Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 2017

14306458 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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. 14/306,458 06/17/2014 Phil F. CHEN P-77902-US 8449 49443 7590 04/03/2017 Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP 1500 Broadway 12th Floor New York, NY 10036 EXAMINER KO, SITHU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2414 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/03/2017 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): US PTO @ PearlCohen .com Arch-USPTO @ PearlCohen. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PHIL F. CHEN, HAIM HAREL, and KENNETH KLUDT Appeal 2016-006492 Application 14/306,458 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN D. HAMANN, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—9, 11—16, and 18—20, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Magnolia Broadband Inc. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-006492 Application 14/306,458 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention According to the Specification, the invention relates to wireless data transmission and “the field of Wi-Fi.” Spec. 2, 5, Abstract.2 The Specification explains that a “method of wireless data transmission may include generating . . . two or more aggregated MAC protocol data units (A-MPDU’s) in parallel” and that “[e]ach A-MPDU may be generated by aggregating MAC protocol data units (MPDU’s) for different modulation coding schemes.” Spec. 1 5, Abstract. Exemplary Claim 1. A method of wireless data transmission, comprising: generating, by a processor, two or more aggregated MAC protocol data units (A-MPDU’s), said generated A-MPDUs aggregating at least some of the same MAC protocol data units (MPDU’s) and addressed to the same receiver, wherein each A-MPDU is generated for a different modulation coding scheme; determining a modulation coding scheme for data transmission; and transmitting a subset of the generated A-MPDUs corresponding to the determined modulation coding scheme to the receiver. Br. 20 (Claims App.). 2 This decision employs the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the Specification, filed June 17, 2014; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action, mailed January 9, 2015; “Adv. Act.” for the Advisory Action, mailed April 21, 2015; “Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed October 28, 2015; and “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed April 1, 2016. 2 Appeal 2016-006492 Application 14/306,458 The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal Tao et al. (“Tao”) US 7,474,676 B2 Hart et al. (“Hart”) US 2011/0205998 Al Niu et al. (“Niu”) US 2012/0028671 Al Zhang et al. (“Zhang”) US 8,611,288 B1 Jan. 6, 2009 Aug. 25, 2011 Feb. 2, 2012 Dec. 17, 2013 The Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7—9, 11, 12, 14—16, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Niu, Tao, and Zhang. Final Act. 2— 7. Claims 6, 13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Niu, Tao, Zhang, and Hart. Final Act. 7—8. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4—9, 11—16, and 18— 20 in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we disagree with Appellants’ assertions regarding error by the Examiner. We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action (Final Act. 2—8), Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2), and Answer (Ans. 2—10). We add the following to address and emphasize specific findings and arguments. The Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7—9, 11, 12, 14—16, 18, and20 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Generating Different A-MPDUs for Different Modulation Coding Schemes Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 because neither Niu, Tao, nor Zhang shows “generating . . . two or more aggregated MAC protocol data units (A-MPDU’s). . . wherein each 3 Appeal 2016-006492 Application 14/306,458 A-MPDU is generated for a different modulation coding scheme,” as recited in claim 1. Br. 13—14. Appellants assert that “the Examiner admits that neither Nui [sic] nor Tao show” generating different A-MPDUs for different modulation coding schemes. Id. at 13. Appellants then assert that generating an A-MPDU based on a preferred modulation coding scheme (MCS) in feedback information according to Zhang “only shows that an MCS can be selected” and does not show that an A-MPDU “is generated for a different modulation coding scheme, as is required by Applicants’ claim 1.” Id. at 14 (citing Zhang 12:15—17, 12:33—44, Fig. 11). Appellants’ assertions do not persuade us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds that Niu implies that “each A-MPDU is generated for a different modulation coding scheme.” Final Act. 4; Ans. 7. For example, Niu Figure 4 illustrates three A-MPDUs 416a, 416b, and 416c. Niu Fig. 4; see Adv. Act. 2. Niu instructs that “the MCS of each A-MPDU 416a-c is determined based on a signal quality between” an access point the mobile station associated with the respective A-MPDUs 416a-c. Niu 128; Adv. Act. 2. More particularly, “a more robust MCS would be used for the A-MPDU 416a” with poor signal quality and “a correspondingly less robust MCS” would be used for the A-MPDU 416c with good signal quality. Niu 128; Adv. Act. 2. Thus, Niu suggests different modulation coding schemes for different A-MPDUs. In addition, the Examiner finds that Niu discloses: (a) setting an A-MPDU’s length in each frame based on power level and a preferred MCS received from a mobile station; (b) transmitting from an access point to a mobile station an initial frame with a first A-MPDU using a first MCS; and (c) transmitting from the access point to the mobile station another frame 4 Appeal 2016-006492 Application 14/306,458 with a second A-MPDU using a second MCS. Ans. 7—8 (citing Niu 136, Figs. 1—4); see Adv. Act. 2 (citing Niu Tflf 28, 36, Figs. 1—5). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Niu teaches transmitting “two or more A-MPDUs with different MCSs to the same receiver.” Ans. 8; see Niu 1120,28,36, Figs. 4—5. Further, the Examiner finds that Zhang discloses: (a) two wireless devices called a beam tracking initiator and a beam tracking responder; (b) the beam tracking responder sends an A-MPDU using a certain MCS to the beam tracking initiator; (c) the beam tracking initiator responds with a beam refinement frame containing transmission feedback information, including a preferred MCS; and (d) the beam tracking responder adjusts the MCS and sends another A-MPDU using the adjusted MCS to the beam tracking initiator. Ans. 5—6 (citing Zhang 11:33—49, Figs. 10-11); see Adv. Act. 2 (citing Zhang 11:20-22, 11:66-67, 12:15-16, 12:39-44, Figs. 10-11). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Zhang teaches transmitting “two or more A-MPDUs with different MCSs to the same receiver.” Ans. 7; see Zhang 11:5—12:44, Figs. 10-11. Generating Different A-MPDUs with Some of the Same MPDUs Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because no reference shows “generating . . . two or more aggregated MAC protocol data units (A-MPDU’s), said generated A-MPDUs aggregating at least some of the same MAC protocol data units (MPDU’s) and addressed to the same receiver,” as recited in claim 1. Br. 15—17. In particular, Appellants contend that Tao aggregates multiple MSDUs into one MPDU “based on destination addresses and traffic classes,” and therefore Tao “discloses aggregating data intended for different recipients into different A-MPDU’s.” 5 Appeal 2016-006492 Application 14/306,458 Id. at 16—17 (citing Tao 3:63—4:3). In addition, Appellants contend that “[transmitting a first A-MPDU to a first station and a second A-MPDU to a second station” according to Niu “necessitates that the first A-MPDU and the second A-MPDU in Nui [sic] are addressed to different receivers” rather than “the same receiver” as required by claim 1. Id. at 15—16 (citing Niu 1122-23). Appellants’ contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error. “[DJuring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Examiner reasons that claim 1 does not specify how to generate A-MPDUs and broadly encompasses various scenarios. Ans. 2. The Examiner finds that Tao teaches: (a) aggregating multiple MSDUs into one MPDU based on destination address and traffic class; (b) limiting the size of an A-MPDU based on various considerations, such as transmission opportunity (TXOP); and (c) if an A-MPDU’s size exceeds the limit, generating one or more additional A-MPDUs from the aggregated MPDUs with the same destination address and traffic class. Ans. 9 (citing Tao 4:1—2, 7:27—28, 9:1—8); see Adv. Act. 2 (citing Tao 4:1—2, 7:27—28, 9:1—8); see also Final Act. 3^4 (citing Tao 4:1— 9, 8:2-4, Fig. 20). Accordingly, Tao teaches generating two or more A-MPDUs from the same aggregated MPDUs addressed to the same receiver, e.g., based on size constraints. See Ans. 9; Adv. Act. 2. This teaching is consistent with Appellants’ Specification which describes: (a) encapsulating MSDUs “destined for the same receiver and of the same service category” or traffic class into one MPDU; (b) receiving and scheduling “MPDUs addressed to the same receiver address and which may 6 Appeal 2016-006492 Application 14/306,458 be of the same service category” or traffic class; and then (c) aggregating “multiple A-MPDUs in parallel for different” modulation coding schemes. Spec. 35, 37, Fig. 8. Appellants did not file a Reply Brief and did not address the Examiner’s findings concerning Tao’s A-MPDU size limit. Also, as noted above, the Examiner finds that Niu teaches transmitting “two or more A-MPDUs with different MCSs to the same receiver” as required by claim 1. Ans. 8; see Niu H 20, 28, 36, Figs. 4—5. Appellants’ arguments have not apprised us of error in that finding. Summary for Independent Claim 1 For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness based on Niu, Tao, and Zhang. Hence, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Independent Claims 8 and 16 and Dependent Claims 2,4,5,7,9,11,12,14,18, and 20 Appellants contend that independent claims 8 and 16 “include elements similar to claim 1, and are allowable for similar reasons as described above.” Br. 17. Appellants do not make any separate patentability arguments for claims 8 and 16. Id. For the reasons discussed for claim 1, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 16. Appellants do not make any separate patentability arguments for dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 20. Br. 17. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of these dependent claims for the same reasons as the independent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Rejection of Claims 6, 13, and 20 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Appellants assert that “Hart does not rectify the defects of Niu and Tao” with respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 16. Br. 17—18. 7 Appeal 2016-006492 Application 14/306,458 Appellants do not make any separate patentability arguments for dependent claims 6, 13, and 20. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of these dependent claims for the same reasons as the independent claims. See 37C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4—9, 11—16, and 18—20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 8