Ex Parte Hosein et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 10, 2018

12353840 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/353,840 01/14/2009 74365 7590 07/12/2018 Slater Matsil, LLP/HW/FW/HWC 17950 Preston Road, Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 75252 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Patrick Hosein 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 0948024US 3606 EXAMINER TRAN, THINHD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2466 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/12/2018 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 PA TRICK HOSEIN and THAW ATT GOP AL Appeal2017-008184 Application 12/353,840 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, DENISE M. POTHIER, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1,2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3---6, 8-30, and 37--44. Appeal Br. 6. Claims 2, 7, and 31-36 have been canceled. October 17, 2012 Amendment 9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm in part. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Action (Final Act.) mailed May 25, 2016, the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed November 30, 2016, the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed March 13, 2017, and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed May 11, 2017. 2 The real party in interest is listed as Futurewei Technologies, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2017-008184 Application 12/353,840 Invention Appellants' invention relates to a method "for scheduling multimedia streams over a wireless broadcast channel." Spec. ,r 2. The invention "provides broadcast services over a wireless network ... with advantageous features such as low terminal power usage, low channel switching delay and high broadcast channel utilization." Spec. ,r 5. These goals are achieved by only waking a terminal for desired channel bursts and "each frame may include an indication of the index of the next frame for the channel so the terminal will know when next to awake." Spec. ,r 15; see also Spec. ,r,r 31, 60. Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis: 1. A method of broadcasting data, the method comprising: receiving a plurality of broadcast data streams; assigning the broadcast data streams into a plurality of frames, wherein each frame is assigned to only one broadcast data stream, each frame carrying data from only its assigned broadcast data stream, wherein index information carried by each frame of other frames assigned to the broadcast data streams is limited, per broadcast stream, to a sole instance of index information of only a single next frame carrying data from that same broadcast data stream, and wherein the index information varies from frame-to-frame; and causing the frames to be broadcast wirelessly. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Vijayan US 2005/0141475 Al June 30, 2005 Walker US 2007/0165709 Al July 19, 2007 Steer US 2008/0159186 Al July 3, 2008 Tourapis US 2009/0010333 Al Jan. 8,2009 Huang US 2009/0028109 Al Jan.29,2009 Agrawal US 8,089,855 B2 Jan.3,2012 2 Appeal2017-008184 Application 12/353,840 The Rejections Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10-18, 21-30, and 37--44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang and Vijayan. Final Act. 3-14. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang, Vijayan, and Agrawal. Final Act. 14--15. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang, Vijayan, and Walker. Final Act. 15-16. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang, Vijayan, Walker, and Steer. Final Act. 16. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang, Vijayan, and Tourapis. Final Act. 17-18. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HUANG AND VIJAYAN Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 10-18 Regarding representative claim 1, 3 the Examiner finds Huang teaches many of its limitations (Final Act. 4), turning to Vijayan to teach the recited index information "is limited ... to a sole instance of index information of only a single next frame carrying data from the same broadcast data stream" and "varies from frame-to-frame" in claim 1 (Final Act. 4--5 (citing Vijayan ,r,r 38, 58)). Appellants argue Huang and Vijayan do not teach or suggest wherein index information carried by each frame of other frames assigned to the broadcast data streams is limited, per broadcast stream, to a sole instance of index information of 3 Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 10-18 are argued as a group. Appeal Br. 6-9. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016). 3 Appeal2017-008184 Application 12/353,840 only a single next frame carrying data from that same broadcast data stream, and wherein the index information varies from frame-to-frame as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants contend each frame in Vijayan's super-frame contains "the same encoded MAC capsule for MLCx, which contains the same location information for the next super-frame containing MLCx" (Appeal Br. 7) rather than "a sole instance of index information that varies from frame-to-frame" (Appeal Br. 8). See Appeal Br. 6-8 (citing Vijayan ,r,r 56-58, Fig. 6); see also Reply Br. 3. ISSUE UnderÂ§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Huang and Vijayan collectively would have taught or suggested, index information carried by each frame of other frames assigned to the broadcast data streams is limited, per broadcast stream, to a sole instance of index information of only a single next frame carrying data from that same broadcast data stream, and ... the index information varies from frame-to-frame? ANALYSIS Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded of error. As both the Examiner (Final Act. 4) and Appellants indicate (App. Br. 6), Huang does not teach the recited "index information" for each frame (1) "is limited ... to a sole instance of index information of only a single next frame carrying data from the same broadcast stream" and (2) "varies from frame- to-frame" as recited. Appeal Br. 16 (Claim App.). We thus confine our discussion to Vijayan. 4 Appeal2017-008184 Application 12/353,840 At the outset, we determine the Examiner has mapped each of Vijayan's super-frames to the recited "frames." See Final Act. 5. For example, the Examiner discusses "each super-frame," "the overhead information to point to the next super-frame," and "the third super-frame." Final Act. 5 (bolding omitted). Thus, although posing two possible mapping for the recited "frames" in claim 1 (see Reply Br. 34), we focus on Vijayan's discussion of the super-frame when addressing the disputed limitations. Regarding Appellants' assertion that "each of frames 1-4 in the super- frame contains the same encoded MAC capsule for MLCx, which contains the same location information for the next super-frame containing MLCx" and thus the frame is not limited "to a sole instance of index information" as recited (Appeal Br. 7 (citing Vijayan ,r 58, Fig. 6)), we are not persuaded. The recited "index information" in claim 1 has not been defined in the Specification. See generally Spec. At best, the disclosure states "each frame may include an indication of the index of the next frame ... so that the terminal will know when next to awake." Spec. ,r 15, cited in Appeal Br. 6. Moreover, the phrase "index-type information" (Reply Br. 3 (bolding omitted)) is not found in claim 1. As such, the broadest reasonable construction of "index information" in light of the Specification and as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art includes information 4 Appellants state Vijayan's "super-frame" (see Vijayan, Figs. 2 and 6) can be construed as a frame. Reply Br. 3 (stating "if [the] Examiner is interpreting one of Vijayan's super-frames to be a frame as claimed."). Alternatively, Appellants state each of Vijayan's "frames within a super-frame" (e.g., frames 1-4 in Vijayan's Figures 2 and 6) can be construed as a frame. Reply Br. 3 (stating "if [the] Examiner is interpreting each of the frames within a super-frame to be a frame as claimed."). 5 Appeal2017-008184 Application 12/353,840 that indicates where the next frame is indexed or located. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Vijayan teaches a multiplexed logic channel (MLC) "may carry one or more data streams." Vijayan ,r 9. Thus, Vijayan's MLCs include embodiments having one data/broadcast stream or a given broadcast per MLC and not different broadcast streams as Appellants assert for the first time in the Reply Brief. See Reply Br. 2. Vijayan also states the MLC's overhead information has two parts-"composite" overhead information and "embedded" overhead information. Vijayan ,r,r 9, 56, Fig. 6. Vijayan states "the embedded overhead information for each MLC in each super-frame contains location information for that MLC for a future ( e.g., next) super- frame and is transmitted along with the payload of the MLC in the current super-frame." Vijayan ,r 12. That is, as shown in Figure 6, the encoded MAC capsule's header for each MLCx in a current super-frame (e.g., MAC Capsule Header in Figure 6) contains "[the] location information for MLCx for the next super-frame, if the MLC will be transmitted in that super- frame." Vijayan ,r 58, Fig. 6. Vijayan further discusses and shows the MAC Capsule Header of the Encoded MAC Capsule for MLCx has various fields, including a Cont Next SF field, a Next SF Start Offset field, a Next SF Slot Info field, and a Next SF Stream Lengths field. Vijayan ,r 58, Fig. 6. If the MCLx is not transmitted in the next super-frame, the header may further contain Next Super-frame Offset and Reserved fields. Vijayan ,r 58, Fig. 6 (not shown). These fields in Vijayan have information that indicates where the next frame is indexed/located or "index information of only a single next frame carrying data from the same broadcast data stream" (e.g., fields carry data for a MLC 6 Appeal2017-008184 Application 12/353,840 representing one data stream in some embodiments) as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 4. Vijayan even further states each super-frame has four frames ( e.g., Frames 1-4 in Figures 2 and 6) and the encoded MAC capsule is partitioned into four portions (see dark boxes/slots in each frame in Figure 6). Vijayan ,r,r 30, 57, Figs. 2, 6. Vijayan shows and explains the encoded MAC capsule is transmitted "over four frames." Vijayan ,r 57 (italics added); see also Vijayan, Fig. 6. That is, Vijayan suggests the entire MAC capsule shown in Figure 6 is transmitted over Frames 1 through 4 in Figure 6. See Vijayan ,r,r 57-58, Fig. 6. But, the MAC Capsule Header, which carries the next super-frame's "index information" as previously explained, is transmitted only in Frame 1. See Vijayan ,r 57, Fig. 6 (showing dashed lines from the MAC Capsule Header's location, which is part of the Encoded MAC Capsule for MLCx, included only in Frame 1 ). Accordingly, Vijayan does not teach or suggest each of Frames 1 through 4 contains the same encoded MAC capsule location information as argued. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 3. Rather, as explained above, Vijayan's super-frame in Figure 6 has location information only in Frame 1 or "index information carried by each frame of other frames assigned to the broadcast streams is limited, per broadcast stream, to a sole instance of the index information of only a single next frame carrying data from that same broadcast data stream" as recited. Moreover, each frame in Vijayan (e.g., the current super-frame, the next super-frame, and the third super-frame discussed in Final Act. 5) has "index information" that "varies from frame-to-frame" ( e.g., the content within the fields discussed above differs in each superframe) as recited in 7 Appeal2017-008184 Application 12/353,840 claim 1. See also Ans. 4 (stating "the Cont Next SF, Next SF Start Offset, Next SF slot Info, and Next SF Stream Lengths are index information varies from frame to frame.") As such, we are not convinced that each frame in the super-frame and the recited "index information" from frame-to-frame contains the same location information as argued. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims, 3, 5, 6, and 10-18, which are not separately argued. Claim 21 We reach the opposite conclusion for claim 21. Claim 21 depends from claim 1 and further recites "a first broadcast data stream includes data processed with a first modulation and coding scheme and wherein a second broadcast data stream includes the same data processed with a second modulation and coding scheme." Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on Huang to teach this claim limitation. Final Act. 8 ( citing Huang ,r,r 44, 45, and 72); Ans. 6 (citing Huang ,r,r 76-77). Appellants argue the claim requires the data streams with different coding and modulation are for "the same data" and Huang fails to teach this feature. Appeal Br. 9. We agree. Huang teaches two video broadcasting streams, such "one stream carries CNN news channel program, the other carries video broadcasting information from FOX." Huang ,r 44. Paragraph 45 of Huang further describes each video stream is associated with a bit rate and deriving the number of frames per second that supports the certain bit rate but does not explicitly address modulation and coding schemes. Huang ,r 45. Huang also teaches each video stream may include control information, including "the 8 Appeal2017-008184 Application 12/353,840 coding and modulation scheme for each video burst." Huang ,r 72; see also Huang ,r 67. For example, Huang discloses a first video stream (e.g., Stream Index 1 associated with "The Simpsons" aired on FOX) having a QPSK Yz modulation and coding scheme and a second video stream ( e.g., Stream Index 2 associated with "News Update" aired on CNN) having a 16QAM 1/2 modulation coding scheme. Huang ,r,r 7 6-77. Yet, as Appellants argue, these passages in Huang do not disclose the second broadcast data stream (e.g., CNN's "News Update") "includes the same data" as the first broadcast data stream (e.g., FOX's "The Simpsons") as recited. See Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 4. Nor has the Examiner explained sufficiently how these data streams would contain "the same data" as recited. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 as proposed. Claims 22-26 and 37-39 Independent claim 22, similar to the above-discussed limitations in claim 1, recites receiving ... other-frame index information, wherein the other- frame index information is limited, for the first broadcast data, to a sole instance of index information of only a single next frame of data carrying next broadcast data related to the first broadcast data, from a wireless communication link, and wherein the index information varies from frame-to-frame. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). Appellants repeat the argument presented for claim 1. Appeal Br. 7, 9-11. We are not persuaded for reasons previously stated. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 22 and dependent claims 23-26 and 37-39, which are not separately argued. 9 Appeal2017-008184 Application 12/353,840 Claims 27-305 and 40-44 Independent claim 2 7, similar to the above-discussed limitations in claim 1, recites index information carried by the first frame of other frames assigned to the broadcast streams is limited, for the stream of interest, to a sole instance of index information of only a single next frame of data that contains the stream of interest, and ... the index information varies from frame-to-frame. Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). Appellants repeat the argument presented for claim 1. Appeal Br. 7, 11-13. We are not persuaded for reasons previously stated. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 27 and dependent claims 28-30 and 40-44, which are not separately argued. THE REMAINING REJECTIONS As for the rest of the rejections and claims, Appellants contend the additionally cited references (e.g., Agrawal, Walker, Steer, and Tourapis) do not cure the purported deficiencies of Huang and Vijayan. Appeal Br. 12-14. These arguments are not availing because, as previously stated, Vijayan teaches and suggests, when combined with Huang, the disputed features in claim 1. For the above reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejections of claims 4, 8, 9, 19, and 20. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3---6, 8-30, and 37--44 underÂ§ 103(a). 5 Although omitting claim 30 from the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 11-13), we include the pending claim for completeness. 10 Appeal2017-008184 Application 12/353,840 We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 21 underÂ§ I03(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 11