Ex Parte Sebire et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2014

11227923 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BENOIST SEBIRE and TERO HENTTONEN
____________

Appeal 2012-005928
Application 11/227,9231
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, ERIC B. GRIMES, and
ELIZABETH A. LaVIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

LaVIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

The Examiner finally rejected claims 1–13 and 47. Appellants seek
reversal of the Examiner’s rejections, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The Specification relates generally to improving adaptability and
efficiency of packet scheduling for data transmissions in a wireless
communications network. (Spec. ¶¶ 1, 5, 8.) Claim 1 is representative:

1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Nokia Corporation.
(Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2012-005928
Application 11/227,923

3
1. A method, comprising:
transmitting over a signalling channel from a user equipment a
first rate request message requesting additional resources from
the network for transmission of data at an increased data rate
over a data channel;
maintaining said signalling channel for a period; and
transmitting a second rate request message over said signalling
channel during said period, wherein the second rate message is
a repeat of the first rate request message;
wherein the first rate request message is a single reserved bit
sent together with other uplink signaling information, the single
reserved bit having a value selected from a first value indicating
that the increased data rate is required and a second value
indicating that a current rate of data transmission over the data
channel is sufficient.
(Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.).)
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1–3, 5–8, 10, 11,2 13, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kwon3 in view of Johansson4 and
Kim.5 (Ans. 5.)

2 Although the Examiner did not include claim 11 in the statement of the
rejection, the Examiner addressed it in the explanation of the rejection
(Office Action mailed July 19, 2011, page 8; Ans. 9). Appellants
understood claim 11 to be rejected based on Kwon, Johansson, and Kim.
(See Appeal Br. 5–6.) Therefore, the error was harmless.
3 U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2004/0223474 A1, published Nov.
11, 2004.
4 U.S. Patent No. US 6,473,399 B1, issued Oct. 29, 2002.
5 U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2004/0146016 A1, published July 29,
2004.
Appeal 2012-005928
Application 11/227,923

4
2. Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kwon in view of Johansson and Kim, and
further in view of Warren.6 (Ans. 13.)
3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kwon in view of Johansson and Kim, and further in view of
Miyoshi.7 (Ans. 15.)
DISCUSSION
The Examiner rejected all the claims over the combination of Kwon,
Johansson, and Kim, either alone or in further view of additional references.
The same issue is dispositive with respect to the rejections of all the claims.
Kwon describes controlling reverse traffic rates in mobile
communication systems. (Kwon ¶ 3.) The Examiner relies on Kwon as
disclosing requesting additional resources at an increased data rate in a data
channel, maintaining the signal channel for an additional time period, and
sending multiple rate requests. (Ans. 5–6.) The Examiner cites Johansson,
which describes automatic repeat request-type mechanisms for increasing
the reliability of data communications (Johansson col. 1, ll. 10–15) for
repeating the first rate request (Ans. 6). Finally, the Examiner turns to Kim
as disclosing a single reserved bit that determines whether an increase in
data rate is needed or whether the current rate is sufficient. (Ans. 7.) Like
Kwon, Kim generally relates to controlling reverse data rates in a mobile
communication system. (Kim Abstract.)

6 U.S. Patent No. 5,912,921, issued June 15, 1999.
7 U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2002/0137519 A1, published Sept.
26, 2002.
Appeal 2012-005928
Application 11/227,923

5
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Kim fails to teach the “single
reserved bit” of claim 1 because Kim’s reverse activity bit “is received from
the base station and the reverse activity bit either indicates an increase of
reverse data rate or a decrease of reverse data rate.” (Appeal Br. 12.) In
indicating only an increase or a decrease, Appellants argue the reverse
activity bit of Kim cannot indicate that the current data rate is sufficient as
recited in claim 1. (Id.; see also Reply Br. 6.)
The Examiner responds that Kim describes a single bit that can be
used to determine whether to maintain or increase the data rate, and that the
existence of other modes in Kim is not relevant to the obviousness inquiry
because claim 1 does not exclude other information or modes. (Ans. 16–17
(citing Kim Fig. 4; ¶¶ 9, 20–21).)
We agree with Appellants. The single-bit control of the reverse data
rate in Kim indicates only an increase or a decrease. (Kim ¶ 9.) When Kim
teaches the option of indicating maintaining the data rate, Kim does so only
with respect to a two-bit system, comprising both a global reverse control bit
and a dedicated reverse control bit. (Kim ¶ 39 (referring to Fig. 4); Table 1.)
Accordingly, Kim fails to teach or suggest a “single reserved bit having a
value selected from a first value indicating that the increased data rate is
required and a second value indicating that a current rate of data
transmission over the data channel is sufficient” as required by claim 1.
As neither Kwon nor Johansson remedies this deficiency, we conclude
that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness as to
claim 1, and reverse the Examiner’s rejection of this claim. Further, because
the Examiner relies on Kim for the same teaching in rejecting each of the
Appeal 2012-005928
Application 11/227,923

6
other claims at issue on appeal, we likewise reverse the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 2–13 and 47.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–13 and 47 are reversed.

REVERSED

cdc