Ex Parte DATEKI

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2017

13283871 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 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.
13/283,871 10/28/2011 Takashi DATEKI FUJI 21.899A 3807
26304 7590 08/30/2017
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
575 MADISON AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10022-2585
EXAMINER
HOLLIDAY, JAIME MICHELE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2017 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):
nycuspto@kattenlaw.com
s amson. helfgott @ kattenlaw .com
hassan.shakir@kattenlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAKASHI DATEKI
Appeal 2017-001948
Application 13/283,871
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1 and 2, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Fujitsu Limited as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-001948
Application 13/283,871
Introduction
Appellant states the “invention relates to a mobile wireless
communication system and a wireless communication apparatus that
establishes wireless communication by controlling transmission power
according to transmission power control information.” Spec. 1:7—11.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for mobile wireless communication
system including a base station and a mobile station, the
method comprising:
multiplexing by the base station a plurality of channels
including a first channel for transmitting data, a second channel
for transmitting control information including a first power
control information, and a third channel, different from the first
and second channels, for transmitting information including a
second power control information, the first power control
information indicating a request to increase or decrease
transmission power of the mobile station;
transmitting the plurality of channels from the base
station to the mobile station; and
receiving the plurality of channels by the mobile station,
wherein the control information transmitted on the
second channel further includes modulation scheme
information, redundancy version information, retransmission
control information, and a new data indicator for transmitting
data using the first channel.
Br. 12 (Claims App’x).
Rejections
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in
view of Chen et al. (US 2002/0105929 Al; Aug. 8, 2002) (“Chen”), Kim et
al. (US 2005/0105494 Al; May 19, 2005) (“Kim”), and Iochi (US 2005/
0208973 Al; Sept. 22, 2005) (“Iochi”). Final Act. 2-5.
2
Appeal 2017-001948
Application 13/283,871
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in
view of Chen, Kim, Iochi, and Walton et al. (US 6,542,488 B2; Apr. 1,
2003) (“Walton”). Final Act. 5—6.
ISSUE
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in the rejection of both claims 1
and 2 based solely on limitations in claim 1. See Br. 7—10. Thus, for the
purpose of this appeal, the sole issue is whether the Examiner errs in the
rejection of claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions of reversible error. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions.
Instead, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasons as set forth in the
Final Rejection from which this appeal is taken and as set forth in the
Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Chen teaches
“multiplexing ... a plurality of channels including a first channel. . . , a
second channel. . ., and a third channel. . .,” as recited, because the
Examiner relies on disclosures from two different embodiments. Br. 7—8.
Specifically, Appellant contends the Examiner errs by mapping (a) the
recited first and second channels to the forward traffic channel and forward
MAC (media access control) channel from Chen’s Time Division
Multiplexing embodiment discussed in paragraphs 68—74 and (b) the recited
third channel to the shared channel (SHCH) from Chen’s Code Division
Multiplexing embodiment discussed in paragraphs 108—10. Id.
3
Appeal 2017-001948
Application 13/283,871
In an obviousness rejection, the relevant inquiry is not whether a
single embodiment discloses all elements as arranged in the claim; rather, it
is whether the claim requirements would have been obvious to those of
ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of the prior art. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, in view of the Examiner’s
findings, Appellant’s argument of error is unpersuasive.
Importantly, the rejection does not simply combine features from two
disparate embodiments. As the Examiner finds, in a single embodiment,
“Chen et al. explicitly states that the forward link time-multiplexes a
forward pilot channel, a forward MAC channel, and forward traffic
channel(s), reading on the claimed ‘multiplexing by the base station a
plurality of channels.’” Ans. 3 (citing Chen | 68); see also Final Act. 2—3.
The Examiner then relies on a second embodiment from Chen for the
requirement that the third channel is “for transmitting information including
a second power control information.” Final Act. 3. In other words, the
Examiner finds Chen’s first embodiment teaches all three multiplexed
channels, including the “third channel, different from the first and second
channels,” and Chen’s second embodiment teaches that use of a third
channel “for transmitting information including a second power control
information,” as recited. Final Act. 2—3.
In addressing the combination of teachings from the embodiments, the
Examiner further finds that “code division multiplexing merely occurs
within the time division multiplexed forward link on the shared channel,
wherein if additional power control subchannels are required, then the extra
code space may be allocated.” Ans. 3 (citing Chen || 108—10). We agree
with the Examiner that Chen teaches the combinability of time- and code-
4
Appeal 2017-001948
Application 13/283,871
division multiplexing technologies. Regarding the relatedness of the
teachings for these two embodiments, we also note Chen explains that, in a
third embodiment, “[ejither of the forward link designs [of the first two
embodiments] may be used.” Chen | 60.
In view of the foregoing, vis-a-vis the Examiner’s reliance on
teachings from two different embodiments in Chen, we find the Examiner
has sufficiently “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398,418 (2007).
Appellant also argues the Examiner errs because
Iochi, as cited, fails to disclose or suggest—and indeed, teaches
away from—a second channel for transmitting control
information including a first power control information, the first
power control information indicating a request to increase or
decrease transmission power of the mobile station, wherein the
control information transmitted on the second channel further
includes modulation scheme information, redundancy version
information, retransmission control information, and a new data
indicator for transmitting data using the first channel, as
claimed.
Br. 9.
This argument unpersuasively focuses on the disclosure of Iochi,
while ignoring the disclosures of Chen and Kim. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is
based on a combination of references. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. The
Examiner specifically cites to Chen for “a second channel for transmitting
control information including a first power control information.” Final Act.
5
Appeal 2017-001948
Application 13/283,871
3 (citing Chen || 68—74) (also citing Iochi || 48, 53, 56, 57 for this
requirement). The Examiner also cites to Kim, not Iochi or Chen, for
“wherein the control information transmitted on the second channel further
includes modulation scheme information, redundancy version information,
retransmission control information, and a new data indicator for transmitting
data using the first channel.” Final Act. 3^4 (citing Kim || 15—22, 47, 63).
Appellant’s contention that Iochi teaches away from the claim is also
unpersuasive. A teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize,
discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution. See In re Fulton,
391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “The degree of teaching away will of
course depend on the particular facts; in general, a reference will teach away
if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s
disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant.”
In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellant emphasizes some
disclosure from Iochi, see Br. 9 (citing Iochi || 53, 57—59), but does not
explain how or why it amounts to criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise
discouraging the claimed solution. Furthermore, the Examiner relies on
Chen and Kim for a significant portion of the claim limitations for which
Appellant argues Iochi teaches away.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 1.
We also sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 2 for the same
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
6
Appeal 2017-001948
Application 13/283,871
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under
§ 103(a).
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