Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 17, 2021

2020002939 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2021)

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.
15/603,272 05/23/2017 Anil Agiwal SAMS11-59676 1573
135249 7590 08/17/2021
Docket Clerk - SEC
P.O. Drawer 800889
Dallas, TX 75380
EXAMINER
THOMAS, WILFRED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2416
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/17/2021 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):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
munckwilson@gmail.com
patents@munckwilson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANIL AGIWAL and YOUNG-BIN CHANG

Appeal 2020-002939
Application 15/603,272
Technology Center 2400

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAIG, 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 11, 12, 15–17, and 20–22. See Final
Act. 1. Claims 1–10, 13, 14, 18, and 19 have been canceled. Id. at 2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS Co., LTD. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2020-002939
Application 15/603,272

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to acquiring synchronization for data that is
provided to a Mobile Station (MS) in a cooperative communication system
in which a plurality of Base Stations (BSs) provides a service to the MS.
Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
11. A first base station (BS) in a cooperative
communication system, the first BS comprising:
a transceiver configured to receive, from at least one
second BS, an identifier (ID) of a mobile station (MS), a flow ID
of a data bearer mapped to an internet protocol (IP) packet flow,
and a sequence number (SN) of a last IP packet transmitted for
the data bearer; and
a controller configured to determine a medium access
control service data unit (MAC SDU) SN allocated to a MAC
SDU which transfers the last IP packet,
wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit,
to the at least one second BS, the ID of the MS, the flow ID, and
the MAC SDU SN which is related to an SN of a first IP packet
to be received in the at least one second BS, and to perform an
IP packet transfer operation based on whether at least one IP
packet is buffered, and wherein an SN of the at least one IP
packet is less than the SN of the first IP packet.
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Shousterman et al.
(“Shousterman”)
US 2009/0034459 Al Feb. 5, 2009
Tamura US 2009/0296655 Al Dec. 3, 2009
Vu et al. (“Vu”) US 2012/0087342 Al Apr. 12, 2012

Appeal 2020-002939
Application 15/603,272

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 11 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Shousterman and Vu. Final Act. 2–5.
Claims 12, 16, 17, and 20–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Shousterman, Vu, and Tamura. Final Act. 5–13.
ANALYSIS
Appellant first contends that Shousterman does not teach a
“cooperative communication system,” as recited in claim 11. Appeal Br. 14.
Appellant argues in a conclusory manner that Shousterman’s MBS “is a
service to transmit the same content to a plurality of mobile devices, which
is clearly distinguishable from a cooperative communication system in
which a plurality of base stations cooperate with one another to transmit data
to a single mobile station.” Id.
Appellant’s argument is conclusory, however, merely reciting the
claim limitation, the teachings of Shousterman, and stating that the two are
not the same. See id. Rule 41.37 “require[s] more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.” In
re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that “[p]roviding information
from a plurality of base stations to a single mobile subscriber does not teach
or suggest that any of the plurality of base stations communicate with each
other.” See Reply Br. 3. Appellant further argues that “a plurality of base
stations that provide the same content to a mobile subscriber does not teach
or suggest a cooperative communication system in which a first base station
transmits and receives information with a second base station.” Id. at 3–4.
Appeal 2020-002939
Application 15/603,272

4
Appellant argues that the phrase “cooperative communication system” is
used throughout the specification. Id. at 4 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 9, 50, 53, Figs.
1C, 2, and 3).2
The Examiner found that Shousterman teaches synchronizing the
provisioning of data to a mobile terminal by a plurality of base stations,
which is a “cooperative communication system.” Ans. 3–4 (citing
Shousterman ¶¶ 2, 3, and 17).
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Shousterman and Vu teaches or suggests “a cooperative
communication system,” as recited in claim 11. Appellant has not pointed to
a definition of the disputed term in the Specification or argued that it is a
term of art. The plain language of the disputed limitation does not require
that a first base station transmits and receives information with a second
base station, and Appellant has not persuaded us it does in light of the
Specification. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with
the scope of claim 11 and, thus, does not demonstrate error in the
Examiner’s rejection. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982)
(limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability).3

2 We note that the disputed term “cooperative communication system” does
not appear in paragraphs 9 and 50, or in Figures 1C, 2, and 3 of the
Specification.
3 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to
determine whether the phrase “in a cooperative communication system” in
the preamble is limiting. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com,
Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Appeal 2020-002939
Application 15/603,272

5
Appellant next contends the Examiner erred by relying on
Shousterman to teach the limitation “the transceiver is further configured to
transmit, to the at least one second BS, the ID of the MS, the flow ID, and
the MAC SDU SN which is related to an SN of a first IP packet to be
received in the at least one second BS, and to perform an IP packet transfer
operation based on whether at least one IP packet is buffered,” as recited in
claim 11. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant argues “[w]hile Shousterman discloses a
distributor GW transmitting the Sync Info packet to a BS, Shousterman is
silent as to a first BS comprising a transceiver configured to transmit, to at
least one second BS, the ID of the MS, the flow ID, and the MAC SDU SN,
which is related to an SN of a first IP packet to be received in the at least one
second BS, as recited in Claim 11.” Id. at 15.
The Examiner found Shousterman teaches a “Sync Node” that
generates synchronization information frames and is, preferably, a base
station. Ans. 5 (citing Shousterman, Fig. 6, ¶¶ 77–84, 98–102). The
Examiner further found Shousterman teaches that each synchronization
information packet contains sequence numbers of the first and last packets
received during the accumulation period. Id. (citing Shousterman ¶¶ 80, 83).
The Examiner also found Vu teaches that a base station broadcasts a
message containing the IP and MAC address of the handset, which the
Examiner interpreted as the “mobile ID.” Ans. 6. In addition, the Examiner
found Shousterman teaches that the transceiver is further configured to
transmit, to the at least one second BS, the flow ID (Global Multicast Flow
Identifier), and the MAC SDU SN, which is related to an SN of a first IP
packet (sequence numbers of the missing packets) to be received in a second
BS. Final Act. 3 (citing Shousterman ¶¶ 98, 100–01). The Examiner further
Appeal 2020-002939
Application 15/603,272

6
found Shousterman teaches that the transceiver is configured to perform an
IP packet transfer operation based on whether at least one IP packet is
buffered, “wherein an SN of the at least one IP packet is less than the SN of
the first IP packet,” as recited in claim 11. Id.
Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings
because Appellant’s arguments are largely conclusory. For example,
Appellant argues that “Claim 11 recites packet communications between a
first ba[s]e station (BS) and at least one second BS, and not a distributor
gateway as disclosed by Shousterman.” Appellant, however, does not
persuasively explain why Shousterman’s distributor gateway does not teach
the “first base station,” as recited in claim 11, in light of the Examiner’s
findings. The Examiner does not contend, nor is the Examiner required to
demonstrate, that the identical text of rejected claim 1 appears in the cited
references. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In another example, Appellant argues that “Shousterman fails to teach
or suggest an IP packet transfer operation between a first BS and at least
second BS, based on whether at least one IP packet is buffered, and wherein
an SN of the at least one IP packet is less than the SN of the first IP packet,
as recited in Claim 11.” Appeal Br. 11. Nowhere, however, does Appellant
explain why the Examiner’s particular findings based on Shousterman
paragraphs 98, 100, and 101, for example, are in error. In other words,
Appellant does not persuasively attack the substance of the Examiner’s
findings and explanations, but rather merely recites the claim elements and
makes conclusory assertions that the claim elements are not found in the
prior art. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.
Appeal 2020-002939
Application 15/603,272

7
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that Shousterman and Vu teach or suggest the limitation “the
transceiver is further configured to transmit, to the at least one second BS,
the ID of the MS, the flow ID, and the MAC SDU SN which is related to an
SN of a first IP packet to be received in the at least one second BS, and to
perform an IP packet transfer operation based on whether at least one IP
packet is buffered, and wherein an SN of the at least one IP packet is less
than the SN of the first IP packet,” as recited in claim 11.
Appellant next contends Vu fails to cure the deficiencies of
Shousterman because “the new base station of Vu neither transmits nor
receives, from/to the current Base Station of Vu, any of: a flow ID of a data
bearer mapped to an IP packet flow, and a sequence number of a last IP
packet transmitted for the data bearer, and the MAC SDU SN which is
related to an SN of a first IP packet to be received in the at least one second
BS.” Appeal Br. 16–17.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because the Examiner relied
on Vu to teach the limitation “a transceiver configured to receive, from at
least one second BS an identifier (ID) of a mobile station (MS),” as recited
in claim 11. Final Act. 4. The Examiner found Vu teaches that a base station
broadcasts a message containing the IP and MAC address of the handset,
which the Examiner interpreted as the “mobile ID.” Ans. 6. The Examiner
relied on Shousterman, not Vu, for the limitations identified by Appellant.
Thus, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection
actually made by the Examiner.
Appeal 2020-002939
Application 15/603,272

8
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Shousterman and Vu teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations of claim 11.
Appellant next contends the Examiner engaged in impermissible
hindsight in combining the teachings of Shousterman and Vu. Appeal Br.
17.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred because the Examiner
set forth articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the
combination. Final Act. 4. Appellant has not identified any knowledge relied
upon by the Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure
and that was not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA
1971). Nor has Appellant provided objective evidence of secondary
considerations, which “operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese
Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352
(Fed. Cir. 2013).
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner engaged in
impermissible hindsight when combining the teachings of the prior art.
With regard to independent claims 16 and 20, Appellant makes
arguments similar to those for representative claim 11 and grouped claim 15.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Appeal Br. 19–23. For the reasons discussed
above in the context of claim 11, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 16 and 20.
Appellant further argues that dependent claims 12, 17, and 21–22 are
allowable for the same reasons as the claims from which they depend.
Appeal Br. 23. For the reasons discussed above in the context of claim 11,
Appeal 2020-002939
Application 15/603,272

9
we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12, 17, and
21–24.
In summary, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 11. Independent
claim 15 recites limitations of similar scope and is not separately argued. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also Appeal Br. 13. As addressed above, we
are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 16
and 20, or dependent claims 12, 17, and 21–22. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 11, 12, 15–17, and 20–22.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11, 12, 15–17, and 20–22 is
affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
11, 15 103 Shousterman, Vu 11, 15
12, 16, 17,
20–22
103 Shousterman, Vu,
Tamura
12, 16, 17,
20–22

Overall
Outcome
11, 12, 15–17,
20–22

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED