Moritz Hartenek

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 6, 2020

14377852 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/377,852 08/10/2014 Moritz Hartenek P1145US00 5969
110683 7590 01/06/2020
Potomac Technology Law, LLC
9713 Sotweed Drive
Potomac, MD 20854
EXAMINER
BLANTON, JOHN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/06/2020 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):
Craig@potomactechlaw.com
craiglp19@outlook.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte MORITZ HARTENEK
____________________

Appeal 2018-008988
Application 14/377,852
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9–16, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Rohde &
Schwarz GmbH & Co. KG. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-008988
Application 14/377,852
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure generally “relates to a method for avoiding an
error detection of control channels in a mobile-radio device and a device for
generating and transmitting control signals to a mobile-radio device on
control channels.” Spec. ¶ 2. The claimed invention relates to generating a
dummy check value that is all zeroes using a filler data sequence when no
bit sequence is present for a control channel signal, which results in user
equipment (UE) receiving a negative result (no match) when evaluating the
check value so the UE rejects or discards the control channel signal. See
Spec. ¶¶ 2–3, 14–15. Claims 9 and 13 are independent. Claim 9 is
reproduced below:
9. A method comprising:
generating a control channel signal based on a final check-
value appended to a control channel data sequence, wherein (i)
when a bit sequence is present for a mobile radio device, the
control channel data sequence is based on the bit sequence and
the final check-value is generated based on a check-value of the
bit sequence generated based on a cyclical redundancy check
implemented in the form of a polynomial division, and (ii) when
the bit sequence is not present for the mobile radio device, the
control channel data sequence is based on a filler data sequence,
the final check-value is generated based on a check-value of the
filler data sequence and the final check-value is composed of all
zeros;
transmitting the control channel signal to the mobile radio
device over a control channel of a wireless communications
network; and
receiving, by the mobile radio device, the transmitted
control channel signal, decoding the final check-value based on
a code allocated to the mobile radio device, and performing a
check-value evaluation based on the decoded final check-value;
and
wherein, when the final check-value was generated based
on the check-value of the bit sequence, the check-value
Appeal 2018-008988
Application 14/377,852
3
evaluation leads to a positive result and the mobile radio device
accepts the control channel signal,
wherein, when the final check-value was generated based
on the check-value of the filler data sequence, the decoding of
the final check-value based on the code allocated to the mobile
radio device provides a non-zero result, and the check-value
evaluation leads to a negative result and the mobile radio device
rejects the control channel signal.
REJECTIONS
Claims 9–11, 13, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Papasakellariou (US 2011/0171985 A1; July 14, 2011),
Frederiksen (US 2012/0287880 A1; Nov. 15, 2012), 3rd Generation
Partnership Project; Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol specification
(Release 10) 3GPP TS 36.321 V10.4.0 (2011-12) (Technical Specification
Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access
(E-UTRA)) (hereinafter 3GPP), and Kumar (US 2012/0173952 A1; July 5,
2012). Final Act. 3–7.
Claims 12 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in
view of Papasakellariou, Frederiksen, 3GPP, Kumar, and Applicant
Admitted Prior Art. Final Act. 7–8.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments Appellant made.
Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make in the Briefs,
are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant argues the
rejection of all pending claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 13 (arguing claims
9–22, 13, 14, and 16 are patentable based on the arguments presented with
Appeal 2018-008988
Application 14/377,852
4
respect to independent claims 9 and 13), 14 (arguing AAPA does not cure
the alleged deficiencies and, therefore, claims 12 and 15, which depend
directly from claims 9 and 13, respectively, are allowable for the reasons
presented with respect to independent claims 9 and 13). We select claim 9 as
representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds the combination of Papasakellariou, Frederiksen,
3GPP, and Kumar teaches or suggests every limitation recited in
representative claim 9. Final Act. 3–6. Of particular relevance to this
Appeal, the Examiner finds Papasakellariou teaches or suggests “generating
a control channel signal based on a final check-value appended to a control
channel data sequence, wherein (i) when a bit sequence is present for a
mobile radio device, the control channel data sequence is based on the bit
sequence and the final check-value is generated based on a check-value of
the bit sequence.” Final Act. 3 (citing Papasakellariou ¶¶ 13–16). The
Examiner also finds Papasakellariou teaches or suggests generating the
check value of the bit sequence “based on a cyclical redundancy check” and
a UE performing a CRC check on that value to determine whether the bit
sequence is intended for that UE. Ans. 3 (citing Papasakellariou ¶¶ 15–17).
The Examiner further finds Kumar expressly discloses generating a CRC
check value using polynomial division. Final Act. 4 (citing Kumar ¶¶ 6–9);
Ans. 4 (citing same). The Examiner concludes the combination of
Papasakellariou and Kumar teaches or suggests “the final check-value is
generated based on a check-value of the bit sequence generated based on a
cyclical redundancy check implemented in the form of a polynomial
division.” Final Act. 3–4.
Appellant acknowledges Papasakellariou “discloses the generation of
a cyclical redundancy check code by computing a CRC of the non-coded
Appeal 2018-008988
Application 14/377,852
5
DCI format bits,” but Appellant asserts Papasakellariou “is silent as to any
disclosure or suggestion of the generation of a check-value of the bit
sequence based on a cyclical redundancy check implemented in the form of
a polynomial division.” Appeal Br. 8–9. Appellant then asserts that,
although Kumar may suggest generating a check value based on a CRC
implemented in the form of a polynomial division, Kumar does not teach or
suggest applying this “concept in the context of control data channels of a
mobile wireless communications network, or the reduction of error
detections in such mobile radio network control channels,” as addressed in
Appellant’s invention. Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 4 (arguing Kumar
“lacks any indications or suggestions whatsoever regarding wireless radio
networks”). Appellant argues Kumar, therefore, is not analogous art because
Kumar is neither in the same field of endeavor as the invention nor
reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the invention. Appeal
Br. 11; Reply Br. 4–5. Appellant next asserts Frederiksen “lacks any specific
disclosure of any method for computing the CRC, and instead specifies the
physical downlink control channels payload is used to calculate the CRC
parity bits according to a computation set out at Section 5.1.1 of 3GPP TS
36.212.” Appeal Br. 12 (citing Frederiksen ¶ 48). Finally, Appellant
contends 3GPP teaches computing a CRC by generating “parity bits via one
of four specified cyclic generator polynomials. See 3GPP TS 36.2112, ver.
8.7.0, at § 5.1.1.” Appeal Br. 12 (citing 3GPP § 5.1.1).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. To the extent
Appellant argues Papasakellariou does not teach generating a check value
based on a polynomial, this argument does not address the actual rejection.
As the Examiner notes, Ans. 4, the Examiner finds the combination of
Papasakellariou and Kumar teaches “the final check-value is generated
Appeal 2018-008988
Application 14/377,852
6
based on a check-value of the bit sequence generated based on a cyclical
redundancy check implemented in the form of a polynomial division.”
Specifically, the Examiner finds Papasakellariou teaches or suggests
generating a final check value based on a check value of the bit sequence
generated based on a CRC and Kumar discloses one well-known method of
calculating a CRC check value uses polynomial division. Final Act. 3–4
(citing Papasakellariou ¶¶ 15–17; Kumar ¶¶ 6–9); Ans. 3–4 (citing same);
see also Kumar ¶ 2 (“A cyclic redundancy check (CRC) is a common
method for adding information to communication packets to detect errors”);
Frederiksen ¶ 55 (at least suggesting the use of polynomials in generating
and extracting CRC values by explaining that when “‘good’ CRC-
polynomials are chosen, . . . the probability to detect an invalid packet as
valid decreases monotonically as the SNR increases”).
We also find unpersuasive Appellant’s argument that Kumar is non-
analogous art. The question of whether a person of ordinary skill in the art
would look to a reference—i.e., whether a reference is analogous art—asks
whether the particular reference is analogous to Appellant’s claimed subject
matter. More specifically, prior art is analogous art to the claimed invention
if either (1) the art is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed
invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the art is
reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in
the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In re Bigio, 381 F.3d
1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (emphasis added); see also Bigio, 381 F.3d at
1325 (explaining that the first test “requires the PTO to determine the
appropriate field of endeavor by reference to explanations of the invention’s
subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments,
function, and structure of the claimed invention.”). We are mindful that the
Appeal 2018-008988
Application 14/377,852
7
Supreme Court’s decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 402 (2007), directs us to construe the scope of analogous art
broadly, stating that “familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their
primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the
teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” See Wyers v.
Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
The field of endeavor of Appellant’s invention involves network
communications including CRC checks. Spec. 1:12–3:5. Appellant’s
invention attempts to avoid error detections (related to check values of CRC
checks) resulting from control channels transmitting even when no
information needs to be transmitted. Spec. 2:4–31. Kumar “relates generally
to communications networks and, more specifically, to cyclic redundancy
checks for communications networks.” Kumar ¶ 1; see Kumar, Fig. 5
(depicting a communication system including transmitters and receivers that
implement cyclic redundancy checks). Kumar explains that a “cyclic
redundancy check (CRC) is a common method for adding information to the
communication packets to detect errors.” Kumar ¶ 2.
Appellant distinguishes the focus of Kumar’s invention (i.e.,
providing “a parallel CRC computation approach for parallel input data
having data enables- parallel data words of varying sizes”) from Appellant’s
alleged inventive focus on “reducing error detections in a wireless radio
control channel.” Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 4. This distinction does not
address Kumar’s field of endeavor, which is much broader than the
particular point of allegedly novelty within that field. We also disagree with
Appellant’s unsupported assertions that Kumar discloses using polynomials
for generating CRC check values without “regard or relation to mobile radio
networks in general” and Kumar “lacks any indications or suggestions
Appeal 2018-008988
Application 14/377,852
8
whatsoever regarding wireless radio networks.” Reply Br. 4; see Appeal
Br. 11. Because Kumar relates to error checking within communications
network and Appellant’s invention is directed to improvements focused on
avoiding error detection by modifying how CRC check values are
determined and processed, we are not persuaded Kumar is in a different field
of endeavor than Appellant’s invention.
Moreover, as Appellant notes, prior art is “reasonably pertinent” when
it would “logically . . . commend[ ] itself” to an inventor’s attention in
considering the problem the inventor faced. In re Icon Health & Fitness,
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d
656, 658–59 (Fed. Cir. 1992)); see Appeal Br. 11 (citing MPEP
§ 2141.01(a)); Reply Br. 4–5. Appellant’s invention recites that “a cyclical
redundancy check [is] implemented in the form of a polynomial division.”
Thus, although not the focus of the claimed invention, one problem
addressed by Appellant’s invention was implementing a CRC. See
Spec. 10:3–6 (the only reference in the Specification to polynomial division,
which explains that the CRC may be implemented as “a polynomial division
or an XOR operation” without additional detail).
Notably, the Examiner relies on Kumar for the limited purpose of
demonstrating that implementing CRCs using polynomial division was a
well-known CRC method in network communications. Final Act. 4; Ans. 4.
Kumar is reasonably pertinent to a problem addressed by the inventor
because both Kumar and Appellant’s invention addresses a method of
generating a CRC check value. Accordingly, we are persuaded Kumar is
analogous art based on both prongs of the analogous art test, and that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have found Kumar’s CRC method
Appeal 2018-008988
Application 14/377,852
9
to be similarly used to provide one technique for generating a CRC check
value disclosed in Papasakellariou.
For the above reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 9 as obvious in view of the
combination of Papasakellariou, Frederiksen, 3GPP, and Kumar. As noted
above, Appellant does not argue claims 10–16 separately with particularity.
Therefore, for the same reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 10, 11, 14, and 16 as obvious in view of the combination of
Papasakellariou, Frederiksen, 3GPP, and Kumar or in rejecting claims 12
and 15 as obvious in view of the combination of Papasakellariou,
Frederiksen, 3GPP, Kumar, and AAPA.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
9–11, 13, 14,
16
103 Papasakellariou,
Frederiksen, 3GPP, Kumar
9–11, 13,
14, 16

12, 15 103 Papasakellariou,
Frederiksen, 3GPP,
Kumar, AAPA
12, 15
Overall
Outcome
9–16
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED