Ex Parte Cheng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 17, 2018

13920764 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/920,764 06/18/2013
74365 7590 04/19/2018
Slater Matsil, LLP/HW/FW/HWC
17950 Preston Road, Suite 1000
Dallas, TX 75252
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ho Ting Cheng
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
HW 81081981US02 1854
EXAMINER
LINDENBAUM, ALAN LOUIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2018 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):
uspatent@huawei.com
docketing@slatermatsil.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HO TING CHENG, HANG ZHANG, and
NIMAL GAMIN! SENARATH
Appeal2017-008747 1
Application 13/920, 7 64
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JASON V. MORGAN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-27, which are all of the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Huawei Technologies Co., LTD. is indicated as being the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-008747
Application 13/920, 7 64
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to "telecommunications service network
technology, and particularly to a system and a method for estimating an
effective bandwidth." Spec. i-f 2.
Claims 1 and 27 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for
reference (emphasis added):
1. A method of effective bandwidth estimation, the method
compnsmg:
obtaining a first traffic pattern of a first traffic source from
the first traffic source;
setting a first effective bandwidth between a mean data
rate of the first traffic source and a peak data rate of the first
traffic source;
determining a first real time outage rate of the first traffic
source in accordance with the first traffic pattern of the first
traffic source and the first effective bandwidth; and
calculating a multiplexing gain comprising comparing the
first effective bandwidth, a second effective bandwidth of a
second traffic source, and a third effective bandwidth of a traffic
mix, wherein the traffic mix comprises traffic from the first
traffic source and traffic from the second traffic source.
References and Re} ections
The following is the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Scholefield
Chatterjee
Frey
Kim
Lewin
Thapliya
US 6,216,006 Bl
US 2006/0072620 Al
US 2006/0187836 Al
US 2008/0247357 Al
US 2009/0224801 Al
US 2013/0294234 Al
2
Apr. 10, 2001
Apr. 6, 2006
Aug. 24, 2006
Oct. 9, 2008
Sept. 10, 2009
Nov. 7, 2013
Appeal2017-008747
Application 13/920, 7 64
Claims 1, 16, 17, and 20-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Scholefield and Kim. Final Act. 2.
Claims 2--4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Scholefield, Kim, and Frey. Final Act. 9.
Claims 5, 6, 8-15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Scholefield, Kim, and Thapliya. Final Act. 10.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Scholefield, Kim, Thapliya, and Lewin. Final Act. 13.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Scholefield, Kim, and Chatterjee. Final Act. 13.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1,
because "the combination of Scholefield and Kim does not teach or suggest
at least [] the claimed calculation of the multiplexing gain." Br. 6.
Particularly, Appellants contend "Scholefield merely discloses the existence
and benefit of a multiplexing gain, but does not teach or suggest calculating
the multiplexing gain," and "while Kim discloses the existence of a gain
stemming from the presence of many users or calculating an outage rate,
Kim does not teach or suggest calculating a multiplexing gain .... "as
claimed. Br. 6-7.
During prosecution, we give claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. A cad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 3 67
F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "The correct inquiry in giving a claim
term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification . . . 1s
3
Appeal2017-008747
Application 13/920, 7 64
an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor[ s]
describe[] [their] invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is
consistent with the specification." In re Smith Int'!, Inc., 871F.3d1375,
1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quotations omitted).
The Examiner finds the references broadly but reasonably teach the
"calculating a multiplexing gain" limitation recited by independent claim 1,
because "nowhere does Applicant's Specification disclose a calculation used
to determine a multiplexing gain from the statistics of the first effective
bandwidth, a second effective bandwidth, and a third effective bandwidth of
a traffic mix." Ans. 15. Therefore, "the Examiner interprets the
[references'] discussion that the resulting statistical multiplexing gain results
in resource requirements ofN multiplexed users that are less than the sum of
individual resource requirements for each user to be the claimed 'calculating
a multiplexing gain comprising comparing."' Ans. 16; Scholefield 1: 10-20
("Wireless data networks ... allow[] network operators to exploit the
statistical multiplexing gain associated with the fact that there are many
users sharing multiple resources"); Kim i-f 59 ("the gain obviously appears
when many users exist").
We disagree with the Examiner's claim construction. See Br. 7.
Appellants' Specification provides that "the traffic multiplexing gain is
calculated by subtracting the effective bandwidth of the traffic mix from the
sum of the effective bandwidths of individual traffic sources." Spec. i-f 42;
see also Fig. 6. We agree with Appellants that one of ordinary skill in the
art, in light of their Specification, would understand the recited "calculating
a multiplexing gain" requires more than a description of the mere existence
and benefits of a gain. See Br. 10. Rather, the calculating step requires
4
Appeal2017-008747
Application 13/920, 7 64
"comparing" the bandwidths (e.g., subtracting the third effective bandwidth
from the sum of the other two bandwidths). See Spec. i-fi-1 60-61, Table 1.
Neither Scholefield nor Kim teaches such a calculation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, independent claim 27 which recites similar limitations,
and claims 2-26 dependent from claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-27 is reversed.
REVERSED
5