NXP USA, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 9, 2022

2021001386 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2022)

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. 16/049,739 07/30/2018 Xiayu ZHENG MAR10480-US02 1044 23125 7590 03/09/2022 NXP USA, INC. LAW DEPARTMENT 6501 WILLIAM CANNON DRIVE WEST TX30/OE62 AUSTIN, TX 78735 EXAMINER NGUYEN, LIEM HONG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2416 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/09/2022 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): ip.department.us@nxp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte XIAYU ZHENG, YAN ZHANG, and HONGYUAN ZHANG Appeal 2021-001386 Application 16/049,739 Technology Center 2400 Before JENNIFER S. BISK, LARRY J. HUME, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as NXP USA Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001386 Application 16/049,739 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to rate adaptation. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: storing, in a memory device of a first communication device, a master rate table, wherein the master rate table comprises a plurality of rows that correspond to i) respective data rates, and ii) respective sets of communication parameter values corresponding to the respective sets of data rates, wherein each set of communication parameter values includes: i) a respective plurality of first values corresponding to a plurality of first parameters, ii) respective one or more default second values corresponding to one or more second parameters, and iii) respective one or more alternative second values corresponding to the one or more second parameters; determining, at the first communication device, a first error rate measure corresponding to transmission of one or more first data units by the first communication device to a second communication device according to a first set of communication parameter values, wherein the first set of communication parameter values correspond to i) a first row of the master rate table, and ii) a first transmission data rate; when the first communication device determines that a new transmission rate should be used, selecting, at the first communication device, new communication parameter values using the master rate table, including: when the first set of communication parameter values includes the respective one or more default second values corresponding to the first row of the master rate table, determining, at the first communication device, a first trial set of communication parameter values as Appeal 2021-001386 Application 16/049,739 3 i) the respective plurality of first values corresponding to the first row of the master rate table, and ii) at least one of the respective one or more alternative second values corresponding to the one or more second parameters that correspond to the first row of the master rate table, determining, for a plurality of trial sets of communication parameter values, at the first communication device, respective error rate measures corresponding to transmission of one or more second data units by the first communication device to the second communication device according to each trial set of communication parameter values, and selecting, at the first communication device, the new communication parameter values based on a particular trial set of the plurality of trial sets that resulted in a best error rate performance. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Hosokawa US 2010/0183087 A1 July 22, 2010 REJECTIONS Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Hosokawa. OPINION It is well settled that to anticipate, a prior art reference must not only disclose all recited elements within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim. Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “Thus, it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention, Appeal 2021-001386 Application 16/049,739 4 which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Id. The Examiner finds that Hosokawa discloses the claimed “selecting, at the first communication device, the new communication parameter values based on a particular trial set of the plurality of trial sets that resulted in a best error rate performance.” Final Act. 8; Ans. 4-8. Appellant points to paragraph 48 of the Specification to clarify the meaning of “best error rate,” which states that “an error rate is determined as a packet error rate (PER),” which is a ratio of packets “received in error to a total number of received packets.” Reply Br. 3; Spec. ¶ 48. Hosokawa discloses a “frame error rate.” Ans. 6, 7 (citing Hosokawa ¶¶ 278, 103, Figs. 21, 22, 24). The Examiner finds that in Hosokawa, if a resulting throughput is acceptable, then new communication parameters are selected or updated based on the estimated frame error rate. Id. Appellant argues that that Hosokawa’s measure of throughput does not constitute the claimed “best error rate performance” because a best error rate performance refers to the lowest error rate, rather than the best transmission rate. See Reply Br. 3. We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument, and conclude that the Examiner has not sufficiently shown how the cited portions of Hosokawa disclose a “selecting, at the first communication device, the new communication parameter values based on a particular trial set of the plurality of trial sets that resulted in a best error rate performance.” Reply Br. 3. To the extent that the recited element would have been obvious in view of Hosokawa is not a question before us; nor will we speculate in that Appeal 2021-001386 Application 16/049,739 5 regard here in the first instance on appeal. But what we can say is that the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1 is flawed. We are therefore constrained by this record to find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of the remaining pending claims, which depend from one of claims 1, 6, 11, and 16, either directly or indirectly. CONCLUSION We reverse the rejections. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-20 102 Hosokawa 1-20 REVERSED