Ex Parte Yang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 26, 2018

13887855 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/887,855 05/06/2013 Lin Yang 109682 7590 03/28/2018 Holland & Hart LLP/Qualcomm P.O. Box 11583 Salt Lake City, UT 84147 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. PT461.02 (88492.1431) 2934 EXAMINER BOLOURCHI, NADER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2631 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2018 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): ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com patentdocket@hollandhart.com qualcomm@hollandhart.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LIN YANG, YOUHAN KIM, SAMBER VERMANI, TEVFIK YUCEK, and HEMANTH SAMP ATH Appeal2017-008317 Application 13/887,855 1 Technology Center 2600 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, AMBER L. HAGY, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a non-final rejection of claims 1, 3---6, 8, 9, and 11-15, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. Technology The application relates to wireless communication in sub-gigahertz bands. Spec. Title. 1 Appellants state the real party in interest is Qualcomm Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal2017-008317 Application 13/887,855 Illustrative Claim Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at issue emphasized: 1. An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: a processor configured to: generate a first packet for transmission via a first wireless signal, wherein the first packet is generated for transmission over a bandwidth of 1 MHz using at least one orthogonal frequency- division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol compnsmg 32 subcarriers described by indices from -16 to 15, and wherein each of the 32 subcarriers has a first average constellation energy; and generate a second packet for transmission via a second wireless signal, wherein the second packet is generated for transmission over a bandwidth of 2 MHz using at least one OFDM symbol comprising 64 subcarriers described by indices from -32 to 31, each of the 64 subcarriers having a second average constellation energy; and a transmitter configured to: transmit the first packet via the first wireless signal such that: the first average constellation energy for subcarriers having indices of -8 to -1 and 1 to 8 deviates no more than Â±4 dB from a first overall average of the first average constellation energy for subcarriers having indices of -8 to - 1 and 1 to 8; and the first average constellation energy for subcarriers having indices of - 13 to - 9 and 9 to 13 deviates no more than +4/-6 dB from the first overall average; and transmit the second packet via the second wireless signal such that: the second average constellation energy for subcarriers having indices of - 16 to - 1 and 1 to 16 deviates no more than Â±4 dB from a second overall average of the second 2 Appeal2017-008317 Application 13/887,855 average constellation energy for subcarriers having indices of -16 to -1 and 1 to 16; and the second average constellation energy for subcarriers having indices of - 28 to -17 and 17 to 28 deviates no more than +41-6 dB from the second overall average. Rejection Claims 1, 3---6, 8, 9, and 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Robert Stacey et al., Proposed TGac Draft Amendment, IEEE 802.11-10/1361rl (Nov. 2010), https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1361-01-00ac-proposed-tgac- draft-amendment.docx ("Stacey"). Non-Final Act. 7-21. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding Stacey teaches or suggests the claimed number of "subcarriers" and values for the "average constellation energy" for specified ranges of subcarrier "indices," as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS In a related case, we affirmed an examiner's rejection that it would have been obvious to scale Stacey's 20 MHz transmission to the claimed 1 MHz. Ex parte Yang, Appeal No. 2016-002908, 2017 WL 476076 (PTAB Jan. 19, 2017). Appellants make many of the same arguments here, which are not persuasive for the same reasons we stated in the previous decision. Nevertheless, unlike the prior related case, the claims here further require a specific number of "subcarriers" (e.g., 32) as well as requirements for the "average constellation energy" for subcarriers within certain ranges of "indices" (e.g., -8 to -1 ). 3 Appeal2017-008317 Application 13/887,855 Appellants argue "none of the number of subcarriers listed in Stacey are equal to 32, and none of the listed 'specific carriers' of Stacey [i.e., indices] are equal to any of' the claimed ranges. App. Br. 8 (citing Stacey 21, Table 7-11 ). Table 7-11 of Stacey is reproduced below. Table 7-11 of Stacey depicts the number of subcarriers Ns for a given bandwidth BW and grouping of subcarriers Ng. Stacey 21. As pointed out by Appellants, none of the number of subcarriers equals 32, as required by claim 1 here. App. Br. 8. The Examiner also finds "Stacey et al. do not use 32 subcarriers." Non-Final Act. 9 (emphasis omitted). Stacey discloses "the number of subcarriers sent, Ns, is a function of Ng and the channel width defined by the Channel Width field in VHT MIMO Control field (see 7.3.1.29)." Stacey 21. Yet Stacey, as it appears in the record before us, does not appear to have a Â§ 7 .3 .1.29, instead skipping fromÂ§ 7.3.1.11 straight toÂ§ 7.3.1.60. See Stacey 15. Thus, the exact relationship between the number of subcarriers and bandwidth is unclear, and the Examiner has provided no further explanation. The Examiner suggests that Stacey discloses a 20 MHz transmission with 64 subcarriers that, when scaled down to 1 MHz, would have 3 2 subcarriers, but the Examiner does not provide citations or explanations for 4 Appeal2017-008317 Application 13/887,855 these findings. See Ans. 4; see also Ans. 5 (finding "Stacey et al. do not use 32 subcarriers, but use 64 subcarriers for the transmission" without citation) (emphasis omitted). For example, in Table 7-11 of Stacey, the number of subcarriers Ns is never 64. Stacey 21. We note, however, that Stacey elsewhere does disclose "the 20 MHz is divided into 64 subcarriers. Signal is transmitted on subcarriers -28 to -1 and 1 to 28, with 0 being the center (DC) carrier." Stacey 64. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether and why there would be 32 subcarriers if Stacey's 20 MHz signal was scaled down to 1 MHz. See, e.g., Stacey 64 (disclosing 512 subcarriers for 160 MHz, 256 for 80 MHz, 128 for 40 MHz, and 64 for 20 MHz, which by extension would suggest 32 subcarriers for 10 MHz, not for 1 MHz or 2 MHz). The Examiner also does not explain why the indices ranges would change in a scaled-down version of Stacey. See Ans. 4 (e.g., suggesting the range -28 to -17 in StaceyÂ§ 22.3.20.2 would change to -13 to -9 if scaled down to 1 MHz). "[R ]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting Kahn). Here, the Examiner has not adequately articulated where the values for the subcarriers are coming from, or why the number of subcarriers and groups of indices would have changed in a scaled version of Stacey. See Ans. 4. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3---6, 8, 9, and 11-15. 5 Appeal2017-008317 Application 13/887,855 DECISION For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3---6, 8, 9, and 11-15. REVERSED 6