Ex Parte Rinne et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 11, 2014

11651012 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 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, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 3–19, 21–37, and 39–54, 59, 60, 62, 64, and 65.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellants assert that “[c]laims 1, 3-19, 21-37, and 39-65, all of the claims
pending in the present application, are the subject of this appeal.” App.
Br. 4. But claims 55–58, 61, and 63 have been withdrawn from
consideration. Id. at 5. Accordingly, we consider only claims 1, 3–19, 21–
37, and 39–54, 59, 60, 62, 64, and 65 herein.
Appeal 2012-003173
Application 11/651,012

2
Illustrative Claim
The claimed subject matter relates to a shared control-channel
structure (Spec. ¶ 1).
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A control channel structure including at least one control
channel to be allocated at least to a user for at least one of
uplink and downlink directions in a network, which the at least
one control channel is arranged as at least a part of a modular
structure comprising modular code blocks of at least two
different sizes, wherein the modular structure forms a tree
where each of the modular code blocks defines one node of the
tree, respectively, and wherein each of the nodes comprises
signalling entries coded by a given code rate.

References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Baum
Palanki
US 2004/0190482 A1
US 2006/0233124 A1
Sep. 30, 2004
Oct. 19, 2006
Agrawal WO2006/022876 A1 Mar. 2, 2006

Rejections
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 8–14, 17, 19, 30–32, 35, 37, 48–50, 53, 59, 60, 62, 64, and
65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Agrawal
and Baum (Ans. 4–18).
Claims 3–7, 15, 16, 18, 20–29, 33, 34, 36, 38–47, 51, 52, and 54 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Agrawal, Baum, and
Palanki (Ans. 18–34).
Appeal 2012-003173
Application 11/651,012

3
ANALYSIS
Claim 12
Appellants’ contentions present us with the issue of whether the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Agrawal and Baum
teaches or suggests that “the at least one control channel is arranged as at
least a part of a modular structure comprising modular code blocks of at
least two different sizes, wherein the modular structure forms a tree where
each of the modular code blocks defines one node of the tree, respectively,
and wherein each of the nodes comprises signalling entries encoded by a
given code rate,” as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner finds all limitations of independent claim 1 disclosed
by Agrawal, but states that it is “unclear” whether Agrawal discloses the
limitation “wherein the modular structure forms a tree where each of the
modular code blocks defines one node of the tree, respectively.” Ans. 5.
The Examiner cites Baum as disclosing this limitation, finding that
“Agrawal and Baum are analogous art for they are telecommunication
systems providing multiple-access to shared communication channels.” Id.
The Examiner reasons that “[i]t would have been obvious to one ordinarily
skilled in the art at the time of the invention to apply Baum’s coding tree
structure to providing different coding rates to reduce interferences.” Id.

2 Although Appellants address claims 8–14, 17, 19, 30–32, 35, 37, 48–50,
53, 59, 60, 62, 64, and 65 under separate headings, Appellants merely
reference the arguments presented for claim 1 without presenting any
additional arguments to establish separate patentability. Accordingly, we
treat claim 1 as representative for claims 8–14, 17, 19, 30–32, 35, 37, 48–50,
53, 59, 60, 62, 64, and 65. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). Except for our ultimate
decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
Appeal 2012-003173
Application 11/651,012

4
Appellants contend that Agrawal does not teach or suggest a modular
structure forming a tree, but instead teaches “linear blocks.” App. Br. 11
(emphasis added). Appellants assert that “[a] fundamental principle of a
modular structure is the presence of standardized units or dimensions.”
Reply Br. 5. Appellants additionally imply a restriction on the term
“modular structure” when arguing that “[i]n the present claims, . . . the
frequency subranges are arranged as modular code structures without
knowledge about the expected amount of signaling therein.” Id. at 3
(emphasis added).
During patent examination, claims must be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Amer.
Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants
do not identify any specific definition of “modular structure” in the
specification, nor do they identify any evidence in the record before us that
the features they identify would be understood by those of skill in the art to
be included in a “modular structure.” A relevant technical dictionary defines
“modular (software)” as “[c]omposed of discrete parts.” The Authoritative
Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th ed., p. 703 (IEEE 2000) (Exhibit
1). Another dictionary includes a definition of “modular” as “referring to a
method of constructing hardware or software products by connecting several
smaller blocks together to produce a customised product.” Dictionary of
Computing (A & C Black Publishers 2004) (Exhibit 2). 3 Applying the

3 Although technical treatises and dictionaries fall within the category of
extrinsic evidence, as they do not form a part of an integrated patent
document, they are worthy of special note. Judges are free to consult such
resources at any time in order to better understand the underlying technology
and may also rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so
Appeal 2012-003173
Application 11/651,012

5
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, we
accordingly construe “modular structure” as a structure composed of discrete
parts.
Appellants identify several excerpts from Agrawal that they contend
teach away from claim 1. App. Br. 12, 13. A prior-art reference does not
teach away from the claimed subject matter unless the prior-art reference
also criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed. See
In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although Appellants
identify disclosures in Agrawal that differ from their more narrow
construction of “modular structure,” they do not identify criticism in
Agrawal of the combination that the Examiner finds to be obvious.
Accordingly, we find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive.
Appellants also assert that the Examiner “does not appear to provide
any explicit rationale for this conclusion [that it would have been obvious to
one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention to apply Baum’s
coding tree structure to provide different coding rates to reduce
interferences] and does not appear to take into account the separate purposes
and objects of Agrawal and Baum.” App. Br. 15. We disagree. The
Examiner explains that Agrawal and Baum are analogous wireless-
telecommunications art, and that both “are capable of dividing resources into
blocks for assignment.” Ans. 40. The Examiner observes that Agrawal is
concerned with channel conditions of each terminal depending on factors
such as fading, multipath effects, and interference effects. Id. The
Examiner reasons that it would, therefore, have been obvious to one of

long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in
or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents. Vitronics Corp. v.
Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Appeal 2012-003173
Application 11/651,012

6
ordinary skill in the art to apply Baum’s coding tree structure to provide
different coding rates to reduce interferences. Id. We conclude that the
Examiner’s reasoning is supported by sufficient rational underpinnings to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR International Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)).
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner did not err in finding claim 1
obvious over the combination of Agrawal and Baum.

Claim 34
Appellants’ contentions present us with the issue of whether the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Agrawal, Baum, and
Palanki teaches or suggests “including a plurality of control channels to be
allocated to users for at least one of uplink and downlink direction in a
network, which control channels are arranged as a tree comprising nodes of
modular code blocks on at least two different levels with each code block
defining one control channel at a node of the tree,” as recited in claim 3.
The Examiner finds that Palanki discloses control channels arranged
in a tree as recited in the limitation. Ans. 18–19. Appellants present
multiple arguments that Palanki does not teach or suggest “a tree where each
of the modular code blocks defines one node of the tree, respectively, and

4 Although Appellants address claims 4–7, 15, 16, 18, 20–29, 33, 34, 36, 38–
47, 51, 52, and 54 under separate headings, Appellants merely reference the
arguments presented for claim 3 without presenting additional arguments to
establish separate patentability. Accordingly, we treat claim 3 as
representative of claims 4–7, 15, 16, 18, 20–29, 33, 34, 36, 38–47, 51, 52,
and 54. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). Except for our ultimate decision, these
claims are not discussed further herein.
Appeal 2012-003173
Application 11/651,012

7
wherein each of the nodes comprises signaling entries coded by a given code
rate,” a limitation that is recited in independent claim 1. See App. Br. 26–
30; Reply Br. 9–10. Thus, although couched as arguments for patentability
of claim 3, Appellants instead argue that “Palanki does not cure the
deficiencies of Agrawal” as applied to claim 1. See id. at 26. As indicated
supra, we find no deficiency with the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
obvious over Agrawal and Baum. Because Appellants do not directly
address the Examiner’s reasoning applying Palanki to claim 3, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–19, 21–37, and 39–54,
59, 60, 62, 64, and 65 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

Klh

Notice of References Cited

Application/Control No.

11/651,012
Applicant(s)/Patent Under
Reexamination
MIKA RINNE
Examiner

HUYNH, CHUCK
Art Unit

2644

Page 1 of 1

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

* Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY

Name

Classification

A US-

B US-

C US-

D US-

E US-

F US-

G US-

H US-

I US-

J US-

K US-

L US-

M US-
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

* Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY

Country

Name

Classification

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T
NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)

U

The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th ed., p. 703 (IEEE 2000) (Exhibit1)

V

Dictionary of Computing (A & C Black Publishers 2004) (Exhibit 2)

W

X

*A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No.
IEEE 100
The Authoritative Dictionary of
IEEE Standards Terms
Seventh Edition
39210 IEEE Dictionary IEEES INTERACTIVE
Short
Stand
Long
Published by
Standards Information Network
IEEE Press
Authorized licensed use limited to: United States Patent and Trademark Office. Downloaded on June 19,2014 at 21:05:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Trademarks and disclaimers
IEEE believes the information in this publication is accurate as of its publication date; such information is subject
to change without notice. IEEE is not responsible for any inadvertent errors.
Other tradenames and trademarks in this document are those of their respective owners.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Inc.
3 Park Avenue, New York, NY, 10016-5997, USA
Copyright
2000 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. All rights reserved. Published
December 2000. Printed in the United States of America.
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without
the prior written permission of the publisher.
To order IEEE Press publications, call 1-800-678-IEEE.
Print: ISBN 0-7381-2601-2 SP1122
See other standards and standards-related product listings at: http://standards.ieee.org/
The publisher believes that the information and guidance given in this work serve as an enhancement to users,
all parties must rely upon their own skill and judgement when making use of it. The publisher does not assume
any liability to anyone for any loss or damage caused by any error or omission in the work, whether such error
or omission is the result of negligence or any other cause. Any and all such liability is disclaimed.
This work is published with the understanding that the IEEE is supplying information through this publication,
not attempting to render engineering or other professional services. If such services are required, the assistance
of an appropriate professional should be sought. The IEEE is not responsible for the statements and opinions
advanced in this publication.
39210 IEEE Dictionary IEEES INTERACTIVE
Short
Stand
Long
Authorized licensed use limited to: United States Patent and Trademark Office. Downloaded on June 19,2014 at 21:05:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
703modify module
39210 IEEE Dictionary IEEES BATCH
Short
Stand
Long

nF(z, m)  f[nT  (1  m)T]u[nT  (1  m)T]z

n0
0  m  1
(IM) [52]
modify (A) To change the contents of a database. (B) To change
the logical structure of a database. See also: alter.
(C) 610.5-1990
Modula 2 See: MODUlar LAnguage II.
MODULA II See: MODUlar LAnguage II.
modular (software) Composed of discrete parts. See also: mod-
ular decomposition; modular programming.
(C) 610.12-1990
modular assembly A circuit breaker element consisting of
sealed interrupters, mechanism, and connecting terminals.
(SWG/PE) C37.59-1996
modular constraint See: grid constraint.
modular decomposition (software) The process of breaking a
system into components to facilitate design and development;
an element of modular programming. Synonym: modulariza-
tion. See also: factoring; hierarchical decomposition; demo-
dularization; cohesion; coupling; packaging; functional
decomposition. (C) 610.12-1990
modularity (software) The degree to which a system or com-
puter program is composed of discrete components such that
a change to one component has minimal impact on other com-
ponents. See also: cohesion; coupling. (C) 610.12-1990
modularization See: modular decomposition.
MODUlar LAnguage II (MODULA II) A programming lan-
guage developed, as an expanded version of Pascal, to support
modular design, structured programs, and mathematical cal-
culations. See also: block-structured language.
(C) 610.13-1993w
modular programming (software) A software development
technique in which software is developed as a collection of
modules. See also: stepwise refinement; data structure-cen-
tered design; transaction analysis; rapid prototyping; modular
decomposition; input-process-output; structured design;
transform analysis; object-oriented design.
(C) 610.12-1990
MODULAR II See: MODUlar LAnguage II.
modulate (A) To convert voice or data signal for transmission
over a communications network. Contrast: demodulate.
(B) To vary one or more attributes of a carrier (amplitude,
frequency, phase) such that the frequency information in the
modulating signal can be recovered by its inverse process.
(C) 610.7-1995
modulated 12.5T pulse (linear waveform distortion) A burst
of color subcarrier frequency of nominally 3.58 MHz. The
envelope of the burst is sin2 shaped with a HAD of nominally
1.56 s. The MOD 12.5T pulse consists of a luminance and
a chrominance component. The envelope of the frequency
spectrum consists of two parts, namely signal energy concen-
trated in the luminance region below 0.6 MHz and in the
chrominance region from roughly 3 MHz to 4.2 MHz.
3.58 MHz
BURST
1.56 S
12.5T
HAD

Envelope of frequency spectrum of modulated 12.5T pulse
modulated 12.5T pulse
(BT) 511-1979w
modulation (1) (A) (data transmission) (Carrier). (i) The pro-
cess by which some characteristic of a carrier is varied in
accordance with a modulating wave. (ii) The variation of
some characteristic of a carrier. See also: angle modulation;
modulation index. (B) (data transmission) (Signal transmis-
sion system). (i) A process whereby certain characteristics of
a wave, often called the carrier, are varied or selected in ac-
cordance with a modulating function. (ii) The result of such
a process. See also: angle modulation; modulation index.
(PE) 599-1985
(2) (diode-type camera tube) The ratio of the difference be-
tween the maximum and minimum signal currents divided by
the sum. To avoid ambiguity, the optical input image intensity
shall be assumed to be sinusoidal in the direction of scan.
(ED) 503-1978w
(3) (fiber optics) A controlled variation with time of any
property of a wave for the purpose of transferring informa-
tion. (Std100) 812-1984w
(4) (overhead-power-line corona and radio noise) The pro-
cess by which some characteristic of a carrier is varied in
accordance with a modulating signal. (T&D/PE) 539-1990
(5) (broadband local area networks) The method whereby
information is superimposed onto a RF carrier to transport
signals through a communications channel.
(LM/C) 802.7-1989r
(6) The process of changing or regulating the characteristics
of a carrier that is vibrating at a certain amplitude and fre-
quency so that the variations represent meaningful informa-
tion. Contrast: demodulation. (C) 610.7-1995
modulation contrast (diode-type camera tube) The ratio of
the difference between the peak and the minimum values of
irradiance to the sum of the peak and the minimum value of
irradiance of an image or specified portion of an image.
(ED) 503-1978w
modulation index (angle modulation with a sinusoidal mod-
ulating function) (data transmission) The ratio of the fre-
quency deviation of the modulated wave to the frequency of
the modulating function. Note: The modulation index is nu-
merically equal to the phase deviation expressed in radians.
(PE) 599-1985w
modulation threshold (illuminating engineering) In the case
of a square wave or sine wave grating, manipulation of lu-
minance differences can be specified in terms of modulation
and the threshold may be called the modulation threshold.
L  Lmax minmodulation 
L  Lmax min
Periodic patterns that are not sine wave can be specified in
terms of the modulation of the fundamental sine wave com-
ponent. The number of periods or cycles per degree of visual
angle represents the spatial frequency. (EEC/IE) [126]
modulator A device that converts a signal into a modulated
signal that is suitable for transmission. (C) 610.7-1995
modulation transfer function (diode-type camera tube)
Ro(N), the modulus of the optical transfer function (OTF), is
synonymous with the sine amplitude response. That is, the
response of the imaging sensor to sinewave images. When
the modulation transfer functions or MTFs of a linear sensor’s
components are known, the overall system MTF can be found
by multiplying the individual component MTFs together.
(ED) 503-1978w
modulator-demodulator See: modem.
module (1) (cable penetration fire stop qualification test) An
opening in a fire resistive barrier so located and spaced from
adjacent modules (openings) that its respective cable penetra-
tion fire stop’s performance will not affect the performance
of cable penetration fire stops in any adjacent module. A mod-
ule may take on any shape to permit the passage of cables
from one or any number of raceways. (ED) 581-1978w
(2) (A) (software) A program unit that is discrete and iden-
tifiable with respect to compiling, combining with other units,
and loading; for example, the input to, or output from, an
Authorized licensed use limited to: United States Patent and Trademark Office. Downloaded on June 19,2014 at 21:02:25 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Modular | Dictionary Of Computing - Credo Reference
http://search.credoreference.com/...t/entry/acbcomp/modular/0?searchId=cbb4a125-0227-11e4-bdc4-0aea1e24c1ac&result=6[7/2/2014 2:35:56 PM]
English Logout | Help |
Technology > Dictionary of Computing
STIC Online Catalog | IEEE | Springer |
STIC Logo
 
Email Print Save Share & Export
Search Dictionary of Computing

Expand all | Collapse all
Related Entries
Browse Book
modular adjective
< PREVIOUS RESULT NEXT RESULT >
© Copyright S.M.H. Collin, 1988, 1994, 1998, 2002; This edition © copyright A & C Black Publishers
2004
APA Chicago Harvard MLA
Modular. (2008). In Dictionary of computing. Retrieved from
referring to a method of constructing hardware or software products by connecting several smaller blocks together to
produce a customised product
Print & Export
Listen
Modular | Dictionary Of Computing - Credo Reference
http://search.credoreference.com/...t/entry/acbcomp/modular/0?searchId=cbb4a125-0227-11e4-bdc4-0aea1e24c1ac&result=6[7/2/2014 2:35:56 PM]
©2014 Copyright Credo Reference About Credo
Terms of use | Privacy policy | Contact | About Credo Reference | Librarian Admin |
http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/acbcomp/modular/0
Every effort has been made to have our citations be as accurate as possible, but please check our work! APA Style
.