Ex Parte Wentink

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 16, 2019

12888221 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/888,221 09/22/2010 15055 7590 01/18/2019 Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P. Qualcomm 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77046 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Maarten Menzo W entink 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 093536 4021 EXAMINER KANG, SUK JIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2477 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/18/2019 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): qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com P AIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MAAR TEN MENZO WENTINK Appeal2018-005605 Application 12/888,221 1 Technology Center 2400 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ERIC S. FRAHM, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4--16, 19-31, and 34--51, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction According to the Specification, the present invention relates to "wireless communications and, more particularly, to transmit opportunity scheduling in uplink spatial division multiple access (SDMA)." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1 Appellants identify Qualcomm Incorporated as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2018-005605 Application 12/888,221 1. A method for wireless communications, comprising: receiving, from a plurality of apparatuses, a plurality of request messages for a transmission slot for a spatial division multiple access (SDMA) transmission; and transmitting a transmit opportunity (TXOP) start frame to each apparatus of the plurality of apparatuses to indicate a start of an SDMA TXOP, wherein the TXOP start frame comprises: an indication of the apparatuses that are scheduled to transmit during the SDMA TXOP; an indication of one or more spatial streams assigned to each of the apparatuses for transmission during the SDMA TXOP; and a value for a back-off timer that indicates when a request for acknowledgement can be transmitted by at least one apparatus of the plurality of apparatuses. References and Rejections2 Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 14, 16, 19, 24, 25, 29, 31, 34, 39, 40, 44, and 46-49 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Seokl (US 2012/0002634 Al; Jan. 5, 2012), Seok2 (US 2014/0105201 Al; Apr. 17, 2014), and Park (US 2009/0207769 Al; Aug. 20, 2009). Final Act. 2-8. Claims 5-7, 15, 20-22, 30, 35-37, and 45 stand rejected under pre-AIA Â§ 35 U.S.C. I03(a) as being unpatentable over Seokl, Seok2, and Meylan (US 2007/0058605 A 1; Mar. 15, 2007). Final Act. 8-10. Claims 8, 11-13, 23, 26-28, 38, and 41--43 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Seokl, Seok2, Park, and Ishibashi (US 2005/0025167 Al; Feb. 3, 2005). Final Act. 11-13. Claim 50 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Seokl, Seok2, Park, and Ho (US 2005/0003843 Al; Jan. 6, 2005). Final Act. 13- 14. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Rejection dated June 7, 2017 ("Final Act."); (2) Appeal Brief dated November 15, 2017 ("App. Br."); (3) Examiner's Answer dated March 13, 2018 ("Ans."); and (4) Reply Brief dated May 11, 2018 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appeal2018-005605 Application 12/888,221 Claim 51 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Seokl, Seok2, Park, and Takizawa (US 2006/0271969 Al; Nov. 30, 2006). Final Act. 14--15. ANALYSIS 3 We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants' contention that the Examiner erred in determining the cited portions of Seok 1, Seok2, and Park collectively teach "a transmit opportunity (TXOP) start frame ... comprises ... a value for a back-off timer that indicates when a request for acknowledgement can be transmitted by at least one apparatus of the plurality of apparatuses," as recited in independent claim 1. See App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 2---6. The Examiner maps the claimed "transmit opportunity (TXOP) start frame" to Seokl 's clear to send (CTS) frame. See Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds the combined teachings of Seok 1 and Seok2 do not teach the claimed "a value for a back-off timer that indicates when a request for acknowledgement can be transmitted by at least one apparatus of the plurality of apparatuses." Final Act. 4. The Examiner then cites Park's paragraphs 43--45, and maps the claimed "request for acknowledgement" to Park's request to send (RTS) frame. See Final Act. 4. Claim 1 recites "a transmit opportunity (TXOP) start frame ... comprises ... a value for a back-off timer that indicates when a request for acknowledgement can be transmitted by at least one apparatus of the plurality of apparatuses." In the Examiner's proposed combination, the CTS frame precedes the R TS frame, as the CTS frame indicates when the R TS frame can be transmitted. However, that sequence contradicts the knowledge of one skilled in the art. As pointed out by Appellants (Reply Br. 4) and 3 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not need to reach the additional arguments. 3 Appeal2018-005605 Application 12/888,221 repeatedly demonstrated by Seokl and Park, one skilled in the art would understand a CTS frame is in response to--and does not precede-a RTS frame. See Seokl ,r 52 ("The CTS frame is transmitted in response to the RTS"), ,r 62 ("Upon receiving an RTS frame from an STA, an AP transmits the CTS frame in response to the RTS frame."), Fig. 4, ,r,r 48-51; Park ,r,r 43, 45. In particular, one skilled in the art would understand the R TS/CTS sequence is a handshaking mechanism for eliminating collision between notes: when a first node wants to transmit data to a second node, it sends a R TS frame. If the second node replies with a CTS frame, then the first node may transmit data to the second node. See Park ,r,r 43, 45; Seokl Fig. 4; ,r,r 48-52, 62. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, Appellants have persuaded us the Examiner erred. Therefore, we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. Each of independent claims 9, 16, 24, 31, 3 9, and 46-49 recites a claim limitation that is substantively similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claims 9, 16, 24, 31, 39, and 46-49. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 9, 16, 24, 31, 39, and 46-49. We also reverse the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent claims 4--8, 10-15, 19-23, 25-30, 34--38, 40-45, 50, and 51. Although the Examiner cites additional references for rejecting some dependent claims, the Examiner has not shown the additional references overcome the deficiency discussed above in the rejection of claim 1. 4 Appeal2018-005605 Application 12/888,221 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4--16, 19-31, and 34--51. REVERSED 5