Ex Parte Qi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

11213328 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 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.
11/213,328 08/26/2005 Bi Qi 4100-Bi-42-US 8947
114592 7590 04/04/2017
Aloatel-T noent TT.SA Tno
EXAMINER
C/O Davidson Sheehan LLP
8834 North Capital of TX Hwy
JAIN, ANKUR
Suite 100 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
Austin, IX /s/py
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 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):
docketing@ds-patent.com
kasey.larocca@ds-patent.com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BI QI, YANG YANG, and LILY H. ZHU
Appeal 2016-000548
Application 11/213,328
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In an earlier Decision involving the instant application, Ex Parte
Appeal No. 2011-006470 mailed January 3, 2014 (the “Prior Decision”), we
reversed the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—12 and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen and Damnjanovic.
In this appeal, Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of
the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—14, which constitute all the
Appeal 2016-000548
Application 11/213,328
claims pending in this application. Claims 15—20 have been withdrawn from
consideration. Final Act. I.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants ’ Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns wireless communication
methods adjusting the transmitting power of a wireless unit based on
feedback received over a forward link on either an acknowledgement
channel or an automatic repeat channel. Spec. 1:2—3; 4:18—5:20; Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claims 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method for communication with at least one wireless
unit over a forward and a reverse link in a wireless network, the
method comprising:
receiving a feedback indication on a first channel that is
also used for another purpose than providing the feedback
indication, wherein the first channel comprises at least one of an
acknowledgement (ACK) channel or an automatic repeat request
(ARQ) channel over said forward link, the feedback indication
indicating a performance for reception of a transmission on at
least a second channel over said reverse link, and
adjusting transmit power of the wireless unit associated
with said network based on said feedback indication.
1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) filed Aug. 26, 2005;
Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed Feb. 18, 2015; and Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.”) filed Oct. 5, 2015. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed Aug. 4, 2015, and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) (“Final
Act.”) mailed Nov. 17, 2014.
2
Appeal 2016-000548
Application 11/213,328
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 6—8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by over Tsai et al. (US 2005/0009551 Al, published
Jan. 13, 2005) (“Tsai”).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 4, 5, 9, and 11—13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsai and Chen et al.
(2003/0130002 Al, published July 10, 2003) (“Chen”).
3. The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Tsai, Chen, and Cai et al. (US 2004/0229572 Al,
published Nov. 18, 2004) (“Cai”).
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in finding Tsai discloses:
receiving a feedback indication on a first channel that is
also used for another purpose than providing the feedback
indication, wherein the first channel comprises at least one of an
acknowledgement (ACK) channel or an automatic repeat request
(ARQ) channel over said forward link, the feedback indication
indicating a performance for reception of a transmission on at
least a second channel over said reverse link
as recited in Appellants’ claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as being anticipated by
Tsai. See Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 10—11. Appellants contend that Tsai do not
disclose the disputed features of claim 1. App. Br. 4—6; Reply Br. 2—5.
3
Appeal 2016-000548
Application 11/213,328
Specifically, Appellants contend that “Tsai. . . discloses the use of two
channels (as illustrated in FIG. 1) to separately convey the power control
commands and the signal quality information feedback” and
Tsai does not disclose that the second channel (whose purpose
is to convey ACK/NAK messages) is also used to provide
another feedback indication that indicates a performance for
reception of a transmission on a second channel over the
reverse link and is used to adjust the transmit power of the
wireless unit.
App. Br. 5.
We agree with Appellants that Tsai does not disclose the disputed
features of claim 1. The Examiner’s rejection demonstrates a
misunderstanding of either Appellants’ claim limitations or the Tsai
reference. Appellants’ claim 1 requires receiving a feedback indication on a
first channel (an ACK or ARQ channel) over the forward link (see
Appellants’ Figure 1; Tsai Fig. 1), where the feedback indicates performance
with respect to a second channel over the reverse link (see Appellants’
Figure 1; Tsai Fig. 1), and the first channel is utilized for another purpose.
That is, a purpose other than sending an ACK or ARQ message.
The ACK (or ARQ) channel recited in the claim is different from but
related to the ACK (or ARQ) message described in Tsai. The message (e.g.,
ACK message) is sent over the channel (e.g., ACK channel of claim 1).
As explained by Appellants (App. Br. 4—6; Reply Br. 2—5) Tsai
explicitly describes two types of messages for controlling the power output
by a transceiver — power control commands and reception error feedback
that are sent on separate channels. See Tsai, Figs. 1,2. Tsai transmits, for
example, a pilot signal at a first power P, and a second (control channel)
signal at a power that is related to the first signal power by a controlled
4
Appeal 2016-000548
Application 11/213,328
power gain factor. See Tsai 123. The transmit power of the two signals are
controlled by different messages — the power control commands and
reception error feedback, respectively. See Tsai ]Hf 23, 24. Tsai describes
using the ACK message, which is reception error feedback (see Tsai, Fig. 1)
to control the gain factor. See Tsai Tflf 22— 24. As explained by Appellants,
because Tsai describes using the ACK message (reception error feedback) to
control transmit power (the power gain factor), Tsai would have to disclose a
second feedback (message) to meet the disputed claim limitations — “a first
channel that is also used for another purpose than providing the feedback
indication” (claim 1). Tsai’s power control messages (for controlling the
power of the first signal over the first channel, e.g., a pilot signal) are not
sent over the ACK/ARQ channel (see Tsai, Fig. 1), and so, Tsai does not
disclose the required second feedback. Therefore we find, based on a
preponderance of the evidence, that Tsai does not disclose “receiving a
feedback indication on a first channel that is also used for another purpose
than providing the feedback indication, wherein the first channel comprises
at least one of an acknowledgement (ACK) channel or an automatic repeat
request (ARQ) channel over said forward link,” as recited in claim 1.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Tsai discloses the disputed limitations of
Appellants’ claim 1. Dependent claims 6—8, and 10 depend on claim 1. We
are also constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred
in concluding that Tsai and Chen teach the disputed limitations of
Appellants’ claims 2, 4, 5, 9, and 11—13; and Tsai, Chen, and Cai teach the
disputed limitations of Appellants’ claims 3 and 14 for the same reasons as
5
Appeal 2016-000548
Application 11/213,328
claim 1 {supra). Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 1—14.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—14.
REVERSED
6