Ex Parte Ratasuk et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 16, 2017

12770998 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 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.
12/770,998 04/30/2010 Rapeepat Ratasuk GP-100205-00-US 1761
124192 7590 11/2
GOOGLE
C/O Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4300
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
LINDENBAUM, ALAN LOUIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/20/2017 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):
googleu sinternal @ faegrebd .com
inteas @faegrebd.com
michelle.davis @ faegrebd.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAPEEPAT RATASUK, JIANGNAN JASON CHEN,
and LI-FAN ZHANG
Appeal 2015-007403
Application 12/770,998
Technology Center 2400
Before LARRY J. HUME, ALEX S. YAP, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse and enter a new ground of rejection of claims 10 and 11
pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed “Orthogonal Frequency Division
Multiplexing (OFDM) communication systems, and, in particular, to a
scheduling of control channels in an OFDM communication system.” Spec.
6-8.
Appeal 2015-007403
Application 12/770,998
Claims 1 and 10 are illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method for scheduling a control channel for a user
equipment m an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing
communication system, the method comprising:
determining a channel quality metric associated with the
user equipment;
calculating a target control channel element quality metric;
determining a control channel element utilization rate,
wherein the control channel element utilization rate corresponds
to a past rate of utilization of control channel elements; and
selecting a control channel element aggregation level for
the control channel based on the channel quality metric, the
target control channel element quality metric, and the control
channel element utilization rate.
10. A method for determining a control channel element
utilization rate in an Orthogonal Frequency Division
Multiplexing communication system, the method comprising
calculating one or more of a number of control channel elements
and a percentage of control channel elements allocated to control
channels in each of one or more past scheduling periods.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 2, 6, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite. Final Act. 2.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Papasakellariou (US 2010/0135237, pub. June 3, 2010)
and Sung (US 2008/0132173, pub. June 5, 2008). Final Act. 3^4.
Claims 1—9 and 12—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Papasakellariou, Panasonic, Implicit assignment of
PHICH, 3GPP TSG-RAN WGI Meeting #51, Jelu, Korea, 5-9, November
2007, and Sung. Final Act. 4—10.
2
Appeal 2015-007403
Application 12/770,998
ANALYSIS
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 Rejection, Second Paragraph
Claims 2, 6, 13, and 17
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 2, 6, 13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being
indefinite.
The Examiner determines that “[cjlaims 2, 6, 13 and 17 each recite the
phrase a ‘control channel adjustment factor’, which is vague and imprecise.
A person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would not
know how to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.”
Final Act. 2. The Examiner further asserts that the
Specification merely discloses that if a calculated target SNR is
observed to provide unacceptable performance, an adjustment
factor then would be used to increase the target CCE SNR in
order to improve performance. There is no disclosure whatsoever
of what constitutes acceptable performance or how to determine
the value of an adjustment factor.
Ans. 11.
Appellants, on the other hand, assert that a skilled artisan would
understand, based on the plain meaning and the Specification, that the
claimed adjustment factor “is determined based on the PDCCH performance
requirements and observed performance, and may be applied to increase
target control channel element (CCE) signal-to-noise ratios (SNR).”
App. Br. 17. For example, the Specification outlines
SNRpdcch offset is an empirically determined adjustment factor
that is used to adjust the algorithm based on PDCCH
performance requirements and observed performance. For
example, due to a variety of transmission factors such as
interference, fading, and anything else that may effect a quality
of a signal transmitted over the air, the 30 observed system
3
Appeal 2015-007403
Application 12/770,998
performance, such as PDCCH throughput or error rates, resulting
from use of a target CCE quality metric, that is, SNR, may
provide unacceptable performance absent application of the
adjustment factor. In such an instance, the adjustment factor then
would be used to increase the target CCE SNR in order to
improve performance.
Spec. p. 10,1. 25—p. 11,1. 3. We agree with Appellants. An adjustment
factor is a known term in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand the claimed limitation in view of the Specification.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 6, 13,
and 17 as indefinite.
The Obviousness Rejection Based on Papasakellariou and Sung
Claims 10 and 11
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 10 and 11.
The Examiner finds that Papasakellariou teaches calculating one or
more of a number of control channel elements. Final Act. 3. Additionally,
the Examiner states that Papasakellariou teaches a utilization rate because it
would have been obvious to express Papasakellariou’s number of used
CCCs to total number of CCCs as a percentage. Final Act. 3. The Examiner
admits that “Papasakellariou does not explicitly disclose wherein the control
channel element utilization rate is calculated in each of one or more past
scheduling periods,” but then points to Sung as disclosing “that a channel
state calculation comprises calculating an average value over a plurality of
past scheduling periods (ABSTRACT, lines 1-15).” Final Act. 4.
Appellants assert Papasakellariou and Sung combined do not disclose
“a percentage of control channel elements allocated to control channels in
4
Appeal 2015-007403
Application 12/770,998
each of one or more past scheduling periods.” Specifically, with respect to
Sung, Appellants allege:
Sung discloses that the average strength of a received feedback
signal is measured to measure channel quality, whereby the
average strength of the feedback signal is calculated as a
weighted moving average within a defined window. There
simply is no suggestion or motivation in these documents that
teaches or suggests calculating control channel elements
allocated to control channels in each of one or more past
scheduling periods to determine a control channel element
utilization rate, as claimed. For example, disclosing the
measuring of a feedback signal over time does not suggest
calculating a percentage of control channel elements allocated to
control channels in past scheduling periods.
App. Br. 24.
Appellants further assert Papasakellariou similarly fails to teach or
suggest “calculating. . . a percentage of control channel elements allocated to
control channels in each of one or more past scheduling periods,” as recited
in claim 10. Reply Br. 4—6. Appellants explain that Papasakellariou’s
disclosure of using a smaller number of component carriers than total
available for a particular user equipment does not suggest the recited
calculating a percentage of control channel elements allocated to control
channels. Reply Br 5—6.
Based on the record before us, it is unclear the precise mapping the
Examiner relies on as teaching the recited calculating a percentage of control
channel elements allocated to control channels. The Examiner
acknowledges Papasakellariou does not teach this limitation, but the
Examiner only points to Sung’s calculating an average, not a percentage, of
feedback signals (which include signal to ratio noise values), not control
channel elements. While Sung does perform a calculation based on a past
5
Appeal 2015-007403
Application 12/770,998
period, we fail to see how Sung teaches the limitation identified by the
Examiner as lacking in Papasakellariou. We also agree with Appellants that
Papasakellariou’s disclosure that the system may not use all available
component carriers for a particular user equipment does not suggest the
recited calculating a percentage of control channel elements allocated to
control channels. See Reply Br 5—6.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 10 and 11 as
unpatentable over Papasakellariou and Sung.
The Obviousness Rejection Based on Papasakellariou, Panasonic,
and Sung
Claims 1—9 and 12—20
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1—9 and 12—20 under § 103.
Specifically, the Examiner relies on the combination of
Papasakellariou and Sung as teaching “determining a control channel
element utilization rate, wherein the control channel element utilization rate
corresponds to a past rate of utilization of control channel elements,” as
recited in claim 1. See also claim 12 (reciting the limitation of “determine a
control channel element utilization rate, wherein the control channel element
utilization rate corresponds to a past rate of utilization of control channel
elements”).
Similar to the rejection of claim 10 discussed above, the Examiner
identifies Papasakellariou as failing to “disclose wherein the control channel
element utilization rate corresponds to a past rate of utilization of control
channel elements.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner identifies that Sung teaches
calculating an average of feedback signals, but, as discussed above with
6
Appeal 2015-007403
Application 12/770,998
respect to claim 10, it is unclear how this teaches calculating a past rate of
utilization of control channel elements that is identified as lacking in
Papasakellariou. Further, as also noted above, merely disclosing that the
Papasakellariou’s system may not use all available component carriers for a
particular user equipment does not suggest the recited calculating a
percentage of control channel elements allocated to control channels.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of (1) claim 1, (2) claim 12
which recites a similar limitation, and (3) dependent claims 2—9 and 13—20
as unpatentable over Papasakellariou, Panasonic, and Sung.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Within our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a new
ground of rejection for claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Following the decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134
S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1300 (2012)), we analyze claims under the two-part
analysis set forth in Mayo. First, we consider whether the claim is directed
to an abstract idea and, second, if an abstract idea is present in the claim, we
determine whether any element, or combination of elements, in the claim is
sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the
abstract idea itself. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2350.
“Under Alice step one, ‘claims are considered in their entirety to
ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject
matter.’” Smart Systems Innovations, LLCv. Chicago Transit Authority, 873
F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017) {citing Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network,
Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Independent claim 10 is
7
Appeal 2015-007403
Application 12/770,998
directed to calculating a utilization rate. As such, the claim, as a whole, is
directed to an abstract idea.
Next, we analyze the claims under the second part of the analysis and
we find the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform
generic computer functions. Claim 10 merely recites calculating two values,
a number of control channel elements and a percentage of control channel
elements allocated to control channels in past scheduling periods. We find
these are mere mathematical calculations that are generic computations to be
performed by the computer. The Supreme Court held that “simply
appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality, to laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas cannot make those laws,
phenomena, and ideas patentable.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300.
Accordingly, we enter a new ground of rejection for claims 10 and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 under 35
U.S.C. §§ 103(a) and 112, second paragraph. We enter a new ground of
rejection for claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
Section 41.50(b) also provides:
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the appellant,
within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground
of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected
claims:
8
Appeal 2015-007403
Application 12/770,998
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to
the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered
by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be
remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection is
binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new
Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the opinion
of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection
designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the claims,
appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The
request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection
and state with particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of
rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing
is sought.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01.
REVERSED
37 C.F.R. $ 41.50(b)
9