Ex Parte Rinne et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2014

11651012 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MIKA RINNE, FRANK FREDERIKSEN,
TROELS KOLDING, and SAMULI VISURI
____________________

Appeal 2012-003173
Application 11/651,012
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.1

BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REHEARING

Appellants request that we reconsider our Decision of July 15, 2013,
sustaining the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–19, 21–37, 39–54, 59, 60,
62, 64, and 65.
First, Appellants contend that our construction of “modular structure”
“overlooked or misapprehended several points of definition raised by

1 Administrative Patent Judge Catherine Shiang was on the original panel
that decided this case, but did not participate in the rehearing. Judge
Fishman has been added to the panel.
Appeal 2012-003173
Application 11/651,012

2
Appellants,” namely information provided on pages 12 and 13, and Figures
4 and 5, of the Specification, and the claims themselves. Req. Reh’g 3–4.
Appellants do not provide an unambiguous construction of “modular
structure,” but instead refer inferentially to features of such a structure in
their arguments. Specifically, Appellants (1) draw a distinction between a
modular structure forming a tree and “linear blocks” like those disclosed by
Agrawal; (2) contend that “[a] fundamental principle of a modular structure
is the presence of standardized units or dimensions”; and (3) contend that, in
their claims, “the frequency subranges are arranged as modular code
structures without knowledge about the expected amount of signaling
therein.” Dec. 4 (citing App. Br. 11, Reply Br. 3, 5) (emphasis added).
Appellants’ Request for Rehearing does not explain adequately how
the cited portions of the Specification bear on such features. Appellants
contend explicitly that our construction of “modular structure” fails to take
into account the requirement of a plurality of sizes of code blocks and the
tree structure. Req. Reh’g 4. But the incorporation of such concepts into
construction of “modular structure” would render their explicit recitation in
the claims redundant. Regardless whether such features are considered as
part of the construction of “modular structure” or as further limitations
imposed by the claims on a broader construction of “modular structure,” the
Examiner correctly identified disclosure of a plurality of sizes in Agrawal
and of a tree structure in Baum. Ans. 5.
Second, Appellants contend that we “overlooked the ‘control channel’
issue.” Req. Reh’g, 4–5. Appellants note their assertion at page 11 of the
Appeal Brief that Agrawal has no such teaching and their remark at page 13
that Baum deals with interference coordination/handling and resource
Appeal 2012-003173
Application 11/651,012

3
allocation rather than control channel signaling. Id. These references to the
“control channel issue” do not argue that there is no control channel taught
in the references or that the term “control channel” was misconstrued by the
Examiner. Instead, Appellants argued in the Appeal Brief that there is no
control channel structured as a modular tree structure. Thus, the issue
raised in the Appeal Brief was directed at the modular tree structure of a
control channel. Appellants proceed to amplify on the cursory remarks
made in the Appeal Brief with a more detailed argument why neither
Agrawal nor Baum teaches a control channel or control channel structure.
Req. Reh’g, 5–7.
We disagree with Appellants’ assertion that this is not a new
argument. See id. at 5. But even considering this new argument does not
persuade us that the Examiner erred. Appellants merely identify certain
disclosures within Agrawal and Baum and provide conclusory statements
that those references do not teach a control channel or control channel
structure. See id. at 5–7. Appellants offer no explicit construction of
“control channel” that is contrary to the Examiner’s finding that the
signaling channel disclosed by Agrawal is a control channel. See Ans. 5, 35.
Consequently, we also are not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions
that the Examiner failed to articulate a sufficient basis to combine the
teachings of Agrawal and Baum. See Req. Reh’g, 5, 7–8. Those
contentions are predicated on conclusions with which we disagree, namely
that the construction of “modular structure” articulated in our Decision is
overly broad and that the “control channel” limitation was addressed
insufficiently.
Appeal 2012-003173
Application 11/651,012

4
Appellants’ request for rehearing has been granted to the extent that
we have reconsidered our Decision, but such request is denied with respect
to making any modifications to the Decision.
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).

REHEARING DENIED

lv