Ex Parte Won et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 24, 2016

12764556 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121764,556 04/21/2010 66547 7590 03/24/2016 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jong-Hyun Won 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. 678-2686 CON (Pl4142) 7578 EXAMINER KAVLESKI, RYAN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2475 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 03/24/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JONG-HYUN WON, JAE-HWAN CHANG, JEONG-HOON PARK, KANG-GYU LEE, and DO-HYON YIM Appeal2014-004062 Application 12/764,556 Technology Center 2400 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 12, 13, 15-19, 21-24, and 26-29, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. Claims 3, 6, 11, 14, 20, and 25 have been cancelled. App. Br. 14--20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants identify Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-004062 Application 12/764,556 THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to a system and method for transmitting/receiving resource allocation information in a communication system. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for transmitting DownLink (DL) resource allocation information by a base station in a communication system, the method comprising: generating a sub-burst Information Element (IE) indicating DL resource allocation of at least one sub-burst of a data region corresponding to one of Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest (HARQ) modes supported by the base station; generating length information of the sub-burst IE; and transmitting, by the base station, a HARQ DL MAP message to at least one mobile station, the HARQ DL MAP message defining at least one data region, and including the subburst IE and the length information of the sub-burst IE separate from the sub-burst IE, wherein the sub-burst IE comprises an ACKnowledgement (ACK) channel parameter indicating a number of ACK channels allocated to the at least one mobile station that will receive at least one HARQ ACK enabled DL burst in the at least one data region. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Cudak et al. US 2006/0123324 Al June 8, 2006 Won et al. US 7,751,364 B2 July 6, 2010 Zhang et al. US 2007/0286066 Al Dec. 13, 2007 2 Appeal2014-004062 Application 12/764,556 IEEE, Draft IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks, Part 16: Air Interface for Fixed and Mobile Broadband Wireless Access Systems, Amendment for Physical and Medium Access Control Layers for Combined Fixed and Mobile Operation in Licensed Bands, IEEE P802.16e/D9 (June 2005) (hereinafter "IEEE") REJECTIONS Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 12, 14--17, 19-23, and 25-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1--4 of Won. Final Act. 2-13. Claims 2, 5, 10, 13, 18, 24, and 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1and3 of Won in view of Zhang. Final Act. 13-14. Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 17, 18 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of IEEE. Final Act. 14-- 19. Claims 4, 5, 8, 12, 13, 16, 19, 22-24, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Cudak and IEEE. Final Act. 20-23. 2 Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of IEEE and Cudak. Final Act. 23-24 2 The Examiner also indicates in the heading that claim 29 is rejected on these grounds. Final Act. 20. However, because the Examiner does not provide a substantive rejection in this section, we treat the inclusion of claim 29 as a typographical error. 3 Appeal2014-004062 Application 12/764,556 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We agree with Appellants' arguments regarding the prior art rejections. Double Patenting Rejection The Examiner rejects all of the pending claims on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting. Final Act. 2-14. Appellants do not address the rejection, except to indicate that "Appellants reserve the right to file a Terminal Disclaimer to obviate those rejections." App. Br. 6 n. 1. Appellants have not identified any errors in the Examiners findings. "If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue - or, more broadly, on a particular rejection-the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection." Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 12, 13, 15-19, 21-24, and 26---29 on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting. Obviousness Rejections The Examiner notes Zhang does not "disclose that HARQ DL MAP message includes length information separate from the sub-burst information." Final Act. 15. However, the Examiner finds that a person of 4 Appeal2014-004062 Application 12/764,556 ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to send the length information separate from the sub-burst information: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art given the teachings of Zhang for providing an information element data format for sub-burst elements that already define several types of length information, including the overall length information of an information element [refer Table 1; Length] and already providing the length information of sub-burst elements within the sub-bursts themselves to modify the disclosure to have the length of a sub-burst element separate from the element itself as an obvious variation of the data structure since the information is merely located in a different position for a means of design incentive when the handling of the information elements and its information are handled the same. Final Act. 15-16; see also Ans. 5---6 ("one of ordinary skill in the art in the field would clearly have the ability" to make the modification"). Appellants argue Zhang does not teach separating the length of the sub-burst IE from the sub-burst IE. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2. To the contrary Appellants argue Zhang "fails to even fairly suggest the recitations at issue because Zhang et al. teaches the opposite, i.e., that the normal sub-burst IE includes the 'Length' element." Reply Br. 2 (citing Zhang i-f 79). Finally, Appellants argue the Examiner's finding is flawed because it does not provide a reasonable rationale for the modification. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2. Based on the record before us, Appellants have persuaded us that the Examiner erred. Rejections based on obviousness must be supported by "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has failed to 5 Appeal2014-004062 Application 12/764,556 provide adequate reasoning as required by Kahn to modify Zhang to support the legal conclusion of obviousness of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along with the rejections of claims 4, 9, 12, 17, 23, and 28, which are argued on the same ground, and dependent claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, and 29. Cf In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious. "). DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 12, 13, 15-19, 21-24, and 26-29 on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting. For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 12, 13, 15-19, 21-24, and 26-29 on the grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 6