Ex Parte Beming et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 31, 2013

10595312 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte PER BEMING, KAI-ERIK SUNELL, and NIKLAS JOHANSSON ____________________ Appeal 2011-010288 Application 10/595,312 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-010288 Application 10/595,312 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 13-17. Claims 1-12 and 18 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants’ Disclosed Invention Appellants disclose an apparatus and method for regulating and controlling the flow of data in a radio network by counting data units requested, computing credits to be granted based on the data flow, and distributing credits to radio channels proportionally (claims 13, 15, and 16; Spec. 7:1-8:10; Fig. 5). Exemplary Claims Exemplary claims 13 and 15 under appeal, with emphases added to the disputed portions of the claims, read as follows: 13. A control method for regulating the flow of data between a first transmitting radio network node and a second transmitting radio network node in a radio transmission network, comprising the steps of: said second transmitting radio network node receiving data from said first transmitting radio network node to be forwarded to plural user entities via an air interface; wherein: the first transmitting radio network node sends a capacity request to the second transmitting radio network node requesting the second transmitting radio network node for permission to send an indicated number of data units that are pending in the first transmitting radio network node; and, Appeal 2011-010288 Application 10/595,312 3 the second transmitting radio network node, in response to the capacity request, sends an allocation frame to the first transmitting radio network node, said allocation frame indicating the number of data units the first transmitting radio network node is given permission to transmit, this latter number being referred to as credits; wherein the second transmitting radio network node, if buffer resources for storing of data units at the second transmitting radio network node are limited for each data flow between the first and second transmitting radio network nodes, performs the steps of: counting the instantaneous number of requested data units in each data flow to obtain a total number of requested data units; [A] computing the total number of credits to be granted in each data flow by subtracting from a target buffer filling level for the total number of data flows the total number of data units currently stored in each of the buffers and the total number of credits previously given but not yet received; and, [B] distributing the total number of credits proportionally to radio channel qualities indicated by said user entities. 15. A control method for regulating the flow of data between a first transmitting radio network node and a second transmitting radio network node in a radio transmission network, comprising the steps of: said second transmitting radio network node receiving data from said first transmitting radio network node to be forwarded to plural user entities via an air interface, wherein: the first transmitting radio network node sends a capacity request to the second transmitting radio network node requesting the second transmitting radio network node for permission to send an indicated number of data units that are pending in the first transmitting radio network node; and, the second transmitting radio network node, in response to the capacity request, sends an allocation frame to the first transmitting radio network node, said allocation frame indicating the number of Appeal 2011-010288 Application 10/595,312 4 data units the first transmitting radio network node is given permission to transmit, this latter number being referred to as credits; and, distributing the number of credits given by the second transmitting radio network node proportionally to radio channel qualities indicated by said user entities to which the second transmitting radio network node is scheduling radio transmission of data units. The Examiner’s Rejections (1) The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art shown in Figures 1-4 and described from page 1, line 6 to page 5, line 31 of Appellants’ Specification (hereinafter, “AAPA”), Calvignac (US 2002/0191642 A1), and Liu (US 2004/0062192 A1). Ans. 3-7. (2) The Examiner rejected claims 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA and Liu. Ans. 7-11. Principal Issue on Appeal Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6-9) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1-5), the following principal issue is presented on appeal: Did the Examiner err in rejecting (i) claims 13 and 14 under § 103(a) over the combination of AAPA, Calvignac, and Liu, and/or (ii) claims 15-17 under § 103(a) over the combination of AAPA and Liu, because AAPA fails to disclose a credit-based flow control mechanism, and Liu fail to disclose optimizing transmission rate, distributing a total number of credits proportionally to radio channel qualities indicated by user entities? Appeal 2011-010288 Application 10/595,312 5 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-9) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1-6) contending that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 3-11), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 11-16) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and highlight and emphasize certain findings with regard to the applied prior art. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 11-15) that (i) page 2, lines 8-24 of Appellants’ Specification (AAPA) discloses a credit-based flow control mechanism with a number of credits being sent to individual user entities over an air interface (see Ans. 11-12), and (ii) Liu’s paragraphs [0024], [0026], [0034], and [0037] disclose optimization of transmission rates and the proportional distribution and allocation of power and transmission data rates based on channel qualities indicated by user entities Channel Quality Information (CQI) signals from each wireless unit) (see Ans. 14-15). Appellants fail to address or otherwise rebut the citations to page 2 of the Specification and paragraphs [0024], [0026], [0034], and [0037] of Liu. Further, we note our agreement with the Examiner that Calvignac’s paragraph [0067] (cited by the Examiner at Ans. 5-7) clearly teaches “credit generation logic,” “a maximum credit register,” “an outstanding credit register,” and “a decrement counter signal” that all operate together to meet the claim limitations relating to counting and computing credits for managing data flow. Appeal 2011-010288 Application 10/595,312 6 We also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 16) that AAPA and Liu, when combined, meet the limitations recited in claims 15-17 because Liu discloses total transmission power and transmission data rate are distributed proportionally to channel quality information indicated by each wireless unit. In view of the foregoing, we agree with the Examiner’s (i) response at pages 11-16 of the Answer, (ii) determination (Ans. 3-7) that AAPA, Calvignac, and Liu, when combined meet limitations [A] and [B] recited in claim 13, and (iii) determination (Ans. 7-11) that AAPA and Liu, when combined meet the limitations recited in claims 15-17. Appellants have not adequately shown that the combination of AAPA, Calvignac, and Liu fails to teach or suggest the subject matter recited in claim 13 (and claim 14 depending therefrom). Similarly, and because Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 9) as to claims 15-17 rely on the arguments presented for claim 13, Appellants have not adequately shown that the combination of AAPA and Liu fails to teach or suggest the subject matter recited in claims 15-17. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting (i) claims 13 and 14 under § 103(a) over the combination of AAPA, Calvignac, and Liu; and/or (ii) claims 15-17 under § 103(a) over the combination of AAPA and Liu. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 13-17 are affirmed. Appeal 2011-010288 Application 10/595,312 7 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)(iv). AFFIRMED llw