Ex Parte AydinDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 201713266071 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/266,071 10/24/2011 Osman Aydin LUTZ 201352US01 4936 48116 7590 04/04/2017 FAY STTARPF/T TTf’F.NT EXAMINER 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor DUONG, CHRISTINE T The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2462 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/04/2017 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): docketing @ faysharpe.com ipsnarocp @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte OSMAN AYDIN Appeal 2016-007493 Application 13/266,0711 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. EVANS, JOHN D. HAMANN, and SCOTT E. BAIN Administrative Patent Judges. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies Alcatel Lucent as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-007493 Application 13/266,071 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Claimed Invention The claimed invention relates to uplink transmission of data from a user terminal. Abstract. Claims 1, 10, and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows (with the disputed limitation emphasized): 1. A method for handling uplink transmission data received from a user terminal, comprising: • receiving the data by at least two base stations on a wireless interface, • determining, by at least one of said at least two base stations, at least one quality of the received data on at least one processing level, • determining, by the at least one of said at least two base stations, a respective dedicated processing level of the data that will be used for sending the data to a coordinating device based on said at least one quality of the received data on the at least one processing level, • sending, by the at least one of said at least two base stations, the data to the coordinating device on the respective dedicated processing level determined by said at least one of said at least two base stations, and • determining, by the coordinating device, decoded data using the data sent from the at least one of said at least two base stations. App. Br. 13 (Claims App.) (corrected Dec. 28, 2015). The Rejections on Appeal Claims 1—10 and 13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Meyer et al. (US 2012/0147815 Al; June 14, 2012) 2 Appeal 2016-007493 Application 13/266,071 (“Meyer”) and Gorokhov et al. (US 2010/0103834 Al; Apr. 29, 2010) (“Gorokhov”). Ans. 2—11. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Meyer and Kwon et al. (“US 2012/0028665 Al; Feb. 2, 2012). Ans. 11-13.2 3 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41,37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer, and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis. Claims 1—10 and 13 Regarding claim 1, Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches one of the base stations determines “at least one quality of the received data on the at least one processing level,” as recited in the claim. App. Br. 6—8; Reply Br. 3—5. Specifically, Appellant asserts the Examiner’s reliance on Gorokhov as teaching this limitation is erroneous, 2 The Final Action also includes a rejection of claims 10 and 11 under pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as indefinite (each claiming a device with no “structure,” only steps). Final Act. 3. Appellant subsequently amended the claims to include a structure (processor), which the Examiner and Appellant seem to believe resolved the issue (it is not raised or discussed by either of them in the Appeal), but the record does not include a withdrawal of the rejection. We leave it to the Examiner to address this apparent ambiguity, in the event of further prosecution. 3 Appeal 2016-007493 Application 13/266,071 because Gorokhov reports only “channel state information,” not “quality of the received data.” App. Br. 6—7. We disagree. As the Examiner finds, Appellant’s Specification describes one embodiment of the claim limitation “determining ... at least one quality of the received data on at least one processing level.” Ans. 14. The Specification discloses: The receiving base station eNBl, eNB2, eNB3 determines at least one quality of the received data on one or more of the processing levels IQ data level, soft bit level, code block level and transport block level. On the IQ data level, the quality of the received data can be estimated e.g. by means of the received power or the signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR). On the soft bit level, the quality of the received data can be estimated e.g. by means of the signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR) after combination and equalization of the I values and the Q values. Ans. 14 (citing Spec. 33—35); Spec. 6—7 (citation in record) (emphasis added). Thus, according to Appellant’s Specification, one way of estimating “quality of the received data,” as recited in claim 1, is by means of “signal to interference and noise ratio.” Ans. 14. This is essentially the teaching the Examiner relies upon in Gorokhov. As the Examiner finds, Gorokhov teaches not simply “channel state information (CSI),” but also that the CSI “can comprise information regarding the communication link and/or the received data stream . . . including], for example, the operating SNR [signal to interference and noise ratio].” Gorokhov 1 80; Ans. 14 (emphasis added). Both Appellant’s invention recited in claim 1, and Gorokhov, rely on SNR to estimate “quality of the received data.” Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument 4 Appeal 2016-007493 Application 13/266,071 that “Gorokhov does not disclose the evaluation of the quality of received data.” App. Br. 7.3 Regarding independent claim 10, Appellant argues the Examiner erred for the same reason as for claim 1. App. Br. 8—9. Specifically, claim 10 recites, similar to claim 1, “determine at least one quality of the received data on at least one processing level.” App. Br. 15 (Claims App.). Appellant asserts “Gorokhov does not disclose the evaluation of the quality of received data.” App. Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). For the reasons explained above, this argument does not persuade us of error. Appellant does not argue dependent claims 2—9 and 13 separately. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1— 10 and 13 as obvious over Meyer and Gorokhov. Claims 11 and 12 Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Kwon teaches the uplink data is received on a processing level “with a lowest amount of data to be transferred. . . relative to a plurality of other processing levels,” as recited in claim 11. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 9-11 (emphasis added). Specifically, Appellant contends Kwon is concerned only with “data rate,” whereas the claim recites “amount of data.” App. Br. 10. This argument does not persuade us of error. As the Examiner finds, Meyer teaches the claim elements of a coordinating device, base station, and receiving uplink data. Ans. 16 (citing 3 Appellant does not argue that the remaining portion of the limitation, “on at least one processing level,” differentiates the claim from the cited references. 5 Appeal 2016-007493 Application 13/266,071 Meyer Fig. 4, || 2, 84, 90). The Examiner finds Kwon teaches “a processing level with a lowest amount of data to be transferred.” Ans. 16 (citing Kwon 126). Kwon states, “in a system in which one or more base stations constitute a [coordinate multi-point system] . . . comparing a current data rate . . . with a minimum requirement data rate.” Kwon 126 (emphasis added). The Examiner further finds, “it is well known in the art that data rate is a function of the amount of data transferred for a given time interval,” and “[s]ince Kwon discloses a minimum data rate, it implies a minimum amount of data transmitted,” as recited in claim 11. Ans. 16—17. Appellant does not identify any error in these findings, and we discern none on the record before us. Although Appellant is correct in asserting Kwon refers to data rate, not (explicitly) total data amount, a person of ordinary skill in the art is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSRInt'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the relationship between data rate and amount of data. Ans. 16—17; KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (obviousness analysis “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”).4 4 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may consider whether claim 11 (including the limitation “lowest amount of data”) comports with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. See Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211—12 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02. 6 Appeal 2016-007493 Application 13/266,071 Appellant does not argue dependent claim 12 separately from its base claim 11. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 12 as obvious over Meyer and Kwon. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—13. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation