Kashima, Tsuyoshi et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 26, 20202019002230 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/811,815 07/06/2010 Tsuyoshi Kashima 042933/414447 1760 10949 7590 05/26/2020 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street Suite 4000 Charlotte, NC 28280-4000 EXAMINER NGO, NGUYEN HOANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2473 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/26/2020 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): usptomail@alston.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TSUYOSHI KASHIMA and ESA MALKAMAKI Appeal 2019-002230 Application 12/811,815 Technology Center 2400 BEFORE KRISTEN L. DROESCH, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 34–36, 40–42, 46–48, 52, and 56. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nokia Technologies Oy. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-002230 Application 12/811,815 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate to padding a header of a protocol data unit utilized by radio communications systems. See Spec., Abstract, ¶¶ 1, 13–19. Claim 34, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 34. A method comprising: generating, by a processor, a protocol data unit; inserting one padding sub-header at a beginning of a header of the protocol data unit when padding of one byte is needed; and inserting two padding sub-headers at the beginning of the header of the protocol data unit when padding of two bytes is needed, wherein each of the one or two padding sub-headers comprises a logical channel identification field indicating the sub-header is designated as padding and an extension field which is set to indicate that another sub-header follows in the header. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Lieberman US 5,802,064 Sept. 1, 1998 Chun et al. (“Chun”) US 8,634,312 B2 Jan. 21, 2014 Ho US 8,902,927 B2 Dec. 2, 2014 REJECTION ON APPEAL Claims 34–36, 40–42, 46–48, 52, and 56 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chun, Lieberman, and Ho. Final Act. 3–7. ANALYSIS Appellant disputes the Examiner’s conclusion that the combined teachings of Chun, Lieberman, and Ho teach or suggest “each of the one or two padding sub-headers comprises a logical channel identification field Appeal 2019-002230 Application 12/811,815 3 indicating the sub-header is designated as padding and an extension field which is set to indicate that another sub-header follows in the header,” as recited in independent claim 34. See Appeal Br. 4–6. Appellant argues claims 34–36, 40–42, 46–48, 52, and 56 together as a group. See id. Consequently, we choose claim 34 as representative of the group. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief, as well as the Examiner’s Answer. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below for emphasis. The Examiner finds that Chun teaches most of the limitations of claim 34 except for two limitations. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Chun for teaching inserting one padding sub-header and inserting two padding sub- headers in the header, but does not rely on Chun for teaching that the one padding sub-header and two padding sub-headers are inserted at the beginning of the header. See Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 8. The Examiner finds that the combination of Chun as modified in view of Lieberman teaches inserting the one padding sub-header and two padding sub-headers at the beginning of the header. See Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 8. The Examiner further finds that Chun discloses each of the one or two padding sub-headers comprises a logical channel identification (LCID) field indicating the sub- header is designated as padding, and that Chun also discloses an extension field. See Final Act. 3 (citing Chun 2:25–40, 5:35–6:21); 4–5 (citing Chun 5:45–55); see also Ans. 8 (similar findings). The Examiner further finds that Chun discloses: (1) the LCID field can indicate padding; (2) the MAC header can include a plurality of sub-headers and LCID fields; and (3) an extension field that indicates whether or not another MAC sub-header is Appeal 2019-002230 Application 12/811,815 4 subsequent to the current MAC sub-header. See Final Act. 4–5 (citing Chun 2:40–50, Fig. 4). The Examiner acknowledges that the combination of Chun as modified in view of Lieberman fails to specifically teach that the extension field is set to indicate that another sub-header follows in the header, i.e., another sub-header follows the padding sub-headers. See id. at 4. The Examiner find that Ho teaches MAC header format designs using an LCID to indicate padding as well as values to indicate control data and user data, and an extension (E) field to indicate additional fields are appended. See id. at 5 (citing Ho 7:60–66, 10:1–10, Fig. 4). The Examiner further finds that Ho discloses: a combination and permutation of various embodiments are possible such that the data and header formats include one or more of control data, user data, padding data, or a combination of . . . thus providing the motivation to have a combination of sub headers with LCID values (in which may be used to indicate padding, control data, user data) and an extension field to indicate appended and subsequent sub headers. Final Act. 5 (citing Ho 16:50–66, 17:24–30); see Ans. 9 (similar findings). The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the concept of having a combination of sub-headers and LCID values for the sub-headers, in which an extension field indicates that another sub-header is appended or follows as disclosed by Ho into the method of generating a PDU involving single byte or two byte padding inserted at the beginning of the header as taught by the combination of Chun as modified in view of Lieberman “in order to correctly and efficiently receive and process data at the receiver such that a receiver may determine appended sub-headers for processing in which the first sub header and associated LCID is for padding.” Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner explains, “in other words it would Appeal 2019-002230 Application 12/811,815 5 have been obvious to have an extension field for a beginning padding sub- header that is used for padding, in instances when a combination of sub headers may follow a padding sub-header that is at the beginning (as seen in Lieberman), . . . which is . . . dependent on the system design and structure.” Id. at 6; see also Ans. 9 (“[I]t would have been obvious to have a combination of an LCID padding sub header and an extension field indicating that another sub-header follows when such padding sub-header is placed at the beginning in order [to] correctly pad header information and communicate data to a receiver in the correct format.”). Appellant argues that Ho fails to teach or suggest that “each of the one or two padding sub-headers comprises a logical channel identification field indicating the sub-header is designated as padding and an extension field which is set to indicate that another sub-header follows in the header,” as recited in claim 34. See Appeal Br. 5–6; Reply Br. 1–2, 4. Appellant contends that Ho’s MAC header formats 402 and 404 do not provide any indication regarding padding, but instead these MAC header formats are for a control data header and user data header, respectively. See Appeal Br. 5 (citing Ho 9:54–10:32, Fig. 4); Reply Br. 2 (citing Ho 9:54–10:32, Fig. 4). Appellant further asserts that Ho’s MAC header format 406 identifies the header as a padding header for a MAC protocol data unit, but does not include an extension (E) field as shown in Figure 4. See Appeal Br. 5 (citing Ho 9:54–10:32, Fig. 4); Reply Br. 2 (citing Ho 9:54–10:32, Fig. 4). Appellant contends that MAC header format 406 includes a reserved field R1, which is not described by Ho as related in any manner to whether or not another sub-header follows the header. See Appeal Br. 5 (citing Ho 9:54– 10:32, Fig. 4); Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues that the other MAC header formats that include an extension field (i.e., MAC header formats 402, 404) Appeal 2019-002230 Application 12/811,815 6 are not for use as a padding sub-header, and are specifically designed for other purposes. See Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 3. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Appellant’s arguments address the teachings of Ho alone, instead of addressing the combined teachings of Chun as modified in view of Lieberman, and further modified in view of Ho. One cannot show non- obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). We understand the rejection to be based on Chun’s teaching of inserting one and two padding sub headers into a header, where the padding sub-headers each include the LCID field indicating padding, as modified in view of Lieberman’s teachings, such that Chun’s padding sub-headers are inserted at the beginning of the header, and further modified in view of Ho’s teachings, such that Chun’s padding sub-headers include an extension field that includes information indicating that additional sub-headers are appended in the header. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner does not rely on Ho for teaching padding headers, or headers including LCID fields indicating padding. In response to the Examiner’s finding that Ho teaches that further combinations and permutations are possible and that the header format may have any combination of fields, Appellant further argues Ho cannot be reasonably modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner’s Answer because it relies on impermissible hindsight relying on the present application as a blueprint for the combination. See Reply Br. 2–3 (citing Ans. 8). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because the Examiner does not propose modifying the teachings of Ho. We understand Appeal 2019-002230 Application 12/811,815 7 the Examiner’s position to be that Ho need not teach both an LCID field indicating padding and an extension field to indicate an upcoming field (as argued by Appellant) in order to suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combined teachings of Chun as modified in view of Lieberman to include an extension field that indicates a sub-header is appended in the header. We agree with the Examiner’s position because Ho’s teachings to use an extension field are not limited to use with user data headers and control data headers, as suggested by Appellant. A prior art “reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is describing and attempting to protect.” EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (emphasis omitted). In the Reply Brief, Appellant further argues that Ho teaches away from modifying Ho’s MAC header format for one type of data, such as padding, with an element such as an extension field from the MAC header format disclosed for a different type of data, such as control data or user data, because Ho discloses the MAC header format for padding does not include an extension field and because Ho teaches the MAC header formats can be specialized for a particular type of data included in the PDU. See Reply Br. 3–4 (quoting Ho 2:19–21). Appellant’s arguments are misplaced because the Examiner does not propose modifying the teachings of Ho. See Final Act. 4–6; Ans. 4–10. Appellant’s arguments also do not persuade us that Ho teaches away from including an extension field in the padding sub- headers of Chun as modified in view of Lieberman. “[A] reference will teach away when it suggests that the developments flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to produce the objective of the applicant's invention.” Syntex (U.S.A.) v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. Appeal 2019-002230 Application 12/811,815 8 2005), citing In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellant does not explain persuasively how developments flowing from Ho’s teachings of a padding header that does not include an extension field and a control data header and a user data header that do include an extension field are unlikely to produce the objectives of Appellant’s invention. For all of the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 34–36, 40–42, 46–48, 52, and 56. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 34–36, 40–42, 46–48, 52, and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 34–36, 40– 42, 46–48, 52, 56 103(a) Chun, Lieberman, Ho 34–36, 40– 42, 46–48, 52, 56 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation