Ex Parte Seyama et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 16, 2016

12484571 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/484,571 06/15/2009
61650 7590 08/18/2016
MYERS WOLIN, LLC
100 HEADQUARTERS PLAZA
North Tower, 6th Floor
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960-6834
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Takashi SEY AMA
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
FJOS 1589 1577
EXAMINER
CEHIC, KENAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/18/2016 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):
patent@myerswolin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAKASHI SEY AMA and T AKASHI DATEKI
Appeal2015-002682
Application 12/484,571
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-002682
Application 12/484,571
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 21-35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claims 21 and 22 under appeal read as follows (emphasis
added):
21. A transmitting device comprising:
a processing section that maps a plurality of codes,
which are given values of initial offsets of phase
rotation, different from each other and circularly
shifted in frequency domain by circular shifts, which
are shifted by constant value between any of two
successive codes within one radio subframe and use one
radio frame as one cycle, on at least one of a plurality of
synchronization channels; and
a transmitter that transmits a signal put in a radio
frame in which the plurality of synchronization channels
are multiplexed in a time direction.
22. The transmitting device according to claim
21, wherein each of the codes is circularly shifted by a
given amount of a circular shift according to a position
of each of the codes in the radio frame.
2
Appeal2015-002682
Application 12/484,571
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 21, 23, 25-27, 29, 31, 34, and 35
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Fukuta
(US 2008/0107086 Al; May 8, 2008). 1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 22 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Fukuta and Prasad
(US 6,377,618 Bl; Apr. 23, 2002).2
3. The Examiner rejected claims 24 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Fukuta and Min
(US 2008/0107211 Al; May 8, 2008). 3
4. The Examiner rejected claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination ofFukuta and Ueno
(US 2006/0133458 Al; June 22, 2006).4
1 1A..ppellants' arguments for claims 27 and 35 are virtually identical to their
arguments for claim 21. See Appeal Br. 11-16. Thus, the patentability of
claims 27 and 35 are not separately argued from that of claim 21. Further,
separate patentability is not argued for claims 23, 25, 26, 29, 31, and 34. See
Appeal Br. 11, 13. Except for our ultimate decision, claims 23, 25-27, 29,
31, 34, and 35 are not discussed further herein.
2 Appellants' arguments for claim 28 are virtually identical to their
arguments for claim 22. See Appeal Br. 18-19. Thus, the patentability of
claim 28 is not separately argued from that of claim 22. Except for our
ultimate decision, claim 28 is not discussed further herein.
3 In addressing this rejection, Appellants merely reference the arguments
directed to the underlying anticipation rejection of claims 21 and 27. See
Appeal Br. 20. Without more, the patentability of claims 24 and 30 are not
separately argued from that of claims 21 and 27. Except for our ultimate
decision, claims 24 and 30 are not discussed further herein.
4 In addressing this rejection, Appellants merely reference the arguments
directed to the underlying anticipation rejection of claim 27. See Appeal
Br. 21. Without more, the patentability of claim 32 is not separately argued
3
Appeal2015-002682
Application 12/484,571
5. The Examiner rejected claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Fukuta and Parts
(US 2010/0246525 Al; Sept. 30, 2010). 5
Appellants' Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because:
Although the Office Action references figure 9 and sections
0032-36, 0059 and 0069 to disclose, "use one radio frame as one
cycle," Applicants have carefully reviewed the entire
specification and cannot find any disclosure of this feature.
As disclosed in paragraphs [0051] and [0059], Fukuta
provides that the sequence {Sa(m)} maps to the first OFDM
symbol and the sequence {Sa(m+ 1)} that is obtained by shifting
the sequence {Sa(m)} by one maps to the second OFDM symbol.
Hence, Fukuta does not disclose one radio (sub)frame used as
one cycle. Accordingly, Fukuta does not disclose "a plurality
of codes, which are given values of initial offsets of phase
rotation, different from each other and circularly shifted in
frequency domain by circular shifts, which are shifted by
constant value between any of two successive codes within one
radio subframe and use one radio frame as one cycle," as
recited in claim 21.
Appeal Br. 9-10, emphasis added.
from that of claim 27. Except for our ultimate decision, claim 32 is not
discussed further herein.
5 In addressing this rejection, Appellants merely reference the arguments
directed to the underlying anticipation rejection of claim 27. See Appeal
Br. 22. Without more, the patentability of claim 33 is not separately argued
from that of claim 27. Except for our ultimate decision, claim 33 is not
discussed further herein.
4
Appeal2015-002682
Application 12/484,571
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Prasad discloses auto-correlation values that are calculated for
specific cycle shifts of the sequence corresponding to the
positions of the repeated data in each of the different type frames.
Not anywhere in the disclosure does Prasad discuss a circular
shift. In addition, Prasad discloses auto-correlation based on
knowledge of the repeated data in each of the different type
frames or by using rate detection. In contrast, claim 22 recites
"shifted by a given amount of a circular shift according to a
position of each of the codes in the radio frame." Thus, Prasad
is not shifting by a given amount of a circular shift according
to a position of each of the codes in the radio frame.
Appeal Br. 17-18, emphasis added.
3. In the Reply Brief, further as to above contention 1, Appellants also
contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because:
Appellants respectfully offer that the understanding and
position regarding circular shifts in the frequency domain that
use one radio frame as one cycle as set forth in the Examiner's
Answer is incorrect.
Fukuta, Figure 9 as well as the written description, for example
paragraph [0051] and equation 6, clearly demonstrate the
sequence {SG(m)} and {SG(m+l)} are not shifted in the
frequency domain. This is further illustrated in paragraph
[0059]: "For example, the differential-based vector may also be
obtained from two transmitted OFDM symbols, where each
OFDM symbol comprises a plurality of reference subcarriers in
frequency. In the first symbol, the sequence {Sa(m)} is
transmitted on the reference subcarriers. In the second symbol,
a shifted version of the same sequence {Sa(m)} may be applied
on the same sets of subcarriers (e.g., shifted by one position to
denote as {Sa(m+ 1)} ."
5
Appeal2015-002682
Application 12/484,571
Fukuta references circular shifting in paragraphs [0042]
and [0071]. . . . Appellants submit that neither paragraph
[0042] nor paragraph [0071] disclose, teach or suggest, "a
processing section that maps a plurality of codes, which are
given values of initial offsets of phase rotation, different from
each other and circularly shifted in frequency domain by
circular shifts, which are shifted by constant value between any
of two successive codes within one radio subframe and use one
radio frame as one cycle."
[It] appears the Examiner's Answer takes the position that the
time domain circular shift disclosed in paragraph [0071] of
Fukuta, "a GCL sequence modulated by phase-rotated
orthogonal sequence, or a time domain circular shift GCL
sequence" can be interpreted as teaching, "given values of initial
offsets of phase rotation, different from each other and circularly
shifted in frequency domain by circular shifts." Appellants
respectfully disagree. In fact, Fukuta describes, "a GCL
sequence modulated by phase-rotated orthogonal sequence or
a time domain circular shift GCL sequence. "
[I]n Fukuta it must be the P-SCH and S-SCH that are given
values of initial offsets of phase rotation, different from each
other and circularly shifted in frequency domain.
However, nowhere is there support within the four
corners of Fukuta for interpreting the P-SCH and S-SCH as
"a plurality of codes, which are given values of initial offsets of
phase rotation, different from each other and circularly shifted
in frequency domain by circular shifts, which are shifted by
constant value between any of two successive codes within one
radio subframe and use one radio frame as one cycle, on at
least one of a plurality of synchronization channels. "
6
Appeal2015-002682
Application 12/484,571
Appellants respectfully submit that the statement: "The
shifting is per/ ormed during the last symbol for each sub frame
as explained above, thus each sub-frame is a cycle during
which shifting happens" on page 3 of the Examiner's Answer
is not supported by Fukuta.
Since the Office Action and Examiner's Answer implies
that the {Sa(m)} and {Sa(m+ 1)} are codes given initial values of
offsets of phase rotation, different from each other and circularly
shifted in frequency domain, it follows that "shifted by one" and
"shifted by two" must imply different values of phase rotation.
Also, as stated in paragraph [0061] of Fukuta: "Although
shifting by one position is the preferred implementation, shifting
by two positions can also be used." Appellants suggest that if
Fukuta is providing codes circularly shifted, Fukuta would
need to define the cycle for the sequence {SG(m+l)} that is
obtained by shifting the sequence {SG(m)} by one, the sequence
{SG(m+l)} is obtained by shifting the sequence {SG(m)} by two,
when the shifted sequence {SG(m+l)} that is obtained by
shifting the sequence {SG(m)} by one or two occupies the same
subcarrier or a neighbor subcarrier. Nonetheless, nowhere
within the four comers of Fukuta is there any such disclosure.
Appellants submit that the statement: "The shifting is performed
during the last symbol for each sub frame as explained above,
thus each sub-frame is a cycle during which shifting happens"
provided in the Examiner's Answer is not supported by Fukuta.
Appellants submit that Fukuta, without any ambiguity,
describes a P-SCH and S-SCH that are shifted and may be
provided in the same subframe of the same subcarrier.
Accordingly, Fukuta does not disclose, teach or suggest, "a
processing section that maps a plurality of codes, which are
given values of initial offsets of phase rotation, different from
each other and circularly shifted in frequency domain by
circular shifts, which are shifted by constant value between any
7
Appeal2015-002682
Application 12/484,571
of two successive codes within one radio subframe and use one
radio frame as one cycle, on at least one of a plurality of
synchronization channels."
Reply Br. 6-10, emphasis added.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 21 as being
anticipated?
2. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 22 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. Except as noted herein, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which the appeal is
taken (Final Act. 2-13); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2--4) in response to the Appellants' Appeal Brief.
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following.
As to Appellants' above contentions 1 and 3, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Contrary to Appellants' argument that Fukuta fails to teach
"use one radio frame as one cycle," we agree with the Examiner that Fukuta
teaches the aforementioned claim limitation, as Fukuta teaches shifting a
generalized chirp-like ("GCL") sequence of reference codes (herein referred
to as a "GCL sequence") mapped to a primary synchronization channel ("P-
SCH") and a secondary synchronization channel (''S-SCH"), where both the
8
Appeal2015-002682
Application 12/484,571
P-SCH and the S-SCH are located within a sub-frame of a radio frame. See
Ans. 2-3 (citing Fukuta i-fi-159, 69). We also agree with the Examiner that
the claim does not recite or require that a cycle of shifting is completed
within the radio frame, and, instead, merely requires that the cycle of
shifting occurs within the radio frame. See Ans. 3.
Further, contrary to Appellants' argument that Fukuta fails to teach
"circularly shifted in frequency domain by circular shifts," we agree with the
Examiner that Fukuta teaches the aforementioned claim limitation, as Fukuta
teaches circular shifting of a GCL sequence associated with the S-SCH
within multiple frequency carriers. See Ans. 3--4 (citing Fukuta i-fi-145, 47,
52, 59, 71 ). We also agree with the Examiner that the claim does not recite
or require that the GCL sequence be frequency shifted in a circular manner,
and instead, merely requires that the GCL sequence be shifted by a circular
shift within a frequency domain (i.e., a set of frequency sub-carriers).
Ans. 3--4.
In addition, we disagree with Appellants' argument that Fukuta' s
GCL sequences fail to teach "a plurality of codes, which are given values of
initial offsets of phase rotation, different from each other and circularly
shifted in frequency domain by circular shifts, which are shifted by constant
value between any of two successive codes within one radio subframe and
use one radio frame as one cycle." See Reply Br. 7-10. Instead, we agree
with the Examiner that Fukuta's GCL sequences (i.e., {Sa(m)} and
{Sa(m+ 1)}) teach the aforementioned claim limitation, based on the
reasoning articulated in the Final Office Action. See Final Act. 2-3 (citing
Fukuta i-fi-132-36, 42, 59---61, 69-78).
9
Appeal2015-002682
Application 12/484,571
We have considered Appellants' other arguments and we also do not
find them persuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 21.
As to Appellants' above contention 2, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Regarding Appellants' argument that Prasad fails to teach
circular shifts, it is our view that this argument ignores the actual reasoning
of the Examiner's rejection. Although, Appellants attack Prasad for lacking
a teaching of a limitation (i.e., "circular shift"), the Examiner did not rely
solely on Prasad to show a circular shift. See Appeal Br. 18. Rather, the
Examiner relied upon Fukuta in combination with Prasad to show the
limitation was obvious, where the Examiner relied on Fukuta to show
circular shifts and further relied on Prasad to show calculating auto-
correlation values for specific cyclic shifts of a sequence corresponding to
positions of repeated data. See Final Act. 7-8. It is well established that one
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. See In
re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). As Appellants' argument does not
address the actual reasoning of the Examiner's rejection, we do not find it
persuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 22.
10
Appeal2015-002682
Application 12/484,571
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 21, 23, 25-27, 29,
31, 34, and 35 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
(2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 22, 24, 28, 30, 32,
and 33 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 21-3 5 are not patentable.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 21, 23, 25-27, 29, 31,
34, and 35 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 22, 24, 28, 30, 32, and
33 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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).
AFFIRMED
11