Wi-LAN Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 18, 2021

2020006048 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 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. 15/666,387 08/01/2017 Yoav Nebat WIN-P00567US4 1247 10585 7590 03/18/2021 Volpe Koenig - Wi-lan 30 South 17th Street Suite 1800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 EXAMINER PHAM, TITO Q ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2466 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2021 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): eoffice@volpe-koenig.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YOAV NEBAT, SINA ZAHEDI, and DENNIS CONNORS Appeal 2020-006048 Application 15/666,387 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC B. CHEN, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We heard oral arguments on March 4, 2021. We REVERSE. 1 We refer to the Specification, filed August 1, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action, mailed October 1, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed February 14, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer, mailed June 23, 2020. 2 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Wi-LAN Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-006048 Application 15/666,387 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to processing a multicast broadcast data stream. Spec. Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for use by a base station, the method comprising: receiving, by the base station, a single message including information indicating a pattern of sub-intervals within a time divided interval and information indicating resources for use in broadcasting multicast broadcast service data, wherein the base station belongs to the multicast broadcast region which includes a plurality of base stations; receiving, by the base station, a multicast broadcast data stream; and broadcasting, by the base station, the multicast broadcast data stream in at least one sub-interval of the pattern of sub- intervals using the indicated resources, as an orthogonal frequency division multiplex signal. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Venkatachalam US 2008/0259835 A1 Oct. 23, 2008 Connors US 2008/0259905 A1 Oct. 23, 2008 REJECTION Claims 1–20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Venkatachalam and Connors. Final Act. 2–9. OPINION The Examiner finds Venkatachalam’s fixed broadband wireless access system using a single multicast connection identifier discloses the majority of limitations recited by claim 1 except for the disputed limitation of a single Appeal 2020-006048 Application 15/666,387 3 message including information indicating a pattern of sub-intervals within a time divided interval. Final Act. 3. To remedy the noted deficiency, the Examiner applies Connors’s macro-diversity region frame that provides a time reference, frame offset information, and system clock information used to synchronize the transmission of the macro-diversity region data at a plurality of base stations for teaching the disputed limitation. Id. at 4. According to the Examiner: The macro-diversity region frame indicates a pattern (see figure 10: the pattern could be No=197, 198, 199: one frame after another or Ts= 561, 561, 561 and then 562, 562, and 562 or transmission time T is at every 0.005 (T=561.985, 561.990, 561.995, 562.000 . . . ) of sub-intervals (OFDMA frame or frame time of 5m) within a time divided interval (1 sec or 200 frame) and broadcast in at least one sub-interval of the pattern of sub- intervals (frame/sub-interval is transmitted by the base station (paragraph 98). OFDM frames are sent periodically to base station. The frames are sub-intervals for a time divided interval of 1 sec in figure 9). Id. Appellant contends Connors fails to disclose a single message including multiple time stamps, “at best show[ing a] time stamp included in each macro-diversity region frame.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues as follows: There is no “single message” in Connors. If, for the sake of argument only, the claimed “single message” in Connors were considered to correspond to any one of the individual macro- diversity region frames, then that individual macro-diversity region frame only includes a time-stamp of that frame and that frame only. No pattern information can be gleaned from that individual macro-diversity region frame. Instead, in Connors, it would be necessary to receive all macro-diversity region frames, and then process all of the respective time stamps to determine Appeal 2020-006048 Application 15/666,387 4 any sort of pattern information. This is different than the claimed “single message including information indicating a pattern of sub-intervals within a time divided interval.” Id. at 9–10. The Examiner responds, taking the position that a broadest reasonable interpretation of a message includes multiple frames collectively providing multiple time stamps, as follows: In digital communication, how does one skilled in the art quantify a “single message?” Is it a packet, a single frame as argued by the Appellant, or information necessitated to convey content? Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner considers “single message” as information necessary to convey a point/content which, in this case, a base station receives information including pattern of sub-intervals (frames) to synchronize transmission of macro-diversity region data with other base stations in the region as shown in figure 10 which includes several frames. Ans. 10. Thus, the Examiner finds Connors’s collection of periodically sent OFDM frames, each including respective frame transmission time information, teaches the disputed pattern of sub-intervals within a time divided interval. Id. at 11. Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible Examiner error. Connors describes each macro-diversity region as providing timing information for a respective base station rather than multiple times constituting a pattern, as follows: Each macro-diversity region frame generated by the macro- diversity region control module 150 may be time-stamped before being sent to MRDP-MBSC. The time-stamp of each frame will indicate the actual time the base station transmission frame from each base station receiving the macro-diversity region frame will be transmitted over the air. The time-stamps may include a time Appeal 2020-006048 Application 15/666,387 5 reference, for example, UTC time in seconds and a frame offset from the UTC time. Connors ¶ 98. Although it may be true that, as posited by the Examiner, a message may include multiple frames, the record before us does not support such a finding. Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or reasoned explanation why multiple frames containing timing information for different base stations are reasonably interpreted as constituting a single message, we agree with Appellant that Connors fails to teach the disputed limitation. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 or the rejection of independent claims 7 and 13 that include similar limitations. Furthermore, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2–6, 8–12, and 14–20 which stand with their respective base claims. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Venkatachalam and Connors. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 1–20 103(a) Venkatachalam, Connors 1–20 REVERSED