Ex Parte LEE

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2016

13466237 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/466,237 05/08/2012 JUNG A.LEE
114592 7590 04/27/2016
Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc,
C/O Davidson Sheehan LLP
700 Lavaca St.
Suite 1400-2323
Austin, TX 78701
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.
4100-Lee-15-US-Cl 2684
EXAMINER
AHN,SUNGS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2016 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):
docketing@ds-patent.com
beatrice. zepeda@ds-patent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUNG A. LEE
Appeal2014-005686
Application 13/466,237
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 21-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appeal2014-005686
Application 13/466,237
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention multiplexes code-division and frequency-
division transmissions for wireless communications. See generally Abstract.
In particular, the invention reserves some transmission time intervals (TTis)
for shared-data transmission by multiple users, and others for dedicated
transmission by a single user. Spec. 16:11-12. In dedicated mode, the
invention can encode data using frequency-division protocols. Id. at 13: 16-
18. In shared mode, the invention can use coding sequences having a cyclic
correlation property. Id. at 11 :4--5. In one embodiment, Appellant's process
associates an identifier with each TTI to indicate whether the transmission
mode is shared or dedicated. Id. at 12: 18-21. These features provide
flexible resource allocation and improved channel utilization over previous
approaches. See id. at 8: 12-9:8; see also id. at 17:9-23. Claim 21,
reproduced below with our emphasis, is illustrative:
21. A method, comprising:
transmitting, from a transmission device during a
transmission time interval (TTI), at least one first encoded
symbol from a first data stream when a TTI identifier indicates
that dedicated channel resources are used during the TTI; and
transmitting, from the transmission device during the
TTI, said at least one second encoded symbol 1 from a second
data stream when the TTI identifier indicates that shared
channel resources are used during the TTI, wherein said at least
one second encoded symbol is encoded using a coding sequence
generated using a cyclic shift of an initial sequence.
1 Upon further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether this
recitation of "said at least one second encoded symbol" is supported by
adequate antecedent basis.
2
Appeal2014-005686
Application 13/466,237
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 21, 22, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ma (US 2009/0028258 Al; published Jan. 29,
2009) and Khan (US 2006/0285483 Al; published Dec. 21, 2006). Final
Act. 4--8. 2
The Examiner rejected claims 23 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ma, Kahn, and Classon (US 200710064669 Al; published
Mar. 22, 2007). Final Act. 8.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER MA AND KHAN
The Examiner finds that Ma discloses every recited element of claim
21 except for a separate encoding for unicast and broadcast data symbols,
but cites Khan as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would
have been obvious. Final Act. 4--6. According to the Examiner, Ma's cyclic
prefix insertion is "part of an encoding process for data symbol transmission
in the transmitter." Ans. 4 (citing Ma i-fi-1 46-47).
Appellant argues, among other things, that Ma's cyclic prefix is not
used to encode symbols. App. Br. 4--5; Reply Br. 3. According to
Appellant, Ma uses a cyclic prefix as a buffer, or "guard interval," between
transmitted symbols, but does not use the prefix to encode the symbols.
App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 3.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Office Action mailed
May 20, 2013 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed October 21, 2013
("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed February 10, 2014
("Ans."); and ( 4) the Reply Brief filed April 9, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal2014-005686
Application 13/466,237
ISSUE
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 by finding
that Ma would have taught or suggested encoding at least one second
encoded symbol using a coding sequence generated using a cyclic shift of an
initial sequence?
ANALYSIS
Because the Examiner relies on Ma alone-not Khan-to teach the
limitation at issue (Final Act. 4--6), we address the Examiner's position
based on Ma, and confine our discussion to that reference.
We begin by construing the key disputed limitation of claim 21, which
recites, in pertinent part, "encoded." To this end, we look to Appellant's
Specification, which is "always highly relevant" and the "single best guide
to the meaning of a disputed term." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane).
The Specification provides an example of encoding a symbol using
coding sequence using a cyclic shift. Spec. 11: 17-12:3; see also Fig. 3. For
example, Figure 3 shows an exemplary constant amplitude zero
autocorrelation (CAZAC) coding sequence that has a cyclic correlation
property. This coding sequence uses a cyclic prefix. Spec. 11: 19-22. To
encode using the sequence, scrambler 160 converts data-symbol stream 145
to a multi-code stream by multiplying the symbols by the coding sequence.
Id. at 11 :4--12.
4
Appeal2014-005686
Application 13/466,237
But unlike other terms, 3 we do not find any express definition in the
Specification for "encoding." Nor is a definition implied by the term's use
in the above example, particularly in light of Appellant's express statements
to that effect. See id. at 8: 18-24 (stating that no special definition of the
disclosed terms is intended to be implied unless expressly stated). So
although this example informs our construction of "encoded," it does not
define the term to so limit our interpretation apart from its plain meaning.
One plain meaning of "encoding" is "converting data into code .... "
HARRY NEWTON, NEWTON'S TELECOM DICTIONARY 307 (21st ed. 2005); see
also STEVEN M. KAPLAN, WILEY ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING
DICTIONARY 256 (2004) (defining "encoded" as "1. information, such as
data, which is in the form of a code. Also called encrypted ....
2. Information, such as data, which has been scrambled in some manner.").
So, consistent with this plain meaning and the Specification, as discussed
above, we interpret the recited symbol encoding to include converting data
to coded symbols.
Given this interpretation, we are persuaded that Ma's symbols are not
encoded using a cyclic shift of an initial sequence, as recited. See
App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 3. Although Ma discloses a cyclic prefix, the
Examiner has not shown this prefix is used to encode symbols, as recited in
claim 21. See Final Act. 4-6.
To be sure, both Appellant's and Ma's processes share common
features. For example, Ma scrambles data and inserts cyclic prefixes. See
3 See, e.g., Spec. 7:20-8:2 (defining "processing," "computing,"
"calculating," "determining," and "displaying").
5
Appeal2014-005686
Application 13/466,237
Ma, Fig. 4 (elements 46, 64). Likewise, Appellant's system scrambles data
(Fig. 1 (160)) and inserts cyclic prefixes (Fig. 1 (130)).
But in addressing the claimed encoding, the Examiner does not find
that Ma's scrambler encodes using a cyclic shift. See Final Act. 4---6.
Rather, the Examiner maps Ma's cyclic prefix insertion to the claimed
encoding. Id. For the reasons discussed below, we find this position
problematic in light of the ordinary and customary meaning of "encode."
Before cyclic prefix insertion, Ma's performs several key steps. See
Ma, Fig. 4. Initially, Ma groups information bits into symbols. Id. i-fi-f 126-
27. These symbols represent locations in an amplitude and phase
constellation. Id. i-f 128. Encoder 60 modifies these symbols to make them
more resistant to interference, and sends the encoded symbols to an Inverse
Fast Fourier Transform (IFFT). Id. i-fi-f 128-29. The IFFT block maps the
encoded symbols to consecutive samples in time. Id. i-f 129.
Ma then replicates a number of these samples from the end portion of
a symbol. Id. i1 46. These replicated samples are the cyclic prefix. Id. To
reduce inter-symbol interference, Ma transmits the cyclic prefix during the
"guard interval" between symbols. Id.
But we do not see-nor has the Examiner shown-how Ma's
replicating and transmitting symbol samples encodes the symbols. See
Final Act. 4--5. Specifically, the Examiner does not explain how Ma's cyclic
prefix insertion converts symbols to code, as required by the plain meaning
of "encode." See id; see also Ans. 4. Instead, Ma's symbols are merely
transmitted after the cyclic prefix. Ma i-fi-1 46-4 7 ,cited in Final Act. 4--5.
Although Appellant's encoding and Ma's cyclic prefix insertion both
involve cyclic prefixes (see Final Act. 5 (citing Spec. 11, Figs. 3--4)), this
6
Appeal2014-005686
Application 13/466,237
feature alone is not sufficient to satisfy the limitation. Notably, both
Appellant's scrambler 160 and cyclic-prefix inserter 130 use a cyclic prefix.
Spec. 10:5-7; id. at 11 :5-12. Claim 21, however, calls for encoding
symbols using cyclic shift, which finds support in the former disclosure. See
id. at 11 :4--15. Under the plain meaning of "encoding," we agree that the
Examiner has not shown that Ma's cyclic prefix insertion converts data to
coded symbols.
The Examiner also cites Ma's Figure 2 and paragraphs 117 and 118
for teaching a baseband processor for encoding and decoding data symbols.
Final Act. 5. Although paragraph 118 refers to Ma's above-discussed
encoder, the relied-upon disclosure does not teach or suggest a cyclic prefix.
See Ma i-fi-f 117-18; see also id. i-fi-f 128-29 (describing Ma's encoder logic).
Nor does the Examiner explain how a cyclic prefix is used by encoder 60.
See Final Act. 5. Ma's Figure 2 is unavailing in this regard because this
figure only shows Ma's hardware without reference to the encoder logic or
prefixes. See Ma, Fig. 2. Rather, Ma's cyclic prefix is (1) inserted using
prefix insertion logic 64 as shown in Fig. 4, and (2) removed using prefix
removal logic 86 as shown in Fig. 5, both of which are not encoders for the
reasons previously discussed. See Ma i-fi-f 129, 131. On this record, the
Examiner has not shown that Ma's encoder 60---or any other encoder in
Ma-uses a coding sequence generated using a cyclic shift of an initial
sequence, as claimed.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
(1) independent claim 21, (2) independent claim 24, which also requires at
least one symbol "encoded using a coding sequence generated using a cyclic
shift of an initial sequence," and (3) dependent claims 22 and 25, for similar
7
Appeal2014-005686
Application 13/466,237
reasons. Because this issue is dispositive regarding the Examiner's error in
rejecting these claims, we need not address Appellant's other arguments.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER MA, KAHN, AND CLASSON
The Examiner rejects claims 23 and 26 additionally citing Classon for
the limited purpose of showing that hybrid-automatic-repeat-request
(HARQ) identifiers were known. Final Act. 8.
Because the Examiner has not shown that the additional cited
reference cures Ma's above-noted deficiencies, we also do not sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 23 and 26 (id.) for similar
reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 21-26 is reversed.
REVERSED
8