Ex Parte YUN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2016

13204232 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/204,232 08/05/2011
66547 7590 06/20/2016
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yu-Suk YUN
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.
678-696 DIV CON (P9819) 9412
EXAMINER
TRAN, THINHD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte YU-SUK YUN, SOON-YOUNG YOON,
HEE-WON KANG, JAE-HEUNG YEOM,
SANG-HYUN YANG, HOON HUH,
YOUN-SUN KIM, HO-KYU CHOI,
and JAE-SUNG JANG
Appeal2015-001015
Application 13/204,232
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-10, which are all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. (App. Br. 1 ).
Appeal2015-001015
Application 13/204,232
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Invention
The claimed invention on appeal is directed to a method for wireless
communication between a base station and a terminal using data rate control
(Spec. 3; App. Br. 3). Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as
follows (the contested limitations are italicized).
Representative Claim
1. A method for communicating with a base station, by a
terminal, in a wireless communication system, the method
comprising the steps of:
receiving, from the base station, signaling information
representing a transmission period and a time offset for uplink
transmission of feedback information;
determining a time to transmit the feedback information,
based on the transmission period and the time offset; and
transmitting the feedback information to the Base Station
at the determined time,
wherein the feedback information includes channel state
information associated with the base station.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Evans (US 5,751,702, May 12, 1998) in view of Chang
(US 6,532,225 Bl, Mar. 11, 2003). Final Act. 11-19.
Claims 2, 5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Evans in view of Chang, and further in view of Bedekar (US
6,603,753 Bl, Aug. 5, 2003). Final Act. 19-22.
2
Appeal2015-001015
Application 13/204,232
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1and16 of U.S. 8,027,287
and over claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11 of U.S. 7,065,060. Final Act. 5-10.2
Contentions
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the disclosures of
Evans and Chang teach or suggest the recited features of claims 1, 4, 7, and
9 because:
1. The Examiner admits that Evans fails to teach or suggest
"signaling information representing a transmission period and a time
offset for uplink transmission of feedback information." App. Br. 7.
Chang does not cure the deficiencies of Evans, because there is
nothing in Chang that teaches or suggests signaling information
representing a transmission period for uplink transmission of feedback
information. App. Br. 8. "Because the polling message of Chang is
provided to indicate an order of a corresponding burst used by a user
in a controlling channel, it does not teach or suggest the signaling
information for indicating the transmission period of uplink feedback
information, as recited in independent Claims 1, 4, 7, and 9." App.
Br. 10.
2. In Chang, the access request related to the corresponding
terminal is transmitted on the uplink through a polling response
message, therefore "the information for an uplink transmission is only
2 We proforma affirm the double patenting rejection, which was not
contested by Appellants.
3
Appeal2015-001015
Application 13/204,232
an access request related to the terminal, but in independent Claims 1,
4, 7, and 9, the information for the uplink transmission includes
feedback information including channel state information associated
with the base station." App. Br. 9-10.
ISSUE
Under § 103, did the Examiner err by finding the cited prior art would
have taught or suggested the contested limitations---( 1) "receiving, from the
base station, signaling information representing a transmission period and a
time offset for uplink transmission of feedback information"; (2)
"determining a time to transmit the feedback information, based on the
transmission period and the time offset"; and, (3) "wherein the feedback
information includes channel state information associated with the base
station"- within the meaning of representative claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence
presented. We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and we adopt as our
own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in
the Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. Ans. 3-5. However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our
analysis below.
Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of all claims
on the basis of representative claim 1. Separate patentability is not argued
for the remaining claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal2015-001015
Application 13/204,232
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relied on Evans as disclosing
receiving signaling information from a base station, and transmitting
feedback information including channel state information associated with
the base station to the base station at a determined time (Final Act. 11 ). The
Examiner further relied on Chang to teach that the signaling information
from the base station represents a transmission period and a time offset for
uplink transmission of the feedback information (Final Act. 12).
With respect to Appellants' contention 1 and in response to the issue
(1 ), we agree with the Examiner that Chang teaches signaling information
representing a transmission period and a time offset for uplink transmission
of feedback information (Final Act. 12).
Appellants do not define "transmission period" or "time offset" that
would preclude the Examiner's broader reading of" a transmission period
and a time offset" as encompassing Chang's signaling information, taught in
column 6, lines 43-53, column 7, lines 58---65, column 9 lines 37--49, and
column 9 line 59---column 10 line 22 (Final Act. 12.). See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Here, the contested claim language "a transmission period" has no
clear definition in the Specification since it may refer to a data rate control
transmission period as described on page 20, line 19 of the Specification, or
to a general time to transmit feedback information as described on page 8,
line 18 of the Specification. Since claim 1 does not recite data rate control,
we are not persuaded the Examiner's broader reading on the corresponding
features found in Chang is overly broad or unreasonable (Ans. 4--5).
Likewise, the contested claim language "time offset" may be
interpreted as encompassing, inter alia, a pilot offset described on page 18,
5
Appeal2015-001015
Application 13/204,232
line 15 of the Specification which is related to a slotting start point, or a
general time offset at which to transmit feedback information described on
page 8, line 18 of the Specification. The Examiner equates the start point for
a time slot within a 20 ms frame uplink access sequence to the claimed time
offset (Ans. 4).
In particular, the Examiner finds that the transmission period may be
the length of time within the 20 ms frame for feedback from a mobile unit to
a base station, and concludes that the offset may be the time position in the
uplink access sequence (Ans. 4--5).
We agree with the Examiner because "applicants may amend claims
to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no
unfairness to the applicant or patentee." In re ICON Health and Fitness,
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
Therefore, on this record, in light of Appellants' Specification, and by
a preponderance of the evidence, we are not persuaded the Examiner's
broader reading on the corresponding features found in Chang is overly
broad or unreasonable.
Regarding issue (2), we agree with the Examiner that determining a
time to transmit the feedback information may be performed by the base
station when it sends the polling message to the mobile stations, which
specifies the sequence and therefore determines a time for each mobile
station to have uplink access. Ans. 4.
Regarding Appellants' contention 2 and in response to issue (3), we
note that the Examiner relied on Evans and not Chang to teach uplink
feedback of channel state information (Final Act. 11 (citing Evans col. 8
11. 50 - col. 9 1. 9 and col. 10 11. 34--50) ). During polling response time slots,
6
Appeal2015-001015
Application 13/204,232
the subscriber provides uplink feedback of the channel bit error rate. Id.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the channel bit error rate meets the
claimed "channel state information." Final Act. 11.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims
1-10. Independent claims 4, 7, and 9 are not separately argued and recite
limitations commensurate to the contested limitations of claim 1. Therefore,
the remaining claims rejected under § 103 fall with representative claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7