Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 13, 2015

12663967 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2015)

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. 12/663,967 12/10/2009 Young-Bum KIM 678-3818 (P16379) 8906 66547 7590 11/13/2015 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER SCHEIBEL, ROBERT C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2467 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/13/2015 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 YOUNG-BUM KIM, JOON-YOUNG CHO, and HWAN-JOON KWON ____________________ Appeal 2013-009176 Application 12/663,967 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2013-009176 Application 12/663,967 2 STATEMENT THE OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 16–24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Exemplary Claim Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added): 1. A method for allocating control information in a mobile communication system, the method comprising: determining whether a transmission time determined for first control information overlaps a transmission time determined for second control information; allocating, if the transmission times overlap each other, resources for the second control information to the first control information; and transmitting the first control information on the allocated resources for the second control information. Rejection on Appeal The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 16–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by InterDigital, Scheduling and Multiplexing of CQI and ACK/NACK Feedback for Single Carrier FDMA in Evolved UTRA Uplink, 1–8 (Mar. 27–31, 2006) (3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #44bis, R1-060852; Athens, Greece) (“InterDigital” hereinafter). Appeal 2013-009176 Application 12/663,967 3 Appellants’ Contentions1 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because, as to the first step of claim 1: [T]he cited sections of InterDigital merely disclose scheduling and multiplexing of CQI and ACK/NACK for the uplink of E- UTRA. Specifically, 1) CQI is scheduled to be reported periodically, CQI and ACK/NACK will be transmitted together, and ACK/NACK in pre-allocated Time-Frequency Resources, 2) CQI is not reported, ACK/NACK will be transmitted in pre- defined DL-associated TFR, and 3) CQI and ACK/NACK will be transmitted together in pre-allocated Time-Frequency Resources (TFR3). However, these cited sections do not disclose determining whether a transmission time determined for first control information overlaps a transmission time determined for second control information, as recited in Claim 1. (App. Br. 4–5, emphasis omitted). 2. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because, as to the second step of claim 1: InterDigital merely discloses CQI and ACK/NACK will be transmitted together in pre-allocated Time-Frequency Resources (TFR3). However, InterDigital fails to teach the condition for reallocating resources, i.e., if the transmission times overlap each other, and reallocating, resources for the second control information to the first control information, as recited in Claim 1. (App. Br. 5–6, emphasis omitted). 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 16–24. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. Appeal 2013-009176 Application 12/663,967 4 3. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because, as to the third step of claim 1: [T]he Examiner [h]as admitted that "when a transmission time for a first control information (ACK/NACK) overlap a second control information (the periodically scheduled time for CQI), the ACK/NACK is transmitted with the CQI". That is, InterDigital fails to transmit the first control information on the allocated resources for the second control information instead of transmitting the second control information. (App. Br. 6, emphasis omitted). Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 because InterDigital does not disclose the argued limitations? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2–5) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following. As to Appellants’ above contention 1, we disagree. We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that a determination is made by the user equipment (UE) as to whether the transmission times of both the CQI and ACK/NACK overlap in order to determine what is to be transmitted on the resource. (Ans. 3). We conclude that an artisan would understand this to be the case. Appeal 2013-009176 Application 12/663,967 5 As to Appellants’ above contentions 2 and 3, we disagree. Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. We agree with the Examiner that “reallocating” does not have the same scope as the claimed “allocating.” We further agree the “claim language does not in any way limit the scope to transmitting the first control information instead of the second control information.” (Ans. 4, emphasis added). CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 16–24 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (2) Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 16–24 are not patentable. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 16–24 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED hh