Ex Parte Schumacher et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2014

12210734 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2014)

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