Ex Parte Novak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 16, 2017

13616715 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 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.
13/616,715 09/14/2012 Robert Novak 30134./13408 3059
(P15698USD4)
114746 7590
Apple Inc. — FKM
150 Broadway
Suite 702
New York, NY 10038
06/16/2017 EXAMINER
PASIA, REDENTOR M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/16/2017 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT NOVAK, HANG ZHANG, SOPHIE VRZIC,
MO-HAN FONG, KELVIN KAR-KIN AU,
JIANGLEI MA, PEIYING ZHU, and WEN TONG
Appeal 2017-003438
Application 13/616,7151
Technology Center 2400
Before LARRY J. HUME, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 7, 9-13, and 15—20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed “invention relates to multiplexing schemes for
use with OFDMA (orthogonal frequency division multiplexing access)
systems, for example for use in transmitting VoIP (voice over Internet
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-003438
Application 13/616,715
Protocol) traffic.” Spec. 1,11. 17—19. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject
matter of the appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A base station comprising:
a scheduler to schedule packets for transmission
according to resource allocation information;
a signalling information generator to generate signalling
information based on the resource allocation information
received from the scheduler, wherein the signalling information
includes modulation and coding schemes to be used for the
scheduled packets;
a frame generator in communication with the signalling
information generator to construct frames based on the resource
allocation information from the scheduler and the signalling
information from the signalling information generator;
a transmitter to transmit the frames;
a receiver to receive feedback to aid in determining
whether the transmitted frames were successfully received.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1—3, 6, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Yano et al. (US
2006/0126577 Al; published June 15, 2006) (hereinafter “Yano”) and
Kimura (US 2005/0053038 Al; published Mar. 10, 2005).
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 10-16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Yano, Kimura, and
Steer et al. (US 2002/0075841 Al; published June 20, 2002) (hereinafter
“Steer”).
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Yano, Kimura, and
Bykovnikov (US 7,613,242 B2; issued Nov. 3, 2009).
2
Appeal 2017-003438
Application 13/616,715
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Yano, Kimura,
Bykovnikov, and Steer.
ISSUE
The dispositive issue for this appeal is whether the combination of
Yano and Kimura2 teaches or suggests “frames,” in accordance with the
claims on appeal.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the combination of Yano and Kimura fails to teach
or suggest “frames” constructed based on resource allocation information
and signalling information, in accordance with independent claims 1, 6, 12,
17, and 19. App. Br. 5—11; Reply Br. 3—5. More specifically, Appellants
argue Yano and Kimura instead teach constructing “packets.” See App.
Br. 6 (citing Kimura Tflf 70-71). Appellants contend “a packet and a frame
are two different data units that are used on different layers of an [Open
System Interconnection Model] OSI model.” App. Br. 6—7 (citing Neil
Briscoe, Understanding the OSI 7-Layer Model, OC Network Advisor, Iss.
120, 13—14 (July, 2000) (hereinafter “Briscoe”)). Appellants argue the
claims use “the terms ‘packets’ and ‘frames’ in separate and distinct
manners” (e.g., “a scheduler schedules packets for transmission and a frame
generator constructs frames based on information from the scheduler”), and
different terms in a claim should be provided different meanings. App.
2 The Examiner cites Yano and Kimura for teaching or suggesting the
disputed limitation for all of the pending § 103 rejections — all have at least
Yano and Kimura in common. For the § 103 rejections that also rely on
additional references, the Examiner does not rely on the teachings of the
additional references with respect to the disputed limitation.
3
Appeal 2017-003438
Application 13/616,715
Br. 8. Appellants also argue the Specification consistently distinguishes
between packets and frames. See, e.g., App. Br. 8 (citing Spec. 42,1. 25 to
43,1. 28) (arguing the Specification discloses frames as a means for
transporting packets); see also Reply Br. 4—5 (citing Spec. 45,11. 17—19)
(arguing the Examiner-cited portion of the Specification “merely indicates
that a vocoder frame may be transmitted as a packet, not that the vocoder
frame is a packet or is interchangeable with a packet,” and noting that the
Specification warns “that vocoder frames are not to be confused with the
OFDM framing, which is accomplished by the frame generator recited in
claim 1”).
The Examiner finds the combination of Yano and Kimura teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 23—28. The Examiner finds the
claims “do[] not specifically disclose that the packets (i.e. scheduled packets
for transmission) are encapsulated or constructed into frames,” nor, “provide
any details on how frames are constructed from packets which is a typical
process when the OSI model is referred to.” Ans. 26. The Examiner, thus,
finds that “packets” and “frames” are interchangeable under “the broadest
reasonable interpretation and is a proper interpretation considering that no
specific details are presented in the claims that the packets are for exclusive
use for the Network Layer of the OSI model and frames are for exclusive
use for the Data Link Layer of the OSI model.” Id. The Examiner also finds
that this interpretation is supported by the Specification’s disclosure that “‘a
vocoder frame is an example of what might be transmitted as a packet. . .
Ans. 27 (citing Spec. 45,11. 17—19). Based on the broadest reasonable
interpretation of frames being interchangeable with packets, the Examiner
finds the combined teachings of Yano and Kimura (which teach packet
4
Appeal 2017-003438
Application 13/616,715
generation) teach or suggest the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 5—7
(citing Yano Fig. 2A, 177; Kimura, Fig. 1, || 70-71).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Interpreting “packets”
and “frames” to be interchangeable is unreasonably broad in light of the
claim language and Specification. See In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d
1255, 1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (finding that although “the PTO must give
claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification^ . . . claims should always be read in light of the specification
and teachings in the underlying patent”) (citation omitted). For example, the
claims use separate terms for “packet” and “frame,” at least suggesting
differing scope. Further, Appellants’ Specification also distinguishes
between packets and frames, with frames encapsulating packets. See, e.g.,
Spec. 42,1. 25 to 43,1. 28. The Examiner-cited portion of the Specification,
when read properly, does not contradict the differing scope between packets
and frames. See Spec. 45,11. 17—19 (disclosing that vocoder frames can be
transmitted as packets, and warning “that vocoder frames are not to be
confused with the OFDM framing”); Reply Br. 5. Further, Yano, cited by
the Examiner, also recognizes the distinction between packets and frames, to
one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Yano 177 (teaching controlling
packet transmission for every frame); see also Briscoe 14 (“As the packet
descends the stack, it is wrapped in headers and trailers, as required by the
various protocols, until, having reached layer 1, it is transmitted as a frame
across the medium in use.”).
Accordingly, because we agree with Appellants that “packets” and
“frames” are not interchangeable for the present application, we also agree
5
Appeal 2017-003438
Application 13/616,715
that the Examiner fails to show that the combination of Yano and Kimura
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings and reasoning above, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1, 6, 12, 17, and 19. We also
do not sustain the rejections of the remaining claims on appeal, as these
claims depend from one of these aforementioned, independent claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6, 7, 9-13,
and 15—20.
REVERSED
6