Ex Parte Aydin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

13266071 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017)

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