Ex Parte Tee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2013

11677766 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LAI-KING TEE, MOHAMED A. EL-RAYES, and BAOWEI JI
____________________

Appeal 2012-005674
Application 11/677,766
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-005674
Application 11/677,766
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-11, 19-26, and 38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

INVENTION
The claims are directed to a method and system for generating a
superframe preamble in an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing
(OFDM) network. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method for generating a superframe preamble for a
superframe, the superframe preamble comprising a plurality of
symbols, in an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing
(OFDM) network, comprising:

for a first one of the symbols, allocating a first set of
subcarriers of a carrier to a first broadcast channel, the first set
of subcarriers distributed over substantially the entire carrier;
and

for the first one of the symbols, allocating a second set of
subcarriers of the carrier to a second broadcast channel.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Park US 5,537,407 Jul. 16, 1996
Ma
Teague
US 2003/0072255 A1
US 2007/0097897 A1
Apr. 17, 2003
May 3, 2007
Appeal 2012-005674
Application 11/677,766
3
REJECTIONS
R1. Claims 1-4, 19-21, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §102(b)
as being anticipated by Ma.
R2. Claims 1-6, 19-22, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Teague and Ma.
R3. Claims 5, 6, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ma and Teague.
R4. Claims 7-11 and 23-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ma, Teague, and Park.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based on the dependencies of the claims, we decide the appeal of the
anticipation rejection R1 of claims 1-4, 19-21, and 38 on the basis of claims
1 and 19.
Based on the dependencies of the claims, we decide the appeal of the
obviousness rejections R2-R4 of claims 1-11, 19-26, and 38 on the basis of
claims 1 and 19.

ANALYSIS
R1. CLAIMS 1-4, 19-21, and 38
Issue: Under §102, did the Examiner err in finding the cited Ma
reference discloses "allocating a first set of subcarriers . . . to a first
broadcast channel, . . . and allocating a second set of subcarriers . . . to a
second broadcast channel," (emphasis added), within the meaning of claim
1 and the commensurate language of claim 19? In particular the issue turns
upon whether Ma's single broadcasting channel transmitted over two
Appeal 2012-005674
Application 11/677,766
4
different antennas discloses the claimed "first" and "second broadcast
channel[s]."
The Examiner relies on Ma's (¶[0117]) disclosure of (1) "[e]very sixth
sub-carrier starting at the fifth sub-carrier [708] is for broadcasting channel
sub-carriers for the first antenna," as corresponding to the claimed "first set
of subcarriers" of "a first broadcast channel," and (2) "every sixth sub-carrier
starting at the sixth sub-carrier 710 is for broadcasting channel sub-carriers
for the second antenna," as corresponding to the claimed "second set of
subcarriers" of "a second broadcast channel." (Ans. 9; Ma's Fig. 5 and
¶[0017] (emphasis added)).
Appellants contend:
[T]his portion of Ma teaches that the sub carriers of each
symbol are distributed among first and second antennas. (See
Ma, Figure 3 and related description). Furthermore, the legend
provided with Figure 5 of Ma shows that each group of
subcarriers are evenly distributed among a first antenna (Tx1)
and a second antenna (Tx2). Additionally, Ma teaches that "To
solve that problem the broadcasting channel is partitioned
between different transmitters." (See Ma, paragraph [0120]).
Thus, Ma is clearly describing distributing subcarriers among
multiple antennas and not multiple subcarriers to which a first
or second broadcast channel has been allocated.
(Reply Br. 3).
Appellants' contentions are persuasive. Ma's paragraph [0120]
discloses the two broadcasting channel subcarriers (708, 710) (See Ma, Fig.
5; ¶[ 0117]) transmitted over two antenna are from a single broadcasting
channel ("the broadcasting channel"). Specifically, Ma's paragraph [0120]
describes:
Appeal 2012-005674
Application 11/677,766
5
To fully utilize the sub-carriers in the header OFDM symbols,
as indicated above, some sub-carriers are preferably used as a
broadcasting channel. In the example of FIG. 5, two of every
six sub-carriers are used for this purpose. The broadcasting
channel can carry important system information. . . . To solve
that problem the broadcasting channel is partitioned between
different transmitters, so in the two transmit antenna case, the
sub-carriers (mapped for the broadcasting channel) can be
assigned alternatively for the transmit antenna to provide
diversity.
(Ma, ¶[0120]) (emphasis added). Thus, Ma's paragraph [0120] discloses a
single broadcasting channel. (See also App. Br. 15-16).
We also conclude the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claimed first and second broadcast channels does not include Ma's single
broadcasting channel transmitted over two antennas. Our interpretation is
consistent with the Specification which describes the first broadcast channel
as providing system information and a second broadcast channel as
providing control information to subscriber stations. (Spec. ¶[041]).
Therefore, we agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 3) that Ma's single
broadcasting channel (transmitted over two different antennas) does not
disclose the claimed "first" and "second broadcast channel[s]." (Ma,
¶[ 0117], ¶[0120]; Fig. 5). Accordingly, we reverse the anticipation
rejection R1 of claim 1, and claim 19, which recites commensurate
limitations. We also reverse the anticipation rejection R1 of claims 2-4, 20,
21, and 38, which depend from claims 1 and 19.
R2 – R4. CLAIMS 1-11, 19-26, and 38
Regarding the § 103 rejection R2 of independent claims 1 and 19, the
Examiner makes the same erroneous finding regarding the limitation at
issue, as discussed above regarding anticipation rejection R1. (Ans. 6 and 9-
Appeal 2012-005674
Application 11/677,766
6
10). Moreover, the Examiner does not establish that the additional cited
Teague reference cures the aforementioned deficiency of Ma. Therefore, we
reverse the rejection R2 of claim 1, and claim 19, which recites
commensurate limitations. For the same reasons, we reverse the rejection
(R2) of claims 2-6, 20-22, and 38, which depend from claims 1 and 19. We
also reverse the rejection R3 of claims 5, 6, and 22, and rejection R4 of
claims 7-11 and 23-26, which depend from claims 1 and 19, as the Examiner
did not establish that the additional cited references overcome the defects of
Ma discussed above.

DECISION1
We reverse the Examiner's rejection R1 of claims 1-4, 19-21, and 38
under § 102.
We reverse the Examiner's rejections R2, R3, and R4 of claims 1-11,
19-26, and 38 under § 103.

ORDER
REVERSED
llw

1 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider
whether the claimed allocating subcarriers from two (or more) broadcasting
channels would have been obvious over Ma considered alone (or in
combination with Teague) in light of Ma's teaching of allocating subcarriers
from three "broadcast channels." (Ma, ¶ [0117] and Fig. 5 ((1) pilot channel
(700, 702), (2) synchronization channel (704, 706), and (3), broadcasting
channel (708, 710), each of the three broadcast channels providing system
and control information to a base station (¶ [0122])).