Ex Parte Choi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 2, 2017

13944081 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 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.
13/944,081 07/17/2013 Hyung-Nam Choi 27701-007926C1 5413
114746 7590
Apple Inc. — FKM
150 Broadway
Suite 702
New York, NY 10038
EXAMINER
LE, BRIAN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2469
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HYUNG-NAM CHOI
Appeal 2016-005103
Application 13/944,0811
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JON M. JURGOVAN,
and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—8 and 15—26, which constitute all of
the claims pending in this appeal. App. Br. 2. Claims 9—14 have been
canceled. Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-005103
Application 13/944,081
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a base station for coordinating error correction in a
wireless communication system according to a transmission schedule
received from a first transmitter. Spec. 113, Fig. 3. In particular, upon
receiving a first data packet including a corruption from the first transmitter,
and a second data packet containing error correction from a second
transmitter, the base station decodes the first data packet and correct the
corruption using the correction data in the second data packet.
Subsequently, the base station transmits an acknowledgment message to the
first transmitter or the second transmitter. Id. at 122.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A method for receiving a wireless communication,
comprising;
receiving a transmission schedule from a first transmitter over a
wireless interface;
receiving a first data packet from the first transmitter over the
wireless interface based upon the transmission schedule, the first data packet
including a corruption;
receiving a second error correction data packet from a second
transmitter over the wireless interface based upon the transmission schedule;
decoding the received first data packet, the corruption being
corrected based upon the second error correction data packet; and
transmitting an acknowledgement message.
Illustrative Claim
Prior Art Relied Upon
Agrawal et al.
Terry et al.
US 2009/0323577 Al
US 2010/0296431 Al
Dec. 31,2009
Nov. 25, 2010
2
Appeal 2016-005103
Application 13/944,081
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1—8 and 15—26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Terry and Agrawal. Final Act.
2-15.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 2—9, and the Reply Brief, pages 2—8.2
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as
otherwise indicated hereinbelow, we adopt as our own the findings and
reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s
Appeal Brief. Ans. 2—21, Final Act. 2—15. However, we highlight and
address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues that the
combination of Terry and Agrawal does not teach or suggest a base station
receiving different data packets from two separate transmitters. App. Br. 4—
5. In particular, Appellant argues the following:
[Wjhile the MAC PDU Y of Terry originates in the
transmitter 805, the relay 815 does not simply forward the MAC
PDU Y received from the transmitter 805. The relay 815 ofTerry
decodes the MAC PDU and transmits some or all of the MAC
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 6, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed Apr. 11,
2016), and the Answer (mailed Feb. 10, 2016) for their respective details.
We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3
Appeal 2016-005103
Application 13/944,081
PDU header information to the receiver 810. (See Terry, [0066]).
Since the relay 815 decodes the information received from the
transmitter 805 prior to communicating with the receiver 810, the
relay 815 is not sending the same information to the receiver 810
as the information that originated from the transmitter 805. The
relay 815 is transmitting information encoded by the relay 815,
not information encoded by the transmitter 805. This decoded
MAC PDU information, like the Status Report Triggering Signal
1005, is originated at the relay 815. Thus, the receiver 810 in
Terry only receives data from a first transmitter, the relay 815.
Id.
According to Appellant, because the relay decodes the information
received from the transmitter, the relay sends to the receiver the decoded
information, as opposed to the information as received from the transmitter.
Id. at 5-6, Reply Br. 3—5 (citing Terry || 35, 37). Therefore, Appellant
contends that Terry’s receiver receives data packets from a single
transmitter, namely the relay, as opposed to two separate transmitters as
required by the claim. Id. This argument is not persuasive.
At the outset, we note that although claim 1 recites receiving data
packets from two separate transmitters, the claim does not preclude the
involvement of a third device in that transmission. As correctly noted by the
Examiner, the claim does not require a direct communication between each
of the transmitters and the receiver. Ans. 17. Instead, it merely requires
receiving data from a first transmitter and a second transmitter. Further, as
correctly noted by the Examiner, Terry discloses an embodiment wherein the
relay device merely relays or forwards (without decoding) to the receiver
the data packet (MAC PDU Y) received from the transmitter. Id. at 13—15
(citing Terry 135, Fig. 8). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the
4
Appeal 2016-005103
Application 13/944,081
intermediary role of the disclosed relay device does not in any way preclude
the data packet received from the transmitter to be relayed to the receiver.
Id. Additionally, even if the relay device decoded the information received
from the transmitter to thereby transmit the decoded information to the
receiver, such a transformation of the data packet would still fall within the
scope of the disputed limitation, which does not preclude the intermediary
device from translating the received data before forwarding it to the receiver.
Simply put, because the disclosed receiver receives the MAC PDU Y data
packet that originates from the transmitter [with the receiver as the target
destination], Terry teaches that the data packet is received [by the receiver]
from the transmitter.
Second, Appellant argues that Terry never sends an error correction
packet, but rather just retransmits the same packet. App. Br. 6. Therefore,
Appellant submits that Terry does not teach or suggest the corruption in the
first data packet being corrected based on the correction received in the
second data packet. Id. Further, Appellant argues that Agrawal does not
cure the noted deficiencies of Terry because, like Terry, it teaches a single
base station for transmitting first and second data packets. Id. at 7. These
arguments are not persuasive.
As correctly noted by the Examiner, Appellant’s arguments are
tantamount to an individual attack against the references. Ans. 18. As
reiterated by the Examiner, Terry is relied upon for its teaching of a
transmitter sending a first data packet including a corruption (MAC PDU Y,
which a relay device does not deliver) to a receiver, and a relay device
sending a second data packet including a correction (status report triggering
signal to the receiver, which identifies bad packets). Id. at 18—19 (citing
5
Appeal 2016-005103
Application 13/944,081
Terry || 35—36, 58—59, 69, Figs. 8, 10). Further, the Examiner relies upon
Agrawal for its teaching of a base station transmitting a transmission
schedule, as well as an error signal and a subsequent correction signal used
to correct the error signal by soft combining the two transmissions of the
received packet. Ans. 20—21 (citing Agrawal 132). We agree with the
Examiner that the proposed combination of Terry and Agrawal would have
predictably resulted in a wireless system having a base station for
dynamically correcting error in received packets. See KSR Int 7 Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Further, we note that although Appellant discusses the cited portion
Agrawal, Appellant nowhere addressed, let alone rebutted the Examiner’s
finding that Agrawal’s disclosure of soft combining the two transmissions of
the packet teaches using the correction in the second transmission to correct
the error in the first transmission. See Final Act. 3 (citing Agrawal 132).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 over the combination of Terry and Agrawal.
Because Appellants do not make separate arguments for patentability
of claim 2—8, and 15—26 above, the cited claims fall with claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 1—8 and 15—26.
6
Appeal 2016-005103
Application 13/944,081
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7