Ex Parte Schumacher et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 26, 201412210734 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOSEPH R. SCHUMACHER, MARK G. SPIOTTA, and GEORGE F. CUMMINGS III ____________ Appeal 2012-001771 Application 12/210,734 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-001771 Application 12/210,734 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner finally rejecting claims 1-8 and 13-16, all the claims pending in the application. Claims 9-12 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The present invention relates generally to optimizing downlink transmission in the wireless communication network. Spec. ¶ [0001]. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for optimizing downlink transmission m a wireless communication network, the method comprising: determining a distance of each of a plurality of remote devices from a network node; and allocating downlink symbols of a frame for the downlink transmission based on the determined distance of each of the plurality of remote devices, wherein earlier downlink symbols of the frame that are associated with one or more data bursts positioned at a beginning of the frame are allocated to at least one remote device of the plurality of remote devices positioned more distant from the network node in comparison to at least one other remote device positioned less distant from the network node. Appellants appeal the following rejection: Claims 1-8 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brunel (US 2008/0240003 A1, Oct. 2, 2008) and Shankara (US 2008/0075047 A1, Mar. 27, 2008). Appeal 2012-001771 Application 12/210,734 3 We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’ arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Brunel and Shankara teaches and/or suggests “earlier downlink symbols of the frame that are associated with one or more data burst positioned at a beginning of the frame,” as set forth in claim 1. Here, the Examiner admits that Brunel does not explicitly disclose the aforementioned limitation (see Ans. 11), but instead relies upon Shankara to disclose this feature. As such, we shall look for error in the Examiner’s interpretation of Shankara. As identified by Appellants, Shankara “discloses allocat[ing] burst data according to time instead of distance” (App. Br. 9). Specifically, Shankara discloses that “the ingress router 150-K may, quickly, allocate the burst data units B1-B3 to earliest available time slots” (¶ [0017]). While the terms “burst data” and “earliest available” are shown in this cited portion of Shankara, the Examiner has not established that such cited portions illustrate a nexus between any “earlier downlink symbols” and/or “remote devices positioned more distant from the network node,” as required by claim 1. In other words, the Examiner fails to provide any meaningful analysis regarding what Shankara’s “burst data” is associated with, other than earliest available time slots. Thus, the Examiner has not shown how Shankara cures the deficiencies in Brunel. As a result, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that the combined teachings of Brunel and Shankara teach and/or suggest earlier downlink symbols associated with data bursts positioned at a beginning of the frame, as recited in each of the independent claims. Since we agree with Appeal 2012-001771 Application 12/210,734 4 at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-8 and 13-16. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8 and 13-16 is reversed. REVERSED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation