Ex Parte Niwano

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 4, 2018

14162522 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/162,522 01/23/2014 Kazuhito NIW ANO 22850 7590 05/08/2018 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 1940 DUKE STREET ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 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. 427793US20DIV 1084 EXAMINER SHEN,QUN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2643 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/08/2018 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): patentdocket@oblon.com oblonpat@oblon.com tfarrell@oblon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KAZUHITO NIW ANO 1 Appeal2016-007144 Application 14/162,522 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-13, all the pending claims in the present application (see Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). An Oral Hearing was held on April 24, 2018. We AFFIRM. The present invention relates generally to a mobile station and a base station which communicate packet data with each other in a Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) mobile communication system (Spec., 1: 11-13). 1 Appellant names Mitsubishi Electric Corporation as the real party in interest (App. Br. 1). Appeal2016-007144 Application 14/162,522 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A mobile station comprising: a radio link controller that outputs or inputs data that is transmitted to or received from a base station via a radio channel to or from a higher-level protocol layer; a media access controller that outputs or inputs said data via a logical channel to or from said radio link controller; and a radio resource controller that controls the radio link controller and the media access controller, wherein the media access controller multiplexes report information to be transmitted to the base station into a channel for packet data transmission and transmits the report information to the base station. Appellant appeals the following rejections: RI. Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,149,765 (Final Act. 4); R2. Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Peisa (US 6,826,193 Bl, Nov. 30, 2004), Choi (US 2003/0185193 Al, Oct. 2, 2003), and Samsung (Juho Lee, Uplink Signalling of Scheduling Information, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG 1 #34 Meeting, Seoul, Keora, Oct. 6-10 (2003)) (Final Act. 4--8); R3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Peisa, Choi, Samsung, and Jiang (US 2003/0147348 Al, Aug. 7, 2003); and R4. Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Peisa, Choi, Samsung, and Kadaba (US 7,158,504 B2, Jan. 2, 2007). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced 2 Appeal2016-007144 Application 14/162,522 thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS Double Patenting Rejection At the outset, we observe that Appellant presents no arguments on appeal regarding the Examiner's obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1-13. We note that arguments not made are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(vii). Therefore, we proforma affirm the Examiner's obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claim 1-13. Rejection underÂ§ 103 (a) Claims 1 and 5-13 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited art collectively teaches or suggests multiplexing report information into a channel for packet data transmission, as set forth in representative claim 1? Appellant contends that Choi "merely describes a process of mapping the control channel data into a Dedicated Control Channel (DCCH) for transmission ... [ and] does not teach or suggest multiplexing the control channel data into the dedicated transport channel (DTCH) for transmission" (App. Br. 7). Appellant further contends that "[ n Jone of the information shown in Fig. 11 [of Choi], such as 'TB Size =100' is actually transmitted to the base station," therefore such information is not information to be transmitted to the base station as required by the claims (id.). Appellant also contends that Samsung "fails to disclose that these reports are multiplexed into a channel for packet data transmission" (id. at 8). 3 Appeal2016-007144 Application 14/162,522 In essence, Appellant appears to concede that although Samsung teaches the claimed report information, neither Samsung nor Choi teach or suggest multiplexing such information into a channel for packet transmission. Appellant presents no arguments regarding Peisa. The Examiner finds that "one of the primary functions of [the] MAC layer ... are multiplexing and de-multiplexing the data packets ... [because] [ s ]uch multiplexing and de-multiplexing functions handle both uplink and downlink communications" (Ans. 4) and "are well understood in the field and essentially textbook knowledge" (id. at 5). The Examiner further finds that "the transport channel of Choi, including CPCH, DCCH, or DTCH, is a channel for packet data transmission" (id.) and both Peisa and Choi show "examples of report information being mapped or multiplexed in the MAC entity" (id.). We agree with the Examiner. For example, Peisa discloses "communicating with the mobile stations via Base Transceiver Stations (BTS)" (1 :23-24), that "the MAC entity has to decide how much data to transmit on each transport channel connected to it" and that the transport channels "are later multiplexed onto a single physical channel at the physical layer" (2:6-10). Similarly, Choi teaches "[t]he UMTS channels can be classified into physical channels, transport channels, and logical channels," including a Dedicated Control Channel (DCCH) and a Dedicated Traffic Channel (DTCH) (i-f 7). In Choi, the "the MAC layer 115 receives a PDU from the RLC layer 113, divides the received PDU into TBs, which are real units transmitted through the transport channel" (i-f 8) and "the MAC layer 115 reads the PDUs stored in the DCCH/DTCH buffer 119 and maps them onto the transport channel, generates TBs by multiplexing and adding headers" (i-f 9). Choi further discloses that "a receiving-side of the 4 Appeal2016-007144 Application 14/162,522 communication entity, e.g., a UE, can decode and demultiplex the transport channel by analyzing the TFCI of the transport channel" (i-f 14; see also ,r 120). Finally, Samsung discloses reporting information such as scheduling information and buffer occupancy (Section 2). In other words, the aforementioned combined teachings suggest utilizing multiplexing techniques, in part on Transport Blocks (TBs ), i.e., report information, and transmitting the same through the transport channels to a base station. As such, we agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings of Peisa, Choi, and Samsung teach or suggest multiplexing report information into a channel for packet transmission to a base station. In part, Appellant's arguments do not take into account what the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art and are therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981 )("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.") (citations omitted). Appellant's arguments fail to consider what the combined teachings of all three references, i.e., Piesa, Choi, and Samsung, would have suggested. Further, although Appellant contends that "just as one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the difference between control information and payload data, this same distinction also applies to the difference between the channels used to transmit this information" (Reply Br. 2) and "the 5 Appeal2016-007144 Application 14/162,522 channel for packet data transmission recited in claim 1 should be construed as a channel ( e.g. DTCH) for transmission of payload packet data" (id.), we note that claim 1 fails to recite any particular channel type or payload packet data. Instead, claim 1 merely recites "report information" and "a channel for packet data transmission" (see claim 1 ). While we interpret claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See Phillips v. A WH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005). As such, we find that claim 1 does not necessarily require that "a channel for packet data transmission" be construed as a DTCH or that the "report information" be limited to payload packet data. In any case, we note that at least Choi discloses a DTCH channel being used for data transmission (see ,r 7) and Choi and Samsung both teach data that can be construed as payload packet data (see Choi ,r 8 and Samsung section 2). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Appellant's arguments regarding the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 11-13 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellant does not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims, except as noted below. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 5- 13. Claim 2 Appellant contends that Choi "merely describes that adding headers 'according to the type of the mapped transport channel' and fails to teach or suggest that report information from said mobile station is placed in a header of data in a data format" (App. Br. 9). 6 Appeal2016-007144 Application 14/162,522 The Examiner finds that Choi "implicitly indicates the header includes TBS (transport block set) size" (Ans. 6). We disagree with the Examiner. For example, the portion of Choi cited by the Examiner merely discloses that "the information updated in the TB info table 511 includes ... MAC header sizes" (i-f 102). Therefore, we find persuasive Appellant's contention that the Examiner fails to demonstrate that Choi teaches report information being placed in a header, as set forth in claim 2, given that the cited portion of Choi merely discloses a table including header size information. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the proposed combination of references set forth by the Examiner does not support the obviousness rejection of claim 2. Claim 3 Appellant contends that the Examiner's "reliance on design choice to assert that report information could be included anywhere in the packet is clearly misplaced since there is a clearly disclosed advantage to providing it at the tail end in a data format" (App. Br. 10). For example, Appellant's Specification discloses that "a parameter P is added to the tail end of the report information ... the base station can carry out the scheduling more efficiently by using the information for the scheduling" (Spec., 38:26-39:7). In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that "[t]he cited benefit relates to the merit by including parameter P as a part of report information, not the benefit of putting report information at the end of the data packet" (Ans. 7). Therefore, we find unavailing Appellant's contention that the Examiner's reliance on design choice is misplaced. 7 Appeal2016-007144 Application 14/162,522 Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 3. Claim 4 The Examiner finds that Choi' s "Uplink Logical Channel information implies whether [the] channel contains report information" (Final Act. 7). In response, Appellant contends that "[ w ]hile it may be true that a field might be empty when it does not include any report information, this is not the same as the existence of specific information area indicating presence or absence of the report information" (App. Br. 10). The Examiner then finds in the Answer that "Choi teaches setting transport block size to be zero, indicating absence of the report information, [ w ]hile non zero value indicating presence of the report information" (Ans. 7). Appellant fails to rebut this new finding in the Reply Brief. When Appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue - or, more broadly, on a particular rejection - the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. Ex Parte Frye, 94 at 1075 (citing, inter alia, Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived)). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 4. DECISION We reverse the Examiner'sÂ§ 103(a) rejection of claim 2. We affirm the Examiner's obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1-13. We affirm the Examiner'sÂ§ 103(a) rejections of claims 1 and 3-13. 8 Appeal2016-007144 Application 14/162,522 Since at least one rejection encompassing all claims on appeal is affirmed, the decision of the Examiner is affirmed. 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 9