Ex Parte Tanno et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2016

12161341 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/161,341 10/27/2008
22511 7590 06/27/2016
OSHA LIANG LLP,
TWO HOUSTON CENTER
909 FANNIN, SUITE 3500
HOUSTON, TX 77010
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Motohiro Tanno
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.
17401/061001 1661
EXAMINER
MIAN,OMERS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2016 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):
docketing@oshaliang.com
hathaway@oshaliang.com
escobedo@oshaliang.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MOTOHIRO TANNO, KENICHI HIGUCHI,
MAMORU SAW AHASHI, MIN AMI ISHII, NOBUHIKO MIKI,
and
YOSHIHISA KISHIY AMA
Appeal2015-000466
Application 12/161,341
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 52-124. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants state claims 71, 77, 107, and 113 were cancelled in Appellants'
Amendment after Final (dated March 31, 2014). App. Br. 6. However, the
Advisory Action dated April 18, 2014, does not indicate entry of that
Amendment or cancellation of claims 71, 77, 107, and 113. Thus, claims 71,
77, 107, and 113 are before us.
Appeal2015-000466
Application 12/161,341
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a transmitter multiplexing a system
information item into a broadcast channel and other system information item
into another channel, and transmitting the channels. See Title and Abstract
of Appellants' Specification.
Claim 52 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
52. A transmitter comprising:
a system information generation unit generating system
information;
a multiplexing unit multiplexing system information
items at least including a system bandwidth and a SFN (System
Frame Number) in the system information into a broadcast
channel and multiplexing system information items in the
system information other than the system information items
multiplexed into the broadcast channel into a channel different
from the broadcast channel;
a transmission unit transmitting the broadcast channel
and the channel different from the broadcast channel; and
a paging information generation unit generating paging
indicator information and paging information based on a calling
signal from a network,
wherein the broadcast channel is defined as a physical
channel separated from a shared data channel and predefined in
a system, and
wherein the multiplexing unit multiplexes the paging
indicator information into one of an L 1/L2 control channel and
a paging indicator channel and the paging information into one
of a shared data channel and a paging channel.
2
Appeal2015-000466
Application 12/161,341
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 52-124 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out the claimed
subject matter. Final Action 2-3.2
The Examiner rejected claims 52-55, 57-70, 72, 74--76, 78, 80-91,
93-108, 110-112, 114, and 116-124 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Tsunekawa et al. (US 2006/0069711 Al; published Mar. 30, 2006),
Parts et al. (US 2007/0116094 Al; published May 24, 2007), and Kwak et
al. (US 2003/0088695 Al; published May 8, 2003). Final Action 3-15.
The Examiner rejected claims 56 and 92 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Tsunekawa, Parts, Kwak, and Park et al. (US 2006/0018251 Al;
published Jan. 26, 2006). Final Action 15-16.
The Examiner rejected claims 71, 77, 107, and 113 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tsunekawa, Parts, Kwak, and Jonsson et al. (US
7,738,535 B2; issued June 15, 2010). Final Action 16-17.
The Examiner rejected claims 73, 79, 109, and 115 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tsunekawa, Parts, Kwak, and Smallcomb (US
6,484,284 B2; issued Nov. 19, 2002). Final Action 17-18.
ISSUES
With respect to the Examiner's rejection of claims 52-124 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite, Appellants state:
Applicant notes that the claims were rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph, but the Examiner indicated in the
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated June 30, 2014,
the Reply Brief dated Oct. 6, 2014, the Final Action mailed Jan. 31, 2014,
and the Examiner's Answer mailed Aug. 6, 2014.
3
Appeal2015-000466
Application 12/161,341
Interview conducted with the Applicant's attorneys on April 29,
2014, that the rejection would be withdrawn. This rejection is not
addressed in this Appeal.
App. Br. 9 n.2. However, the file does not contain a summary of an April
29, 2014 interview. The Notice of Appeal, dated April 30, 2014, identifies
the Appeal "from the last decision of the examiner" which is the January 31,
2014 Office Action that included the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. The Examiner's Answer does not list any withdrawn
rejections, stating instead that "[e]very ground of rejection set forth in the
Office action dated 1/31/2014 from which the appeal is taken is being
maintained by the examiner." Ans. 2. Thus, there is no indication the
Examiner has withdrawn the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, and this rejection is before us. As Appellants have not identified
error with this rejection, we summarily sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 52-124 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rejection under 35U.S.C.§103
With respect to the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 52
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Appellants present several arguments on pages 9-14
of the Appeal Brief and pages 5-7 of the Reply Brief. The issue raised by
these arguments is: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Tsunekawa, Parts, and Kwak teaches a multiplexing unit multiplexing
system information items at least including a system bandwidth and an SFN
(System Frame Number) in the system information into a broadcast channel,
and multiplexing system information items in the system information other
4
Appeal2015-000466
Application 12/161,341
than the system information items multiplexed into the broadcast channel
into a channel different from the broadcast channel?
With respect to claims 53-124, Appellants' arguments provide us with
the same issue as claim 52. App. Br. 9, 14.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejections of claims 52-124.
The Examiner finds Tsunekawa's electronic equipment discloses a
transmitter that maps system information items into a broadcast channel, and
maps system information items in the system information other than the
system information items of the broadcast channel into a channel different
from the broadcast channel, as required in claim 52. Ans. 3-5 (citing
Tsunekawa Fig. 4); Final Act. 4 (citing Tsunekawa Fig. 3, i-f 50, Broadcast
Channel BCH, Forward Access Channel F ACH).
Appellants recognize that Tsunekawa's BCH is a broadcast channel,
PACH is a channel different from the broadcast channel, and system
information is transmitted in Tsunekawa's broadcast channel. Appellants
contend, however, Tsunekawa does not transmit other system information in
the F ACH (channel different from the broadcast channel). App. Br. 11.
According to Appellants, Tsunekawa's PACH channel "is used for the
transfer of control information and user data," but "control information is
different than system information." Reply Br. 5, 6 (citing Tsunekawa Fig. 4,
i-f 50). Therefore, Appellants contend, Tsunekawa's channel different from
5
Appeal2015-000466
Application 12/161,341
the broadcast channel does not transmit system information items as
required by claim 52. Reply Br. 6; App. Br. 13.
Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner's findings that
Tsunekawa's PACH is a channel that carries system information as required
in claim 52. Ans. 4, 5. In particular, the Examiner finds the information
carried on the F ACH includes system information because the F ACH
information "at least carries control information and information which is
used by the mobile station to establish a connection and carryout data
transfer with the system." Ans. 5; see Tsunekawa i-fi-150---51. We agree with
the Examiner's findings. The control information in Tsunekawa's PACH is
commensurate with the term "system information" in claim 52, as claim 52
does not preclude control information. Tsunekawa's control information is
also commensurate with the broad description of the term "system
information" in Appellants' Specification, which does not provide an
explicit and exclusive definition for the term; rather, the Specification
provides discussion of non-limiting examples of "system information,"
which may include control information. Spec. 8:18-34.3
Appellants further argue Tsunekawa and Parts do not teach or suggest
system information items including a system bandwidth and an SFN
(System Frame Number) in a broadcast channel as required by claim 52.
App. Br. 12. According to Appellants, "[ w ]hile Parts may disclose short
system information, which may be similar to system bandwidth and a SFN .
3 Appellants' Specification provides "the system information ... that is,
various information items associated with mobile stations such as ...
downlink control channel configuration information." Spec. 8:18-34
(emphasis added).
6
Appeal2015-000466
Application 12/161,341
.. Tsunekawa fails to disclose that additional information, such as the short
system information of Parts, is transmitted in the broadcast channel." App.
Br. 12. We agree with the Examiner, however, that the combination of
Tsunekawa's broadcast channel system information, with Parts' system
information including system bandwidth and SFN, teaches and suggests the
claimed system bandwidth and SFN in a broadcast channel. Ans. 6, 7; Final
Act. 5 (citing Parts i-fi-124, 42).
We also agree with the Examiner that Kwak teaches a multiplexing
transmitter multiplexing system information items as required by claim 52.
Ans. 7-9 (citing Kwak i161); Final Act. 5, 6 (citing Kwak i139, Fig. 7).
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner's specific findings
as to the combined teachings of Kwak with Tsunekawa and Parts, in which
the Examiner adds Kwak's multiplexing transmitter to the mapping of
system information into multiple channels as taught and suggested by
Tsunekawa and Parts. App. Br. 13.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 52, independent claims 74, 89, and 110, and dependent claims 53-55,
57-70, 72, 75-76, 78,80-88,90-91,93-108, 111-112, 114,and 116-124
for which Appellants provide the same arguments. App. Br. 9, 10, 14.
Appellants have not presented separate arguments with respect to the
rejections of dependent claims 56, 71, 73, 77, 79, 92, 107, 109, 113, and
115. App. Br. 14. Accordingly, we similarly sustain the Examiner's
rejections of these claims for the same reasons as independent claims 52, 74,
89, and 110.
7
Appeal2015-000466
Application 12/161,341
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 52-124 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8