Ex Parte Nammi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

13913624 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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.
13/913,624 06/10/2013 Sairamesh Nammi 9900-38257US2 8289
146825 7590 04/03/2017
S»aae Patent fTrnnn/Telefnnaktiehnlaaet T M F,ries;s;nn
EXAMINER
PO BOX 30789
RALEIGH, NC 27622-0789
BURD, KEVIN MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2017 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):
instructions @ sagepat. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAIRAMESH NAMMI, NAMIR LIDIAN, and
CAGATAY KONUSKAN
Appeal 2016-005821
Application 13/913,624
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 4, 5, 8—11, 15, 16, 34, and 35, which are all pending
claims. Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-005821
Application 13/913,624
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to a “multiple-input-multiple-output
(MIMO) wireless communications and related network nodes and wireless
terminals.” Specification |4.
Representative Claim (Disputed limitations emphasized)
4. A method of transmitting data from a network node
to a wireless terminal, the method comprising:
transmitting first and second data blocks over respective
first and second multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) layers
to the wireless terminal during a first MIMO transmission time
interval (TTI);
receiving feedback from the wireless terminal for the first
MIMO TTI wherein the feedback includes first and second
ACK-NACK codewords that map to the respective first and
second MIMO layers; and
responsive to the network node being transmit buffer
limited for the wireless terminal and responsive to the first ACK-
NACK codeword being an ACK and the second ACK-NACK
codeword being a NACK, transmitting a discontinuous
transmission indicator for the first MIMO layer corresponding to
the ACK and a data indicator indicating retransmission for the
second MIMO layer corresponding to the NACK to the wireless
terminal for a second MIMO TTI wherein transmitting the
discontinuous transmission indicator and the data indicator
comprises transmitting the discontinuous transmission indicator
and the data indicator over a downlink signaling channel,
wherein the downlink signaling channel comprises a High Speed
Shared Control Channel (HS-SCCH), and wherein transmitting
the discontinuous transmission indicator comprises transmitting
the discontinuous transmission indicator as a bit pattern in a
transport block size field of the HS-SCCH downlink signaling
channel for the first MIMO layer for the second MIMO TTI; and
responsive to the network node being transmit buffer
limited for the wireless terminal and responsive to the first ACK-
NACK codeword being an ACK and the second ACK-NACK
2
Appeal 2016-005821
Application 13/913,624
codeword being a NACK, retransmitting the second data block
over the second MIMO layer to the wireless terminal during the
second MIMO TTI after transmitting the discontinuous
transmission indicator wherein retransmitting the second data
block comprises retransmitting the second data block over a
downlink traffic channel, and wherein the downlink traffic
channel comprises a High Speed Physical Downlink Shared
Channel (HSPDSCH).
Rejection on Appeal1
Claims 4, 5, 8—11, 15, 16, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable Huawei, “Retransmission for 4-branch
MIMO,” 3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #70, Rl-123819, August 13-17,
2012, in view of Bo (US Patent Application Publication Number
2010/0316159 Al; published December 16, 2010). Final Rejection 3.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Final Rejection (mailed May 8, 2015), the Advisory Action
(mailed July 7, 2015), the Appeal Brief (filed September 29, 2015), the
Answer (mailed March 15, 2016), and the Reply Brief (filed May 12, 2016)
for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
1 The prior double patenting rejection (see Final Rejection 12) has been
withdrawn. See Answer 11.
3
Appeal 2016-005821
Application 13/913,624
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, except where noted.
Appellants argue Examiner error “[regarding the data indicator of
Claim 4, [because] different portions of the Examiner’s Answer appear to
interpret different elements of the cited art as a data indicator.” Reply Brief
3. Particularly, Appellants contend that “Huawei’s codewords CW and
transport blocks TB, taken alone or in combination, fail to disclose or
suggest a data indicator transmitted over the downlink signaling channel
and/or a data indicator indicating retransmission” and the codewords and
transport blocks “cannot be interpreted as both data over a traffic channel
and as a data indicator indicating retransmission over a signaling channel.”
Reply Brief 4, emphasis in original. Appellants additionally contend that
“Bo fails to disclose or suggest a data indicator indicating retransmission.”
Reply Brief 5.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that:
Huawei states “NodeB is responsible to inform UE [user
equipment] about the VTB [virtual transport blocks] since the
UE has to know if the current transmission is a VTB or not”.
Since the UE has to know if the current transmission is not a VTB
for demodulation, NodeB will indicate whether data is being
retransmitted. The CW that is not a DTX [does not transmit
anything] can be a data indicator. The retransmission of the data
can also be an indication that a retransmission is taking place.
Answer 16, quoting Huawei page 3. The Examiner additionally finds, and
we agree, that:
A codeword indicating a NACK and requiring a retransmission
can be a data indicator indicating retransmission for the second
MIMO layer corresponding to the NACK. The retransmitted
4
Appeal 2016-005821
Application 13/913,624
transport block itself can be a data indicator indicating a
retransmission for the second MIMO layer corresponding to the
NACK to the wireless terminal can also meet the recited
limitation.
Answer 16. Appellants do not address and challenge the Examiner’s
findings regarding NodeB as indicating data retransmission and the claimed
“data indicator” encompassing either a codeword indicating a NACK or a
retransmitted transport block. Additionally, we do not find Appellants’
argument that the codewords and transport blocks “cannot be interpreted as
both data over a traffic channel and as a data indicator indicating
retransmission over a signaling channel” persuasive because the argument is
conclusory, and does not show the Examiner’s determination to be in error.
See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney
arguments or conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie
case).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 4 and independent claim 15 commensurate in scope, and dependent
claims 5, 8—11, 16, 34, and 35 not separately argued. See Appeal Brief 12.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, 8—11, 15, 16, 34,
and 35.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5