Ex Parte Xu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 27, 2016

13126226 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/126,226 09/27/2011 81310 7590 04/29/2016 Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & G (Apple) P.O. BOX 398 Austin, TX 78767-0398 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hua Xu 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. 6888-70101 1816 EXAMINER MIAN,OMERS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2461 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/29/2016 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): patent_docketing@intprop.com ptomhkkg@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HUA XU, JIANGLEI MA, HANG ZHANG, MING JIA, PEIYING ZHU, LAI KING TEE, and JUN LI Appeal2014-008339 Application 13/126,226 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. EV ANS, JOYCE CRAIG, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejections of claims 1-24, which constitute all claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-008339 Application 13/126,226 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to wireless communication through a relay station in a cellular network, to improve cell coverage and performance. See Spec. i-f 11; see also Abstract. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is illustrative of the invention: 1. A relay station comprised within a wireless radio communication system for communicating packet transmissions from a base station to a mobile unit, comprising: wireless communication circuitry, configured to perform wireless communication with the base station and the mobile station; and processing hardware coupled to the wireless communication circuitry, wherein the processing hardware is configured to operate with the wireless communication circuitry to: receive an information packet transmission from the base station according to a wireless packet transmission protocol, wherein said information packet transmission has a common reference signal for use in decoding the information packet transmission, wherein the information packet transmission is formatted according to a sub frame format having a control region and a data region; and transmit a multihop packet transmission to the mobile unit, wherein the multihop transmission comprises a control signal and the common reference signal in the control region of the subframe format so the mobile unit can conduct channel measurement and estimation analysis of packet transmissions received from the relay station. App. Br. 13 (emphasis added). 2 Appeal2014-008339 Application 13/126,226 PRIOR ART The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Lo Jin et al. Kang et al. US 2008/0256641 Al US 2010/0046413 Al US 2010/0177645 Al THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Oct. 16, 2008 Feb.25,2010 July 15, 2010 Claims 1-5, 8-13, 15-21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Jin and Kang. Final Act. 2-13. Claims 6, 7, 14, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Jin, Kang, and Lo. Final Act. 13-16. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments presented in this appeal. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer, and highlight the following for emphasis. Claim 1 Appellants first assert the Examiner erred in finding Jin and Kang teach a "common reference signal ... so the mobile unit can conduct channel measurement and estimation analysis" of packet transmissions received from the relay station, as claim 1 requires. App. Br. 7. Specifically, Appellants argue Kang is missing a "common reference 3 Appeal2014-008339 Application 13/126,226 signal," App. Br. 8, while Jin is missing "channel measurement and estimation analysis." App. Br. 7. The Examiner, however, found this claim limitation in the combination of Jin's relay station employing a common reference signal, modified by Kang' s teaching of mobile terminal analysis. Ans. 5---6; Final Act. 4. Appellants never address the combined teaching cited by the Examiner. Because "one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where ... the rejections are based on combinations of references," In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981), Appellants' contentions, even if supported, do not demonstrate Examiner error. Appellants next argue that the Examiner's reliance upon Jin's uplink and downlink map information as a "common reference signal," Final Act. 3--4, is inconsistent with the "well-understood" meaning of that term in the art. App. Br. 8. Appellants' own Specification, however, does not explain or limit "common reference signal" in the manner its Brief suggests. The Specification simply states, in a single passage, that a common reference signal "could" be used for "decoding" certain transmissions, Spec. i-f 61, and that (pursuant to the claim limitation we already addressed above) it is transmitted to the user equipment "for it to conduct channel measurement and estimation." Id. We find nothing in the record to persuade us of further "well-understood" limitations to the term "common reference signal." See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) ("[A]rgument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence"). Finally, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Jin's common reference signal (the download/upload-map) is both received by the relay station and transmitted to the mobile unit, as required in claim 1. App. Br. 4 Appeal2014-008339 Application 13/126,226 8. We, however, find the record supports the Examiner's position, not Appellants'. Jin Figures 17 A and 17B are reproduced below. 1 I ~ in :::i:: "-" Âµ,,., ~ ;:.,: J,, :;:::, .$ .a @ ~ 11> ~ .... ' 0... ....=i Q FIG. 17A Symbols A Rapging --- Ranging --sub channel subchannel L_l]..urst ff -- _y_~b~~ -Â·Â·Â·-- .. -Â·--- B \---------! RS DL , f-- RS UL Â·I DL sub-frame TIG UL subÂ·-frarne DL burst #1 FIG. 17B Symbol:s -~---~ ~~~----~Â·-Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·- Ranging subchannel i ' ~~-~--~------~--'--""'-'----'--' ~-----~-----_J IÂ· RS UL --\ RS DL Â· l IÂ· DL sub-frame TTG UL sub-frame 5 Appeal2014-008339 Application 13/126,226 Figure 17 A illustrates a data frame transmitted between a base station and relay station, Jin i-fi-164, 115, and Figure 17B illustrates a data frame transmitted between the relay station and a mobile subscriber, id. i-fi-164, 123. As the Examiner notes, both Figures 17 A and 17B include the download/upload-map information ("DL/UL-MAP," or "UL-MAP" and "DL-MAP") in the respective "DL sub-frame" regions. See Ans. 5. Accordingly, the figures (and associated discussion in Jin) show the download/upload-map information is transmitted from the base station to the relay station, and from the relay station to the subscriber. Ans. 5; Final Act. 4 (citing Figs. 17 A-17B, i-fi-f 121, 123; see also Jin i-fi-f 116-123 (disclosing data transmission from base station to subscriber, through the relay)). We, therefore, find Appellants' argument unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claim 1. Claim 3 Appellants argue that Jin and Kang fail to disclose a "dedicated resource block" reserved to convey control information to the relay station, as required in dependent claim 3. The Examiner responds that Figure 17 A depicts a region dedicated to information used to manage resources and provide synchronization, including the "preamble," "FCH," and other data. Ans. 11; Final Act. 5 (citing Jin i-fi-f 117, 119, Fig. 17 A). One of ordinary skill, according to the Examiner, would consider such information to be "control information," a broad term not defined or limited in Appellants' Specification. Ans. 11. Appellants fail to rebut the Examiner's findings and reasoning, and we find them supported in the record. Thus, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 3. 6 Appeal2014-008339 Application 13/126,226 The Remaining Claims Appellants do not argue remaining independent claims 9 and 1 7 separately, asserting that they recite "similar features" to claim 1 and "similar arguments apply." App. Br. 10. Of the remaining dependent claims, only claims 8, 16, and 24 are argued separately, but Appellants' argument is redundant to its argument regarding claim 1. See App. Br. 11 (arguing that "reference signal" is a "well-known" term in the art). Thus, for the reasons set forth in our discussion of claim 1, we also sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejections of the remaining claims 2 and 4--24. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-24 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013). AFFIRMED 7