Ex Parte Nosley

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 14, 2017

12308719 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2017)

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. 12/308,719 12/22/2008 Michael Nosley WN-3070P 4313 61755 7590 03/16/2017 Kunzler Law Group - Lenovo 50 W. Broadway 10th Floor SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101 EXAMINER BEDNASH, JOSEPH A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2461 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/16/2017 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): docket @ kunzlerlaw .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL NOSLEY Appeal 2016-006066 Application 12/308,719 Technology Center 2400 Before, JEREMY J. CURCURI, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 19, 22, 24, 25, and 28—30.1 Claims 2, 4—18, 20, 21, 23, 26, and 27 were cancelled previously. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 In this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” mailed November 10, 2015), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” mailed May 24, 2016), the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed April 14, 2014), the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 24, 2016), and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed December 22, 2008). Appeal 2016-006066 Application 12/308,719 STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. The Invention Applicant’s invention relates to “a method and arrangement for transmitting a broadcast channel... for a Long Term Evolution (LTE) cell in order to accommodate User Equipment (UE) handsets offering different capability levels.” Spec. 1. The broadcast channel transmission method delivers “broadcast channel data as a series of blocks, each series being provided in a segment of the system bandwidth, and distributing the broadcast channel data within each series of blocks.” Id. at Abstract. The UE “receives different blocks from different segments within a time period which is a multiple of the time period for receipt of all blocks within one segment.” Id. Figure 4 of the Specification, is reproduced below. 20 Fig. 4 Figure 4 illustrates a recent proposal which supports a minimal source rate for 1.25 MHz capable user equipment handsets. Spec. 4—5. System bandwidth 20 is 20 MHz with distributed broadcast channels 30 each separated by a 1.25 MHz band 32. Id. at 5. Handsets capable of more than 1.25 MHz will receive multiple copies of the broadcast information, wasting system capacity. Id. “Ideally a mobile with N x 1.25 MHz bandwidth capability would acquire all of the system information within 1/N the time necessary for the 1.25 MHz capable UE handset.” Id. at 5. Thus, a handset operating at 1.25 MHz will acquire the whole broadcast cycle in a time (T) whereas a handset 2 Appeal 2016-006066 Application 12/308,719 operating at 20 MHz, sixteen times faster than 1.25 MHz, will acquire the whole cycle in T/16. Id. at 6—7. The “complete system bandwidth divides into sixteen 1.25 MHz segments such that the broadcast channel cycle then be divided into sixteen blocks.” Id. at 7. Figure 5 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 20 Fig 5 Figure 5 is an “illustration of a partial grid system of information blocks against a 20 MHz system bandwidth 20 divided into 16 segments.” Spec. 7. “In order to achieve the required acquisition times, the block types must be distributed so that all blocks are present, and are ideally not repeated . . . .” Id. “The ? symbols illustrate the uncertainty that the invention seeks to overcome.” Id. As seen in the claim language, the invention fills in the ? blocks with adjacent blocks, i.e., in Figure 5 at segment 7, 8 the first pair in the first row could be 1-2, or 3-4, or 5-6, etc. Claim 1; see also Spec. 8, Fig. 8 (a matrix “which can be employed within the concept of the present invention”). If the first pair is 1-2 or 2-1, the next pair may be 3-4, 5-6 but not 1-1 because the next adjacent pair must be “a different respective one of said two 3 Appeal 2016-006066 Application 12/308,719 adjacent segments before any of different parts of said cumulative broadcast channel data are repeated in either of said two adjacent segments.” Claim 1. B. Illustrative Claim Claims 1,3, 19, 22, 24, 25, and 28—30 are pending. Claim 1 is an independent claim. Claims 3,19, 22, 24, 25, and 28—30 all depend from claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A broadcast channel transmission method for a communication system comprising a system bandwidth divided into a number of segments, each segment having a same respective bandwidth, the method comprising: delivering broadcast channel data as a respective series of blocks concurrently in each segment of the system bandwidth; and distributing broadcast channel data within each series of blocks such that a user equipment capable of receiving more than one segment receives cumulative broadcast channel data within a time period, each different part of said cumulative broadcast channel data being received in blocks of a different respective segment, wherein a total time period for receipt of said cumulative broadcast channel data within blocks of one segment is a multiple of said time period, and wherein the broadcast channel data is distributed within said each series of blocks such that a user equipment capable of receiving only two adjacent segments of said bandwidth receives each different part of said cumulative broadcast channel data in the blocks of a different respective one of said two adjacent segments before any of different parts of said cumulative broadcast channel data are repeated in either of said two adjacent segments. 4 Appeal 2016-006066 Application 12/308,719 C. The Rejections 1. Claims 1, 3, 22, 24, 25, and 28—30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2 as unpatentable over Siemens, “Considerations on E-UTRA Cell Search and Initial Access” 3 GPP TSG-RAN WGI 44, Tdoc RI-060358, Denver, USA, 13th—17th February 2006 (“DI”) and 3GPP TR 25.913 V7.3.0 (2006-04), u3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Requirements for Evolved UTRA (E-UTRA) and Evolved UTRAN (E-UTRAN) (Release 7),” March 31, 2006 (“D3”). Final Act. 2—9. 2. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dl, D3, and Ericsson et al., “Text Proposal on Cell Search in Evolved UTRA,” TSG-RAN WGI #43, Rl-051308, Seoul, Korea, November 7-11, 2005 (“D2”). Final Act. 9-10. C. Issue Appellant’s arguments present the following issue: Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Dl and D3 collectively would have taught or suggested: “a user equipment capable of receiving only two adjacent segments of said bandwidth receives each different part of said cumulative broadcast channel data in the blocks of a different respective one of said two adjacent segments before any of different parts of said cumulative broadcast channel data are repeated” (the “two adjacent segment” limitation). 2 The Specification was filed on December 22, 2008, prior to the March 13, 2013, effective date of the America Invents Act (“ALA”). Public Law 112- 29, sec. 3(n)(l). Therefore, this case is governed by pre-AIA section 103. 5 Appeal 2016-006066 Application 12/308,719 ANALYSIS We begin by construing the “two adjacent segment” limitation set forth above. As discussed below, the Examiner concludes that “two adjacent segments” result from a “2.5 MHz spectrum allocation.” Final Act. 6—7 (citing D3, 12, § 8.2 (“Spectrum flexibility”)); see also Ans. 3 (“the intent of the claim is to allow for a user equipment which can receive only two adjacent segments (e.g. 2.5 MHz).”). Appellant agrees with this construction. See, e.g., App. Br. 7 (arguing D1 segments are staggered and claim 1 requires two adjacent segments, “namely, aUE of 2.5 MHz”). The Examiner finds the “two adjacent segment” limitation is not expressly disclosed by D1 because “D1 is focused on a 1.25 MHz UE and a 5 MHz UE,” and not a UE of 2.5 MHz. Final Act. 6. However, the Examiner contends that D1 and D3 are in the same field of endeavor, “3 GPP (Evolved-UTRAN or E-UTRAN).” Id. The Examiner relies on D3’s disclosure] that it was known at the time of the invention that E-UTRAN systems were to sup [port [sic] more than merely 1.25MHz and 5 MHz bandwidths, but also 2.5 MHz spectrum allocations of paired spectrum supporting diverse spectrum arrangements supporting the delivery of same and different content over an aggregation of resources including radio band resources providing adaptive scheduling in the same and different bands in the downlink. Id. at 6—7 (citing D3, 12, § 8.2 (“Spectrum flexibility”)). The Examiner finds the D1 teaches “the staggered time-frequency BCH [broadcast channel] can be adapted to any operating bandwidth and to any capacity of the BCH.” Final Act. 5 (citing D1 § 3.2, see Fig. 3). Further, the Examiner finds D3 teaches “two adjacent segments (e.g. 2.5 MHz spectrum allocation).” Id. at 7. The Examiner finds “it would have 6 Appeal 2016-006066 Application 12/308,719 been obvious ... to consider such capabilities because D3 discloses such allocations as a requirement of the E-UTRAN system.” Id. Figure 3 of D1 is reproduced below. —---------- ----------—-------— Figure 3} l ime frequency staggered BCH Figure 3 is “an example of the time-frequency staggered BCH in a 5 MHz cell for the minimal UE bandwidth of 1.25 MHz and 4 BCH information blocks (A, B, C, D).” Dl, 3, § 3.2 (emphasis added). Appellant argues “there is nothing within Figure 3 to shows or suggests [sic] that adjacent segments within the channel are parts of the cumulative broadcast channel data.” App. Br. 7. Appellant argues that D3 does not remedy this deficiency in D1 because [t]he mere fact that D3 discloses that 2.5 spectrum allocations does not overcome the deficiencies recited above for D3 not showing what would be allocated to adjacent bandwidths. D3 only adjusts the bandwidth of different segments not what happens in each segment. 7 Appeal 2016-006066 Application 12/308,719 Id. Appellant argues Figure 3 of D1 is “an example of the time-frequency staggered BCH in a 5 MHz cell for the minimal UE bandwidth of 1.25 MHz and 4 BCM information blocks (A, B, C, D).” Id. at 7—8 (emphasis added). Appellant further contends that D1 teaches that “at least part of the BCH is always repeated before a user equipment capable of receiving only two adjacent segments of the bandwidth receives all the BCH data within those two adjacent segments.” Id. at 8. As noted above, the Examiner relies on D3 to show the “two adjacent segment” limitation. Final Act. 7. We are persuaded that the Examiner has shown rational underpinnings for combining D1 and D3. Id. at 6—7. However, we also agree with Appellant that the “two adjacent segment” limitation cannot be met by merely rearranging the staggered, not adjacent, segments of Dl’s Figure 3. App. Br. 7—8; see Final Act. 5 (“Such rearrangement would not change the basic principle of the example provided by D1.”). We are not persuaded that the disclosure of 2.5 MHz by itself would provide a motivation or reason for the person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Dl’s and D3’s elements in the manner claimed. While the invention relies on the 2.5 MHz spectrum to obtain the desired segment adjacency, we agree with Appellant that there is nothing in D3 that suggests that portion of the limitation that recites “each different part of the cumulative broadcast channel data in the blocks of a different respective one of the two adjacent segments before any of different parts of the cumulative broadcast channel data are repeated in either of the two adjacent segments.” App. Br. 8 (emphasis added). 8 Appeal 2016-006066 Application 12/308,719 The Examiner acknowledges that the “intent of the claim” is “to be able to receive all of the blocks of data before any of the blocks of data are repeated.” Ans. 3. The Examiner relies on D1 to show that the UE “is capable of receiving 1.25 MHz will receive blocks C, D, A and B (all of the information) in four consecutive time slots (BCH reading time for 1.25 MHz UEs) before any of the broadcast channel data are repeated.” Id. at 4. But the 1.25 MHz example does not include any adjacent segments, rather uploading or downloading a segment at a time. This is the very problem Appellant seeks so avoid by not repeating and uploading or downloading only adjacent segments. For the 5MHz user equipment of Dl, the Examiner argues “all four blocks of data are received in a single time slot (BCH reading time for 5MHz UEs) before any of the broadcast channel data is repeated.” Ans. 4. That a higher spectrum will handle more segments is not at issue. Neither Dl nor D3 shows handling of adjacent segments in order to avoid uploading or downloading one or more segments before all segments have been uploaded or downloaded. Neither example from Dl discloses two adjacent segments being uploaded or downloaded in order to avoid repetition for any segment. And the Examiner has not shown why the person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the segments of Dl with the 2.5 MHz allocation of D3 in the manner recited in the claim. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 19, 22, 24, 25, and 28—30 under § 103. 9 Appeal 2016-006066 Application 12/308,719 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1,3, 19, 22, 24, 25, and 28— 30 is reversed. REVERSED 10