Ex Parte Wolf et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2014

11529726 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GUY WOLF, DANIEL YELLIN,
ILAN SUTSKOVER, YONA PERETS, and
NADAV SHULMAN
____________

Appeal 2011-009350
Application 11/529,726
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-009350
Application 11/529,726

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12-17, 19, 21-26, 28, and 30-35. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a Space Division Multiple Access
(SDMA) scheme to enable multiple users to share time-frequency resources
(Spec. ¶ [0017]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A wireless communication system comprising:

a base station having a scheduler to assign Time-
Frequency resources and power control to each of a first and a
second mobile stations according to a Space Division Multiple
Access (SDMA) scheme, the SDMA scheme enabling the first
and second mobile stations to share substantially the same
Time-Frequency resources, wherein said base station is able to
receive a summation of multiplex signals, the multiplex signals
including at least two chains of data signals encoded by
Alamouti space time block codes from each one of the first and
second mobile stations.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Dabak

Csapo

US 6,424,679 B1

US 6,801,788 B1

July 23, 2002

Oct. 5, 2004

Appeal 2011-009350
Application 11/529,726

3
Crocker

Giannakis
US 2004/0203419 A1

US 2005/0002325 A1
Oct. 14, 2004

Jan. 6, 2005

Saunders, et al., “Antennas and Propagation for Wireless Communication
Systems”, Wiley and Sons Ltd, (2007).

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 13, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dabak and Crocker.
Claims 6, 8-10, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 21-26 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dabak, Crocker, Csapo, and
Giannakis.
Claims 28 and 30-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dabak, Crocker, Csapo, Giannakis, and Saunders.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, and 12
Appellants contend Crocker does not disclose “a scheduler to assign
Time-Frequency resources and power control,” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 6).
Appellants also contend “the claim elements ‘base station, scheduler, power
control, Time-Frequency resources, and Space Division Multiple Access
(SDMA) scheme’ are not specifically disclosed by Dabak” (id.). Appellants
further contend Dabak “does not assign substantially the same Time-
Frequency resources to plurality of users” (Br. 7). Additionally, Appellants
contend Dabak does not use Alamouti space time block codes (id.).
Appeal 2011-009350
Application 11/529,726

4
Regarding the claim 1 limitation “share substantially the same Time-
Frequency resources,” Dabak discloses a system for “wideband code
division multiple access (WCDMA) for a communication system and more
particularly to space time block coded transmit antenna diversity for
WCDMA” (Dabak, col. 1, ll. 12-15). Crocker discloses a system for power
control for mobile stations in a multiple access wireless communication
system such as CDMA or WCDMA (see Crocker, ¶¶ [0001]-[0006]).
CDMA systems are “characterized by simultaneous transmission of different
data signals over a common channel by assigning each signal a unique code”
(Dabak, col. 1, ll. 18-21) (emphases added). Thus, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have understood that both Dabak and Crocker’s systems assign
substantially the same time-frequency resources to multiple mobile stations
by implementing a version of CDMA, which Dabak discloses entails
“simultaneous”—i.e., using the same time resources for—transmission over
a “common channel”—i.e., using the same frequency resources—for
different data signals (see Dabak, col. 1, ll. 18-21).
Regarding Appellants’ arguments that Dabak fails to specifically
disclose the claim elements “base station,” “scheduler,” and “power control”
(Br. 6), we note that the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Crocker
explicitly discloses these features (see, Ans. 4, 18-19). Regarding the claim
element “Time-Frequency resources,” we note that both Dabak and Crocker
disclose assigning time-frequency resources as discussed above. Further,
regarding the claim element “Space Division Multiple Access (SDMA)
scheme,” we agree with the Examiner that Dabak discloses this feature (see
Ans. 3-4, 18-19). Appellants cite to paragraph [0017] of the Specification
for a description of an SDMA scheme (Br. 2). The Specification provides a
Appeal 2011-009350
Application 11/529,726

5
Space Division Multiple Access (SDMA) scheme may be
provided to enable plurality of users, for example MS 120 and
140, to share the substantially the same Time-Frequency
resources, if desired. According to the SDMA scheme,
scheduler 112 of BS 110 is able to select at least one of the
users (e.g., MS 120) suitable for multiplexing. Furthermore,
scheduler 112 may assign Time-Frequency resources and power
control for the one or more selected user.
According to other embodiment of the present invention,
mobile stations 120 and 140 may transmit space time block
codes for example, Alamouti space time block codes, according
to a predetermined diversity scheme on substantially the same
Time-Frequency resources and scheduler 112 may schedule the
transmission of substantially the same Time-Frequency
resources by both MS 120 and 140, if desired.

(Spec. ¶¶ [0017]-[0018]). Thus, as broadly defined in Appellants’
Specification, an SDMA scheme provides for multiple access to
substantially the same time-frequency resources and can also provide for
diversity transmission through the use of space time block codes. As
discussed above, Dabak discloses providing multiple access to substantially
the same time-frequency resources by using a WCDMA system. Dabak’s
system also provides for “space time block coded transmit antenna
diversity,” referred to as “Space Time Transit Diversity (STTD)” (Dabak,
col. 1, ll. 12-15; col. 3, l. 58-col. 4, l. 19). Accordingly, we find that
Dabak’s system meets the limitation of providing an “SDMA scheme” as
claimed.
Appellants’ argument that Dabak fails to teach using Alamouti space
time block codes (Br. 7) is not persuasive because Dabak discloses
Alamouti’s transmit diversity scheme (Dabak, col. 2, ll. 6-15), which is at
least suggestive of using Alamouti space time block codes for the codes in
Appeal 2011-009350
Application 11/529,726

6
Dabak’s WCDMA system with STTD. The fact that Dabak discloses
Alamouti but “fail[s] to teach such a transmit diversity scheme for a
WCDMA communication system” (Dabak, col. 2, ll. 14-15) does not teach
away from such suggestion to use Alamouti codes. To the contrary, it states
Dabak’s intent to improve upon Alamouti’s system by extending the use of
transmit diversity to a WCDMA system.
Appellants’ argument that Crocker fails to disclose the claim 1
limitation of a “scheduler to assign Time-Frequency resources and power
control” is also not persuasive. Crocker discloses that multiple access
wireless communications systems included “control structures and methods,
such as a scheduler and power control loop” (Crocker, ¶ [0008]).
Specifically, Crocker shows that a scheduler 240 and power control loop 230
can be implemented in the same processor 280 (Crocker, ¶ [0034]; Fig. 5).
Appellants argue that Crocker’s scheduler does not “assign Time-Frequency
resources” (Br. 6). However, Crocker discloses “the scheduler will assign
the mobile station to a particular channel, start time and duration . . . for that
transmission” (Crocker, ¶ [0020]). We find that the assignment of a
channel, start time, and duration for transmission meets the claim 1
limitation of assigning “Time-Frequency resources.” Appellants also argue
that Crocker’s scheduler and power control loop each have unique functions,
and thus there is no scheduler “to assign Time-Frequency resources and
power control” (Br. 6). However, both Crocker’s scheduler and power
control loop are in a single processor 280 (see Crocker, ¶ [0034]; Fig. 5),
which thus meets the limitation of a “scheduler” as claimed. The fact that
Crocker refers to the combined component as a “processor” as opposed to a
“scheduler” is simply a matter of labeling, and does not change the fact that
Appeal 2011-009350
Application 11/529,726

7
Crocker’s “processor” performs the functions of assigning “Time-Frequency
resources and power control” as claimed.
Further, Appellants’ additional argument that Dabak and Crocker fail
to disclose “a base station able ‘to perform on the summation of multiplex
signals Maximal Ration Combining’” (Br. 8) is unavailing because claim 1
does not recite this limitation.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 3, 4, 6-10, and 12 not specifically argued separately.

Claims 13-17
Appellants contend the combination of Dabak and Crocker “fails to
[teach] two mobile stations suitable for multiplexing, nor do the references
(alone or in combination) teach a selector to select mobile system” (Br. 9).
Appellants also contend the combination “fails to teach ‘assigning the
substantially the same Time-Frequency resources . . . to each of the selected
first and second mobile station,’ as recited in claim 13” (Br. 10). Appellants
further contend
[e]ven if it were assumed that producing complex conjugate
followed by multiplying with Rayleigh parameter is in line with
‘Maximal Ratio Combining followed by Alamouti decoding
scheme for two multiplex users’—which is not the case—
Appellants nonetheless submit, first, that this does not disclose
such action at the base station receiver, as claimed
(Br. 11).
Appellants’ argument that Dabak and Crocker fails to disclose the
claim 13 limitation “selecting first and second mobile stations suitable for
multiplexing” is not persuasive because, as discussed above with respect to
claim 1, both references disclose multiple access systems. Appellants’
Appeal 2011-009350
Application 11/529,726

8
argument that the combination of Dabak and Crocker also fails to disclose
the claim 13 limitation “assigning the substantially the same Time-
Frequency resources and power control to each of the selected first and
second mobile stations” is also not persuasive. As discussed above with
respect to claim 1, the CDMA systems of Dabak and Crocker assign
substantially the same time-frequency resources to multiple mobile stations.
Further, regarding the “Maximal Ration Combining” limitation in
claim 13, Appellants do not submit any reasoning as to why Dabak fails to
disclose performing Maximal Ratio Combining, but rather argues that if
such processing occurs, it does not occur at a base station receiver (See Br.
11). Notably, however, claim 13 does not recite any steps which occur at a
base station receiver. Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive
because it is not commensurate with the broader scope of claim 13. In any
case, even if claim 13 required a base station receiver, it would have been
obvious to perform Dabak’s combining of received signals (see Dabak, col.
4, ll. 34-59) at a base station receiver in view of Crocker’s multiple access
communication system which uses a base transceiver station (See Ans. 19;
Crocker, ¶ [0007]).
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 13, and claims 14-17 not specifically argued separately.

Claims 19, and 21-26
Regarding claim 19, Appellants contend “embodiments of the claimed
invention must use a modulator able to modulate signals by both OFDMA
scheme and SC-FDMA. The modulator of Giannakis ‘325, is an [OFDMA]
Appeal 2011-009350
Application 11/529,726

9
modulator and not able to demodulate signals according to SC-FDMA
scheme.” (Br. 14).
Claim 19 recites “a modulator to modulate data bits according to a
modulation scheme selected from a Orthogonal Frequency Division
Multiplexing (OFDM) scheme and a Single Carrier—Frequency Division
Multiple Access (SC-FDMA) scheme.” The clear language of the claim
only requires a modulator that can operate according to a single modulation
scheme, either OFDM or SC-FDMA, and does not require a modulator that
can do both. That is, the “selected from” modulator limitation is written in
Markush form “such that the entire element is disclosed by the prior art if
one alternative in the Markush group is in the prior art.” Fresenius USA,
Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, Appellants’ argument that Giannakis’s OFDMA modulator
cannot also perform SC-FDMA modulation (Br. 14) is not commensurate
with the broader scope of claim 19, and is therefore not persuasive.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 19, and claims 21-26 not specifically argued separately.

Claims 28 and 30-35
Appellants do not present any new arguments for independent claim
28 and claims 30-35 which depend therefrom. Rather, Appellants rely on
the same arguments presented for claim 19 (Br. 14). As discussed above,
those arguments are not persuasive, and thus we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 28 and 30-35.

Appeal 2011-009350
Application 11/529,726

10
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12-17, 19,
21-26, 28, and 30-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12-17, 19, 21-
26, 28, and 30-35 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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

tkl