Ex Parte KIM et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 15, 2016

12534999 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2016)

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. 12/534,999 08/04/2009 Soeng-Hun KIM 1398-251 1634 66547 7590 03/16/2016 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER HUYNH, DUNG B. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2469 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/16/2016 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 SOENG-HUN KIM and HIMKE VAN SER VELDE _______________ Appeal 2014-002540 Application 12/534,999 Technology Center 2400 _______________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, JEFFREY S. SMITH and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 13–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to “a signal transmission method and apparatus of a User Equipment (UE) for a mobile communication system that is capable of improving data transmission reliability and efficiency by transmitting data based on the precise discrimination of the uplink Appeal 2014-002540 Application 12/534,999 2 transmission resource assignment messages indicative of initial transmission and retransmission.” Specification 1. Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 13. A signal transmission method of a user equipment for a mobile communication system, comprising: receiving an uplink transmission resource assignment message including a New Data Indicator (NDI) from a base station; identifying whether a buffer is empty and whether the NDI is toggled; performing a new transmission if the buffer is empty or if the NDI is toggled; and performing a retransmission if the buffer is not empty and if the NDI is not toggled. Rejections on Appeal Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Kim (US Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0157916 A1; published June 24, 2010). Final Rejection 3–4. Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim, Lee (US Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0259910 A1; published October 15, 2009) and Wang (US Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0192674 A1; published August 14, 2008). Final Rejection 5–7. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim and Lee. Final Rejection 7–8. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang and Kim. Final Rejection 8–10. Appeal 2014-002540 Application 12/534,999 3 Claim 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang, Kim and Lee. Final Rejection 10–12. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 17, 2013), the Reply Brief (filed December 9, 2013), the Answer (mailed December 8, 2013) and the Final Rejection (mailed November 5, 2012) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments 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 in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. Appellants argue that: Kim et al. teaches a different process than the “performing” steps in Claim 13, because instead of teaching performing a new transmission if the buffer is empty or if the NDI is toggled, and performing a retransmission if the buffer is not empty and if the NDI is not toggled, as claimed, Kim et al. determines whether the grant message indicates new data transmission or retransmission based on whether the NIB is the same or different from a previous NIB value. Appeal Brief 4–5 (citing Kim, paragraphs [132–134]). Appeal 2014-002540 Application 12/534,999 4 Appellants further argue that Kim fails to teach “identifying whether a buffer is empty, in response to receiving an uplink transmission resource assignment message.” Appeal Brief 5. However, the Examiner finds that claim 13 only requires the user equipment to perform the new transmission when one of the conditions occur (“performing a new transmission if the buffer is empty or if the NDI is toggled”). Answer 4. The Examiner finds that: Kim teaches the UE receives the grant message (which is an uplink transmission resource assignment message as set forth above), that including an NDI (i.e. NIB), performs a new transmission if the NDI is toggled (i.e. an NIB is changed from a previous NIB, see paragraph [0133]) and performs retransmission if the buffer is not empty (i.e. the UE retransmits data stored in the buffer and does not delete data from the buffer, see paragraphs [0133, 0134]) and if the NDI is not toggled (i.e. the UE retransmitted data stored in the buffer when the NIB is not toggled, see paragraph [0134]). Thus, clearly, Kim has taught identifying whether the buffer is empty in response to receiving the NDI in the grant message. Answer 4–5. Appellants acknowledge that Kim discloses a NDI and argue that Kim’s NDI is never taught as being ‘“received in an uplink transmission resource assignment message’ as claimed, neither expressly nor impliedly.” Reply Brief 2. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s attempt to read the grant message on the NDI is improper because the two are different. Reply Brief 2. Appellants argue: Claim 13 recites performing a new transmission if the buffer is empty or if the NDI is toggled, and performing a retransmission if the buffer is not empty and if the NDI is not toggled. Clearly, Claim 13 does not recite performing a new transmission if the Appeal 2014-002540 Application 12/534,999 5 NOI is different than a previous NDI, which is what is taught in Kim et al. Neither does Claim 13 recite performing a re- transmission if the NDI is the same as a previous NDI, as directed to in Kim et al. These two methods are clearly different. Reply Brief 2–3. Appellants’ definition of toggled is not different from Kim’s disclosure.1 Appellants disclose in the Specification on page 22, “[i]f the NDI is toggled, i.e. the NDI of the current uplink transmission resource assignment message is not identical to the NDI value of the last previously received uplink transmission resource assignment message for the HARQ process.” Therefore, we do not find Appellants’ argument that “Claim 13 does not recite performing a new transmission if the NDI is different than a previous NDI” persuasive. See Reply Brief 3. Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 13. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 14–16 which stands and falls with claim 13. See Appeal Brief 5–6. Appellants further argue that the combination of Wang and Kim fails to teach the “transmission resource control unit” limitation recited in claim 17 “since it was based on similar grounds as the rejection of claim 13.” Appeal Brief 7. Appellants argue that Wang does not address the noted deficiencies of Kim. Appeal Brief 7. We did not find Kim deficient and therefore we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent 1 “The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary sill in the art.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting American Academy, 367 F.3d at 1364). Appeal 2014-002540 Application 12/534,999 6 claim 17. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 18–20 since they stand or fall with independent claim 17. See Appeal Brief 7. DECISION The Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 13 is affirmed. The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 14–20 are 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED