Ex Parte Walton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 16, 2013

10375162 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JAY ROD WALTON, JOHN W. KETCHUM,
MARK WALLACE, and STEVEN J. HOWARD
____________________

Appeal 2010-003772
Application 10/375,162
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JAMESON LEE, ERIC B. CHEN, and JUSTIN T. ARBES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003772
Application 10/375,162

2

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5-34, and 39-49, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. Claims 3, 4, 35-38, and 50 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).1
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a method, apparatus, transmitter unit, and
receiver unit for communicating data in an orthogonal frequency division
multiplexing (OFDM) communication system. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of transmitting data in an orthogonal
frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) communication
system from a transmitter device to a receiver device,
comprising:
transmitting from the transmitter device to the receiver
device a first block of data associated with a data packet in a
first OFDM symbol of a first size, wherein the size of the first
OFDM symbol is a function of payload size of the first block of
the data; and
transmitting from the transmitter device to the receiver
device a second block of data associated with the data packet in
a second OFDM symbol of a second size that is different from
the first size, wherein the size of the second OFDM symbol is a
function of payload size of the second block of data; wherein
size of the respective OFDM symbols is selected to facilitate
maximizing packing efficiency of the data packet.

1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed
April 30, 2009), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed October 28,
2009) and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed September 11, 2008).
Appeal 2010-003772
Application 10/375,162

3

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Saito

Scarpa

Catreux

US 5,818,813

US 2003/0128656 A1

US 6,802,035 B2
Oct. 6, 1998

July 10, 2003
(filed Jan. 7, 2002)

Oct. 5, 2004
(filed Apr. 1, 2002)

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12-27, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 39-49 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Saito. Ans. 3-7.
Claims 5, 8, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Saito in view of Catreux. Ans. 7-8.
Claims 28, 31, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Saito in view of Scarpa. Ans. 8-9.

ISSUES
Appellants argue on pages 13-16 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 14, 16, 18, 23, 29, 32, 39, 45,
and 49 is in error. These arguments present us with the following issues:
(1) Did the Examiner incorrectly determine that Saito
discloses transmitting a block of data associated with a
data packet in an OFDM symbol where the size of the
OFDM symbol is a “function of payload size” of the
block of data, as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited
in claims 14, 16, 18, 23, 29, 32, and 49?
Appeal 2010-003772
Application 10/375,162

4

(2) Did the Examiner incorrectly determine that Saito
discloses transmitting a block of data associated with a
data packet in an OFDM symbol where the size of the
OFDM symbol is “selected to facilitate maximizing
packing efficiency of the data packet,” as recited in claim
1 and similarly recited in claims 14, 16, 18, 23, 29, 32,
39, 45, and 49?

ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12-27,
29, 30, 32, 33, and 39-49
Appellants argue that Saito does not disclose transmitting a block of
data associated with a data packet in an OFDM symbol where the size of the
OFDM symbol is a “function of payload size” of the block of data, as recited
in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 14, 16, 18, 23, 29, 32, and 49.2 Br.
14-16. Appellants contend that Saito does not perform any “operation”
where symbol size is based on payload size and that symbol size in Saito is a
function of time rather than payload size. Id. at 14-15. In particular,
Appellants point to Saito’s statement that “symbol length is made equal to
the sampling period . . . multiplied by an integer” and reference to “effective
symbol length NiT” where Ni is a positive integer and T is a time interval of
OFDM sampling points. Saito, col. 2, ll. 55-62; col. 3, ll. 1-4; see Br. 15.
The Examiner cites the following portion of Saito as allegedly
disclosing the disputed feature:

2 While Appellants argue the “function of payload size” limitation with
respect to all of the independent claims, see Br. 14, claims 39 and 45 do not
recite symbol size being a “function of payload size” or any similar
limitation. Thus, Appellants’ argument applies only to independent claims
1, 14, 16, 18, 23, 29, 32, and 49.
Appeal 2010-003772
Application 10/375,162

5

The above embodiment may be used for ATM
telecommunications where the amount of data to be transmitted
can vary as a function of time and also for transmission of data
encoded in the form of variable length codes, by modifying the
transmission parameters including the effective symbol length,
the guard interval length, the number of carrier waves and the
modulation techniques for each carrier wave by means of a
specific data transmitting symbol to modify the amount of data
to be transmitted on a frame basis.
Saito, col. 10, lines 34-42 (emphasis added); see Ans. 4, 10-11. Based on
this disclosure, the Examiner finds that Saito “considers the amount of data
to be transmitted (i.e. payload) in modifying/selecting the symbol
length/size.” Ans. 10-11.
Appellants have not shown reversible error by the Examiner. While
portions of Saito (e.g., col. 3, ll. 1-4) describe symbol length being a
multiple of a sampling period, as Appellants point out, the portion cited by
the Examiner (col. 10, ll. 34-42) discloses that symbol length can also be
modified “to modify the amount of data to be transmitted on a frame basis”
in the specific situation where outgoing data is of varying size. Thus, in at
least one embodiment, Saito takes into account payload size in
modifying/determining the appropriate symbol length. Appellants in their
Appeal Brief do not address the portion of column 10 cited by the Examiner
other than to state that the Examiner allegedly “mischaracterize[s]” the
reference. See Br. 14-15.
Further, contrary to Appellants’ argument, the claims do not
positively recite any operation or calculation where symbol size is based on
payload size. The claims merely recite that the size of an OFDM symbol is
a “function” of payload size of a block of data, without specifying the
function itself. The symbol size therefore can be any function of the payload
Appeal 2010-003772
Application 10/375,162

6

size of the block of data (e.g., twice the size of the block of data, three times
the size of the block of data). We agree with the Examiner that a symbol
size modified based on payload size, as described in Saito, is a “function” of
payload size.
Appellants also argue that Saito does not disclose transmitting a block
of data associated with a data packet in an OFDM symbol where the size of
the OFDM symbol is “selected to facilitate maximizing packing efficiency
of the data packet,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 14,
16, 18, 23, 29, 32, 39, 45, and 49. Id. at 14-16. Again, however, Appellants
do not address the substance of the Examiner’s findings or explain why they
allegedly are incorrect. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Saito considers
the available bandwidth of a transmission channel as a limiting factor in
determining symbol length, and because Saito takes into account both
available bandwidth and payload size in determining symbol length, it
selects symbol length to facilitate maximizing packing efficiency. Ans. 4,
11-12 (citing Saito, col. 2, ll. 55-64).3 Given the broad language of the
claims, which requires no specific degree or amount of “packing efficiency,”
we agree with the Examiner. Consideration of payload size impacts how
data is packed and consideration of available bandwidth ensures that the
available bandwidth for transmission is not exceeded. Symbol size in Saito
therefore is “selected to facilitate maximizing packing efficiency of the data

3 The Examiner also concludes that the claim recitation of symbol size
“selected to facilitate maximizing packing efficiency of the data packet” is a
statement of intended use not entitled to patentable weight. Ans. 11-12. We
need not reach this issue, however, because we agree with the Examiner that
Saito discloses the recited feature.
Appeal 2010-003772
Application 10/375,162

7

packet.”
Based on the record before us, the Examiner correctly determined that
Saito discloses transmitting a block of data associated with a data packet in
an OFDM symbol where the size of the OFDM symbol is a “function of
payload size” of the block of data and where the size of the OFDM symbol
is “selected to facilitate maximizing packing efficiency of the data packet.”
Accordingly, we sustain the anticipation rejection of independent claims 1,
14, 16, 18, 23, 29, 32, 39, 45, and 49, as well as dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 9,
10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19-22, 24-27, 30, 33, 40-44, and 46-48, which are not
separately argued.

Obviousness Rejections of Claims 5, 8, 11, 28, 31, and 34
As to the obviousness rejections of claims 5, 8, 11, 28, 31, and 34,
Appellants argue that Catreux and Scarpa do not cure the alleged
deficiencies of independent claims 1, 23, 29, and 32 explained above. Br.
16. For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that Saito
alone discloses the disputed features of the independent claims. Appellants
do not identify any other alleged errors in the Examiner’s reasoning to
overcome the obviousness conclusion as to claims 5, 8, 11, 28, 31, and 34.
Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 5, 8, 11, 28,
31, and 34.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision
to reject claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12-27, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 39-49 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b), and to reject claims 5, 8, 11, 28, 31, and 34 under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2010-003772
Application 10/375,162

8

§ 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2,
5-34, and 39-49 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb