Vinay Sridhara et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 26, 2020

12329890 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 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.
12/329,890 12/08/2008 Vinay Sridhara 081197 9759
15055 7590 02/26/2020
Patterson + Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
BOKHARI, SYED M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2020 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):
PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VINAY SRIDHARA, SANJIV NANDA, ALOK AGGARWAL,
VINCENT KNOWLES JONES IV, GEERT ARNOUT AWATER, and
SANTOSH P. ABRAHAM
Appeal 2019-000127
Application 12/329,890
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES B. ARPIN, HUNG H. BUI, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, 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 41, 44, 47–49, 52, 55–57, 60, 63–67,
70–72, 75–77, and 80–89. Claims 1–40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 50, 51, 53, 54, 58,
59, 61, 62, 68, 69, 73, 74, 78, and 79 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
QUALCOMM Incorporated. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-000127
Application 12/329,890

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to reverse link acknowledgement in a wireless
local area networks. The pending claims can be divided logically into two
groups. The first group, exemplified in claim 41 and generally rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), recites an embodiment in which block
acknowledgement request messages are sent to two devices, but the second
block acknowledgement request is sent only upon receipt of a response to
the first block acknowledgement request. The second group, exemplified in
claim 67 and rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), recites an embodiment in
which a block acknowledgement request message to request
acknowledgement of only a single data unit. These two claims are
reproduced below:
41. A method for wireless communication, the method
comprising:
transmitting an aggregated data unit comprising a plurality
of data units, each of the plurality of data units intended for a
different one of a plurality of apparatuses, wherein transmitting
the aggregated data unit comprises simultaneously transmitting
the plurality of data units;
transmitting a first block acknowledgement request
message to a first apparatus of the plurality of apparatuses to
request acknowledgment of a data unit of the plurality of data
units intended for the first apparatus of the plurality of
apparatuses;
receiving a first block acknowledgment message for the
aggregated data unit from the first apparatus of the plurality of
apparatuses after transmitting the first block acknowledgment
request message, wherein the first block acknowledgment
message indicates reception of the data unit intended for the first
apparatus of the plurality of apparatuses; and
transmitting, in response to receiving the first block
acknowledgment message, a second block acknowledgment
request message to a second apparatus of the plurality of
Appeal 2019-000127
Application 12/329,890

3
apparatuses to request acknowledgment of a data unit of the
plurality of data units intended for the second apparatus of the
plurality of apparatuses.

67. A method for wireless communication, the method
comprising:
receiving, at a first apparatus of a plurality of apparatuses,
an aggregated data unit comprising a plurality of data units
transmitted to the plurality of apparatuses, each of the plurality
of the data units intended for a different one of the plurality of
apparatuses, wherein receiving the aggregated data unit
comprises simultaneously receiving the plurality of data units;
receiving a block acknowledgement request message to
request acknowledgement of a single data unit, intended for the
first apparatus, of the received plurality of data units; and
transmitting a block acknowledgment message for the
aggregated data unit after receiving the block acknowledgement
request message, wherein the block acknowledgment message
indicates reception of the single data unit intended for the first
apparatus.
Appeal Br. 26 (Claim 41), 30 (Claim 67) (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name2 Reference Date
Nishibayashi US 2005/0238016 A1 Oct. 27, 2005
Shapira US 2007/0153760 A1 Jul. 5, 2007
Trainin US 2009/0213767 A1 Aug. 27, 2009
Nishibayashi ’056 US 2010/0189056 A1 Jul. 29, 2010

2 References are identified with reference to their first named
author/inventor.
Appeal 2019-000127
Application 12/329,890

4
REJECTIONS
Claims 67, 72, 77, 82, and 83 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as indefinite. Final Act. 2–3.
Claims 67, 72, 77 and 83 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Nishibayashi. Final Act. 33–40.
Claims 41, 49, 57, and 66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nishibayashi and Shapira. Final Act. 5–19.
Claims 44, 47, 48, 52, 55, 56, 60, 63, 64, 70, 71, 75, 76, 80, 81 and
84–89 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nishibayashi, Shapira, and Nishibayashi ’056. Final Act. 19–28.
Claim 65 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nishibayashi, Shapira, and Trainin. Final Act. 28–33.
Claim 82 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nishibayashi and Trainin. Final Act. 41–44.
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred find concluding the phrase “a
single data unit,” as recited in claims 67, 72, 77, 82, and 83, is indefinite
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Nishibayashi
discloses “receiving a block acknowledgement request message to request
acknowledgement of a single data unit, intended for the first apparatus, of
the received plurality of data units,” as recited in claim 67?
Third Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Nishibayashi and
Shapira teach or suggest “transmitting, in response to receiving the first
block acknowledgment message, a second block acknowledgment request
message to a second apparatus of the plurality of apparatuses to request
Appeal 2019-000127
Application 12/329,890

5
acknowledgment of a data unit of the plurality of data units intended for the
second apparatus of the plurality of apparatuses,” as recited in claim 41?
ANALYSIS
First Issue
The Examiner rejects claims 67, 72, 77, 82, and 83 as indefinite
because the claim recites “acknowledgement of a single data unit,” and the
Examiner “could not establish distinguish between the term “a data unit and
a single data unit because the terms could be interpreted to be the same and
bears no patentable distinction.” Final Act. 2–3.
Appellant argues the Examiner has erred because “it is improper to
read ‘single data unit’ in isolation of the phrase immediately thereafter
modifying the term “single data unit.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant asserts that
“[t]he term ‘single data unit,’ . . . refers not to a data unit generically, but to
a single data unit ‘intended for the first apparatus, of the received plurality
of data units.” Appellant further asserts that the Specification makes clear
that “single data unit” refers to a specific, individual, and singular data unit.
Appeal Br. 14. We agree with Appellant.
Appellant’s Specification describes a process by which aggregated
packets—packets made up of a plurality of individual packets (data units)—
are transmitted to a plurality of devices. Spec. ¶ 35 (“This method reduces
the overhead at the physical layer by transmitting a single preamble for all of
the PPDUs packed into a single aggregated packet (APPDU).”). The
Specification further describes that the APPDU may be transmitted to six
receiving stations, and include one PPDU (packet) intended for each station.
Spec. ¶ 36 (“The STA-100 transmits an APPDU to receiving stations STA-
101 through STA-106.”). After the transmission of the aggregate packet, the
Appeal 2019-000127
Application 12/329,890

6
transmitting device generates a block acknowledgement request that is sent
to the first receiving station. Spec. ¶ 36 (“Upon completion of the APPDU
transmission, the transmitter STA-100 . . . sends a Block ACK request
(BAR) 302 to STA-101.”). In response, the receiving station sends back an
acknowledgement indicating that it has received the specific packet that was
intended for it. Spec. ¶ 36 (“STA-101 . . . sends a Block ACK 304 back to
STA-100 indicating successful reception of the PPDU in the APPDU
intended for STA-101.”). Thus, as evidenced by the embodiment described
in the Specification, the Block ACK sent back to the sending station is an
acknowledge of the receipt of only one data unit, the data unit intended for
that particular receiving station. As such, we disagree with the Examiner
that the phrase “single data unit” is unclear, and we agree with Appellant
that the phrase “single data unit” means one, and only one, data unit as
recited in the rejected claims. We, therefore, do not sustain the
indefiniteness rejection of claims 67, 72, 77, 82, and 83.
Second Issue
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s findings with respect to the
rejection of claims 67, 72, 77, and 83 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Nishibayashi. In rejecting claim 67, the Examiner finds
Nishibayashi discloses “receiving a block acknowledgment request message
to request acknowledgement of a single data unit, intended for the apparatus,
of the received plurality of data units.” Final Act. 34–35 (citing
Nishibayashi Fig. 34). The Examiner finds that Figure 34 of Nishibayashi
discloses a transmitting device “HC is transmitting first block
acknowledgement request, BlockAckReq QSTA1, to first receiving
Appeal 2019-000127
Application 12/329,890

7
apparatus QSTA 1 for acknowledging of receiving the intended data sent to
it.” Id.
Appellant contends the Examiner’s finding is in error because the
claim requires that the block acknowledgement request seek
acknowledgement of receipt of a “single data unit,” but Nishibayashi’s
“block acknowledgement request messages request the acknowledgement of
multiple data units intended for a first apparatus (i.e., for the 3 data units
transmitted to QSTA1).” Appeal Br. 16. We agree.
Anticipation is a test of strict identity. Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-
U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2002). That is, to meet the
strict identity test for anticipation, all elements must be disclosed in exactly
the same way as they are arranged or combined in the claim. Therasense,
Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Here, the disputed limitation recites that the block acknowledgement
request is “to request acknowledgement of a single data unit.” As we
explained above in connection with the indefiniteness rejection, the broadest
reasonable interpretation for the phrase “single data unit” is “only one data
unit.” We agree with Appellant that the block acknowledgement request
disclosed in Nishibayashi is a request for acknowledgement of three data
units—which is different than a single data unit. Because anticipation
requires that the prior art to disclose the same invention claimed, we are
persuaded the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 67, as well as of
claims 72, 77, and 83 which also include the “single data unit” limitation, is
in error.
Appeal 2019-000127
Application 12/329,890

8
Third Issue
Claim 41 recites the limitation “transmitting, in response to receiving
the first block acknowledgment message, a second block acknowledgment
request message to a second apparatus.” Appeal Br. 26 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner rejects claim 41 as obvious over the combined teachings of
Nishibayashi and Shapira. Final Act. 5–8. The Examiner finds that
Nishibayashi teaches most of the limitations of claim 41, but fails to teach
the “transmitting, in response to receiving the first block acknowledgement
message, a second block acknowledgement request message to a second
apparatus.” Id. at 6–7. The Examiner relies on Shapira for this limitation,
finding that it teaches receiving a first block acknowledgement message, and
then afterwards sending a second block acknowledgement request message
to a second device in a multiple access WLAN. Id. at 7–8 (citing Shapira
¶ 75, Fig. 4B). The Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have had reason to combine the teachings of Nishibayashi and
Shapira because “it is more cost effective and dynamic.” Id. at 8.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “the second block
acknowledgement request of Shapira is not transmitted in response to
receiving the first block acknowledgement message.” Appeal Br. 19. More
specifically, Appellant contends “transmission of the second block
acknowledgement request message of Shapira, as discussed in Shapira
paragraph [0075], is merely delayed by some predetermined amount of time
relative to the transmission of the first block acknowledgement request—
apparently irrespective of whether the transmitting station ever received a
block acknowledgment from the first apparatus at all.” Id.
Appeal 2019-000127
Application 12/329,890

9
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The block
acknowledgement frame requests described in Shapira are described as
“sequential BA frame requests.” Shapira ¶ 75. However, the sequential BA
frame request process taught by Shapira is effectuated via a timing
mechanism by which the block acknowledgement requests are delayed by a
predetermined time period to allow sufficient time for the first
acknowledgement response to be received. However, Shapira does not
indicate that the second acknowledgement request message only will be sent
“in response to” the receipt of the first acknowledgement response. Rather,
as Appellant correctly asserts, it appears that the second message will be sent
after the predetermined time period—even if the first acknowledgement has
not yet been received. It may be that the time delay described in Shapira
implicitly teaches sending the second acknowledgement request message “in
response to” receiving the first message, but the Examiner provides no
explanation or reasoning for why this may be the case. As such, we are
constrained by the record before us to reverse the obviousness rejection of
claim 41.
Remaining Claims
Each of the remaining claims depends from one of the claims
discussed above and recites the dispositive limitation. Although in some
cases, the claims were rejected as obvious over combinations of different
references, the teachings of those different references are not relied upon to
cure the deficiencies identified above. Accordingly, we also do not sustain
the rejections of the remaining claims.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
Appeal 2019-000127
Application 12/329,890

10
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
67, 72, 77,
82, 83
112, ¶ 2 indefiniteness 67, 72, 77, 82,
83
67, 72, 77,
83
102(e) Nishibayashi 67, 72, 77, 82,
83
41, 49, 57,
66
103(a) Nishibayashi,
Shapira
41, 49, 57, 66
44, 47, 48,
52, 55, 56,
60, 63, 64,
70, 71, 75,
76, 80, 81,
84–89
103(a) Nishibayashi,
Shapira,
Nishibayashi ’056
44, 47, 48, 52,
55, 56, 60, 63,
64, 70, 71, 75,
76, 80, 81,
84–89
65 103(a) Nishibayashi,
Shapira, Trainin
65
82 103(a) Nishibayashi,
Trainin
82
Overall
Outcome
41, 44, 47–49,
52, 55–57, 60,
63–67, 70–72,
75–77, 80–89

REVERSED