Ex Parte Nam et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 18, 2016

12709399 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121709,399 106809 7590 Docket Clerk - SAMS P.O. Drawer 800889 Dallas, TX 75380 02/19/2010 04/20/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Young-Han Nam 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. 2009.03.007.WSO 6547 EXAMINER HOANG, THAI D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2463 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/20/2016 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): patents@munckwilson.com munckwilson@gmail.com patent.srad@samsung.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YOUNG-HAN NAM and JIANZHONG ZHANG Appeal2014-006023 Application 12/709,399 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1 and 2. Claims 3-5 are objected to, and claims 6-36 are withdrawn. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. We concur with Appellants' contention the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim l under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated byNoh2 1 Appellants identify Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. 2 US 2010/0111065 Al; published May 6, 2010. Appeal2014-006023 Application 12/709,399 because the Examiner has not shown Noh discloses a reference signal allocator configured to: allocate a first group of the plurality of reference signals to selected resource elements of a first subframe according to a reference signal pattern, wherein the first group of the plurality of reference signals is for a first group of antenna ports, and allocate a second group of the plurality of reference signals to selected resource elements of a second subframe according to the same reference signal pattern, wherein the second group of the plurality of reference signals is for a second group of antenna ports different from the first group of antenna ports, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 2--4. The Examiner cites paragraphs 16 and 117-119 of Noh as disclosing the evolution from the L TE system, which supports up to four antennas, to the LTE-A system, which supports up to eight antennas. Ans. 5---6. The Examiner cites paragraph 121 of Noh as disclosing that the LTE-A system may use a plurality of subframes, to maintain backward compatibility with the L TE system, and that the subframes are categorized into two types-first subframe and second subframe. Ans. at 6. The Examiner then concludes that these paragraphs, and Figures 14( a) through 18(b ), of Noh disclose a reference signal allocator configured to allocate reference signals as recited in the disputed limitations of claim 1. Id. In particular, the Examiner finds Figure 14(a) shows a first subframe in which reference signals for a first group of antenna ports are allocated and Figure 14(b) shows a second subframe in which reference signals for a second group of antenna ports are allocated. Id. at 6-7. Appellants contend the Examiner has misinterpreted the disclosure of Noh. App. Br. 11. In particular, citing paragraphs 145 and 146 of Noh, 2 Appeal2014-006023 Application 12/709,399 Appellants argue Figures 14(a) and (b) ofNoh use a single frame that is CDM multiplexed, i.e., the left side of the figures is for a first CDM code of a subframe and the right side is for a second CDM code of the same subframe. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 3. Appellants also argue Figures 15- 19 ofNoh, including Figures 18(a) and (b), do not teach using multiple subframes applied to antenna pairing. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 3. Appellants further argue, although Noh discloses that L TE and L TE-A use two subframes with multiple antennas, Noh does not relate this concept to Figures 14 and 18, and the disclosure of the use of two subframes with multiple antennas does not disclose the disputed limitations of claim 1. Reply Br. 3--4. In addition, Appellants argue Noh does not disclose a first group of antennas used in a first MBSFN subframe and a second group of antennas used in a second MBSFN subframe. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 4. Rather, according to Appellants, the antennas of Noh are paired with a single subframe. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 4 (citing, for example, Noh i-fl32 stating, "the UE receives a subframe to which RSs configured for first and second antenna groups were allocated"). On this record, we are not persuaded Noh discloses the disputed limitations of claim 1. "The review authorized by 35 U.S.C. Section 134 is not a process whereby the examiner ... invite[ s] the [B]oard to examine the application and resolve patentability in the first instance." Ex parte Braeken, 54 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (BPAI 1999). Here, the Examiner has not provided sufficient reasoning or explanation of why Noh, including Figures 14--19, discloses the use of multiple subframes for antenna pairing and, specifically, why Noh discloses a reference signal allocator configured to allocate (a) a first group of the plurality of reference signals, for a first group of antenna 3 Appeal2014-006023 Application 12/709,399 ports, to selected resources of a first subframe and (b) a second group of the plurality of reference signals, for a second group of antenna ports different from the first group of antenna ports, to selected resources of a second subframe, as recited in claim 1. We will not resort to speculation or conjecture to make up for this deficiency in the Examiner's anticipation rejection. Therefore, we cannot sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 1 and dependent claim 2. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 2. REVERSED 4