. 11, 2000
Bonomi US 2002/0105952 A1 Aug. 8, 2002
Appeal 2010-011583
Application 11/540,571

3
Shahar US 2003/0002495 A1 Jan. 2, 2003
Tong US 2004/0114618 A1 Jun. 17, 2004
Dugad US 2004/0127226 A1 Jul. 1, 2004
Troung US 2005/0286410 A1 Dec. 29, 2005
Rudnick US 7,272,119 B2 Sep. 18, 2007
Pandoh US 2007/0230326 A1 Oct. 4, 2007

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-4, 10, 13-16, 20, and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Pandoh and Tong. Ans. 4-
8.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Pandoh, Tong, and Bonomi. Ans. 8-9.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Pandoh, Tong, and Rudnick. Ans. 9-
10.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Pandoh, Tong, and Troung. Ans. 10-11.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Pandoh, Tong, and Ganz. Ans. 11-12.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Pandoh, Tong, and Shahar. Ans. 12.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Pandoh, Tong, and Dugad. Ans. 13.

Appeal 2010-011583
Application 11/540,571

4
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Pandoh
and Tong collectively teach “for each packet to be scheduled
assigning the packet a plurality of scheduling metrics,” as recited
in claim 1; and
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Pandoh,
Tong collectively teach “temporarily assigning each packet to a
particular frame using a deadline for departure for the packet,” as
recited in claim 5?

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellant argues that Pandoh does not teach “for each packet to be
scheduled assigning the packet a plurality of scheduling metrics,” as recited
in claim 1. Specifically, Appellant argues that “the wastage metric M_waste
is not calculated on a per packet basis as recited in claim 1 of the present
application and therefore the wastage metric cannot be considered one of a
‘plurality of scheduling metrics’ that are assigned to each packet to be
scheduled.” App Br. 14 (emphasis omitted). The argument is not persuasive
of Examiner error.
Initially, we find that the limitation “for each packet to be scheduled
assigning the packet a plurality of scheduling metrics” does not state that the
metrics must be calculated on a per packet basis, but rather that they must be
assigned to each packet. Therefore, this argument is not commensurate with
Appeal 2010-011583
Application 11/540,571

5
the claim scope. Nonetheless, as to assigning metrics to packets, Pandoh
recites:
[3.] Wastage metric M_waste thus calculated for each data
group or MCS bucket may then be applied to all the flows in
the bucket, 4. Once M_waste(i) and M_QoS(i) are available for
each flow-i, an efficiency metric M_eff(i) for the head of the
line packet in a flow-i may be calculated as: M_eff(i) =
M_waste(i) * M_QoS(i) 5. Based on efficiency metric M_eff(i)
calculated above for each flow-i, the flow with the largest
M_eff*(i) may be chosen to be scheduled.
Pandoh, ¶ [0051], [0052], and [0053].
As the Examiner notes, Pandoh assigns each packet in a flow
“M_waste(i) and M_QoS(i) metrics through association with the flow and
MCS bucket that they belong to,” and “the process may be repeated from
step 3 until either all flows are scheduled.” Ans. 14. We note that Pandoh
also states that “[a] flow may be a queue of data packets that are modulated
and sent in a frame. Each packet in a flow may contain a plurality of data
units or bytes of information.” Pandoh, ¶ [0023]. As stated above, Pandoh
explains that a data group or bucket contains a plurality of flows and that a
flow has a plurality of packets. Id. Thus, when the M_waste(i) and
M_QoS(i) metrics are combined into the M_eff(i) metric, the M_eff(i)
metric is applied to all packets based on each packet because each packet is
associated with a flow that is associated with a bucket/group. Ans. 14. Thus,
Pandoh teaches “for each packet to be scheduled assigning the packet a
plurality of scheduling metrics.”
Appellant further argues that “the efficiency metric M_eff(i) is not
calculated on a per packet basis as recited in claim 1 of the present
application, but for a head of the line packet of a given flow and therefore
Appeal 2010-011583
Application 11/540,571

6
the efficiency metric cannot be considered one of a ‘plurality of scheduling
metrics’ that are assigned to each packet to be scheduled.” App. Br. 14-15
(emphasis omitted). However, as noted above, the claim is not limited to
“calculating” the metric on a per packet basis.
Appellant further argues that “Pandoh recites that a first packet of a
flow is scheduled on the basis of the efficiency metric, but this is only a
single metric, not a ‘plurality of scheduling metrics.’” App. Br. 15 (emphasis
omitted). However, the efficiency metric is a combination of the waste
metric and the quality of service (QoS) metric, thus, both the waste metric
and quality of service metric are “assigned” to a packet based on their
incorporation into the efficiency metric.
Appellant does not substantively argue the rejection of claims 2-4, 7-
16, and 19-24. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we affirm the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-4, 7-16, and 19-24.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites “temporarily assigning each packet to a particular
frame using a deadline for departure for the packet.” Specifically, Appellant
argues that “Bonomi indicates the departure time is defined by placement in
a given bucket, as opposed to the present claim language, which indicates
that the placement occurs based on the deadline for departure.” App. Br. 18
(emphasis omitted) (citing Bonomi, ¶ [0082]). This argument is not
persuasive of Examiner error.
Bonomi explains that:
[a]ssociated with each non-shaped connection is a bucket gap,
preferably expressed as the number of cell transmission cycles
for the group. The bucket gap is inversely proportional to the
Appeal 2010-011583
Application 11/540,571

7
bandwidth of the corresponding branch. The bucket gap is used
to choose how many buckets away from a current bucket the
next cell in a connection queue is to be placed.
Bonomi, ¶ [0091]. Thus, the time of departure is used to determine where to
place a cell in the queue when the bucket gap is used to determine how far
away for the current bucket to place the next bucket because that distance
will determine the time of departure, i.e. the further away the later the time
of departure will be. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Bonomi
teaches “temporarily assigning each packet to a particular frame using a
deadline for departure for the packet.” Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s
decision to reject claim 5 and claim 6, not argued separately, that depends
from claim 5.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-16 and 19-24 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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc