Alcatel Lucent

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 14, 2021

2020000443 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 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.
15/300,542 09/29/2016 Jochen MAES 29250A-000177-US-NP 6013
30594 7590 05/14/2021
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 8910
RESTON, VA 20195
EXAMINER
CADEAU, WEDNEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/14/2021 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):
dcmailroom@hdp.com
jhill@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOCHEN MAES
Appeal 2020-000443
Application 15/300,542
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, 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 to reject claims 1–5, 7–13, and 15–17.2 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). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Alcatel Lucent.
Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 6 and 14 have been cancelled previously.
Appeal 2020-000443
Application 15/300,542

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a distribution point unit (DPU) for data
transmission and distributing signals to a plurality of users or customer-
premises equipment (CPE) over a wired shared medium, such as a coaxial
cable. See Spec. 1:5–6, 19–23. After a predefined portion of the available
spectrum is assigned to a user, a reserved part of the spectrum outside the
initial assignment is used for the users that join at a later point in time. Figs.
3A, 3B; Spec. 11:32–12:9.
Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A distribution point unit using discrete multi-tone
technology, said distribution point unit being configured for
connection to a wired shared medium associated with an
available spectrum, said wired shared medium connecting said
distribution point unit with a plurality of users, said distribution
point unit comprising
- an assigning unit configured for assigning a first portion
of the available spectrum to a first user of said plurality of users
and a second portion of the available spectrum to a second user
of said plurality of users;
- a sending and receiving unit configured for encoding
and decoding digital data, using discrete multi-tone technology,
and configured for sending and receiving encoded digital data
over the assigned first portion to/from the first user and over the
assigned second portion to/from the second user;
wherein the assigning unit is configured for initially
assigning a first portion and a second portion of a determined
initialization band of the available spectrum to a first user and
a second user, respectively, and for subsequently modifying the
assigned first and second portion to another first and second
portion outside the determined initialization band to maintain
the determined initialization band available for newly assigned
users.
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.) (disputed limitation emphasized).
Appeal 2020-000443
Application 15/300,542

3

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Alamouti US 2002/0159506 A1 Oct. 31, 2002
Ahn US 2009/0252069 A1 Oct. 8, 2009
Kim US 2014/0148100 A1 May 29, 2014

REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1–5, 7–13, and 15–17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ahn, Alamouti, and Kim. See Final Act. 6–
12; Ans. 3.
OPINION
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. Based on our review, and for the reasons discussed below,
Appellant does not provide sufficient argument and evidence to persuade us
the Examiner erred with respect to the single rejection under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), over the cited combination of Ahn with Alamouti and
Kim.
Claim 1
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Ahn as disclosing the
recited features as follows: a distribution point unit (DPU) that includes an
assignment unit for assigning first and second portions of the available
spectrum to first and second users; sending and receiving unit for encoding
and decoding digital data that is sent to the first and second users using
discrete multi-tone technology (DMT); and wherein the assigning unit is
Appeal 2020-000443
Application 15/300,542

4
configured for initially assigning a first portion and a second portion of a
predetermined initialization band of the available spectrum to the first and
second users (Final Act. 6–7 (citing Ahn Figs. 1, 3; ¶¶ 6–11, 40–44)).
The Examiner further relies on Alamouti as disclosing a
“[corresponding] unit to perform the functions of the claim and wherein
subsequently modifying the assigned first and second portion to another first
and second portion outside the predetermined initialization band.” Final
Act. 7 (citing Alamouti Figs. 2, 3E, 24, 68, 76; ¶¶ 186, 242, 597, 598, 603,
teaching “a highly bandwidth efficient communications . . . wherein initial
bandwidth assignment is performed (using frequency division FDMA)).
The Examiner also finds Alamouti discloses allocating and adjusting
bandwidth based on the data rate which is required by the subscriber. Final
Act. 7 (citing Alamouti ¶ 508). The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to “refine the bandwidth
allocation base on channel condition such as (SNR) and/or data rate in other
[sic, order] to improve communication by using the best frequencies
available.” Final Act. 8 (citing Alamouti ¶ 199).
For the recited limitation of “maintaining the predetermined
initialization band available to newly assigned users,” the Examiner finds
Kim discloses dividing the available band into first and second main bands,
which are in turn subdivided into multiple sub-bands wherein “users
operating in the sub-bands of the first main band are moved to sub-bands in
the second main band such that the sub-[b]and in the first band is available
for new primary users.” Final Act. 8 (citing Kim Fig. 7; ¶¶ 7, 94).
Appeal 2020-000443
Application 15/300,542

5
Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant contends the rejection over the combination of Ahn,
Alamouti, and Kim is erroneous because the proposed combination does not
teach or suggest the recited
wherein the assigning unit is configured for initially assigning
a first portion and a second portion of a determined
initialization band of the available spectrum to a first user and
a second user, respectively, and for subsequently modifying
the assigned first and second portion to another first and
second portion outside the determined initialization band to
maintain the determined initialization band available for newly
assigned users,
as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 11. With respect to Ahn’s teachings,
Appellant asserts the disclosed allocation of bandwidth is to mitigate the
crosstalk between DSL users, rather than “initially assigning portions of a
‘determined initialization band’ to users, and subsequently modifying the
assignment to another portion of the band that is outside of the ‘determined
initialization band,’ to ensure the ‘determined initialization band’ remains
available for newly assigned users.” Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis omitted)
(citing Ahn ¶¶ 40–44). Regarding Alamouti, Appellant argues the disclosed
bandwidth allocation is “for providing a variable bandwidth to users
communicating wirelessly with a base station” when a new antenna is added
to the network. Appeal Br. 12 (citing Alamouti ¶¶ 597, 598, 603).
Appellant further argues “Alamouti applies to a specific application for a
reactivation of a base station for wireless communication using a mobile user
device, as opposed to being applicable for a ‘distribution point [that is]
configured for connection to a wired shared medium’ that is shared by a
plurality of users,” recited in claim l. Appeal Br. 13. Similarly, Appellant
Appeal 2020-000443
Application 15/300,542

6
argues Kim applies to a “wireless communication method for MBAN
devices (i.e., emergency medical devices),” rather than “to, a ‘distribution
point [that is] configured for connection to a wired shared medium’ that is
shared by a plurality of users.” Appeal Br. 14–15.
Discussion
As explained by the Examiner (Ans. 4), Alamouti was relied on “to
show that the original assigned communication band can be change[d] to a
different communication band outside the original communication band.”
The Examiner reiterates modification to Ahn and the cited teachings in
Alamouti as:
To remedy the deficiency of Ahn regarding the missing
limitations. Alamouti was brought up to show that the original
assigned communication band can be change[d] to a different
communication band outside the original communication band.
For example, Alamouti teaches a communication system
comprising several units such as frequency assignment unit
(1030) and transform unit for transmission (1035) wherein
initial bandwidth assignment is performed (using frequency
division FDMA) (Alamouti [0186], figs 2 and 24) and
dynamically assign the bandwidth based on the signal to
interference noise ratio, the type of user unit and the kind of
data that is to be transmitted (SINR), in other words allocate the
bandwidth on demand (Alamouti [0242], [0597]-[0598],
[0603], figs. 3E and 68, 76).
Id. (emphasis omitted). We also note the cited portions of Alamouti teach
tone assignments to different users in a communication system comprising
bandwidth allocation to minimize signal to interference noise ratio (SINR)
(¶¶ 4–7), to allocate bandwidth dynamically based on user’s data need
(¶ 242), and to adjust the number of tones according to the number of
antennas so that the same SINR is preserved (¶¶ 597, 598).
Appeal 2020-000443
Application 15/300,542

7
Based on our review of Alamouti in view of the Examiner’s
explanations above, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Alamouti is merely concerned with “creating new communication channels
with new tone assignment for a newly reactivated base station.” See Appeal
Br. 13. As identified above, Alamouti’s dynamic allocation of bandwidth
starts with an initial assignment which is subsequently modified to
accommodate new users in order to maximize the SINR. See Alamouti
¶ 603. Given this evidence, we find, although the newly requested channels
may be handled by newly added antennas, the bandwidth allocation is
modified and tone sets that are free are provided to the other users. See
Alamouti Fig. 83. We further observe that the claimed “to maintain the
determined initialization band available for newly assigned users” is directed
to what the initialization band (which is freed up after the assigned portions
are modified) is intended to be used for. In other words, the process of
reallocating bandwidth, as suggested by the references, meets the recited
reallocation functions regardless of which users are subsequently assigned to
the modified bandwidth.
Regarding the teachings of Kim, we also agree with the Examiner’s
findings that “Kim teaches the band inside the hospital environment is the
initialization band and the [sic] when going outside the hospital environment
the device that was using the band in the hospital environment gets move[d]
to a different band.” Ans. 5. In that regard, Kim teaches bandwidth
reassignment as a Medical Body Area Network (MBAN) system for
monitoring patient’s biological data which is initially assigned to a first set
of bandwidths when the MBAN devices are inside the facility and later
Appeal 2020-000443
Application 15/300,542

8
assigned to a different bandwidth when the devices are moved to the outside
of the facility. See Kim ¶¶ 3, 7.
Additionally, we disagree with Appellant’s stated distinction based on
the wireless communication of Alamouti and Kim in contrast to using a
discrete multi-tone (DMT) technology in a wired shared medium, such as
DSL, because Appellant has not provided any evidence in support of such
assertion. See Appeal Br. 13, 15; Reply Br. 5. As stated by the Examiner,
channel assignment using DMT technology is applicable to both wired and
wireless communications. Ans. 5. The Examiner further correctly explains
that modifying Ahn with the teachings of Alamouti and Kim based on
bandwidth assignment using DMT technology would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art because the “proposed enhancement of Ahn
[is] based on the technique taught by Alamouti [and Kim] which is adapting
the communication to effectively communicate with devices requiring
different bandwidth and/or bit rate.” Id. (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) “The skilled artisan is ‘a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.’”).
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends from Claim 1 and recites the following:
16. The distribution point unit of claim 1, wherein the
assigning unit is configured for modifying the assigned first
portion and/or the assigned second portion; wherein the
assigning unit is configured for collecting input data based on
the sending and receiving of the encoded digital data over the
initially assigned first and second portion, which comprises
signal-to-noise ratio parameters and/or data rate demands, from
the first and the second user of the plurality of users, and for
modifying the assigned first and/or second portion of the
spectrum based on the collected input data.
Appeal 2020-000443
Application 15/300,542

9
Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.) (disputed limitation emphasized).
The Examiner relies on the portions of the cited references discussed
above and finds the proposed combination of Ahn, Alamouti, and Kim
teaches the disputed claim limitations. Final Act. 12 (citing Alamouti Figs.
3E, 68, 76, ¶¶ 242, 597–598, 603; Kim Fig. 7, ¶¶ 7, 94). Appellant contends
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 16 because the cited portion of
Alamouti in paragraph 191 teaches the following:
[D]uring a reactivation of a base station that was reconfigured
to add new antennas, if a user requests bandwidth that the
reactivated base station cannot handle, then additional codes or
tones must be allocated to the new user for a new
communication channel, where the bandwidth assignment is
modified to maximize a signal to noise ratio (SINR). This
method does not pertain to initially assigning portions of a
“determined initialization band” to users, where input data
(including signal-to-noise ratio parameters) is collected
from those users over the initially assigned portions of a
“determined initialization band,” so that the collected data
can be used to subsequently modify the assignment of the
users to another portion of the band that is outside of the
“determined initialization band” (as recited in base claim 1
and claim 16). That is to say, Alamouti does not collect data on
users that pertain to an original assignment of spectrum, in
order to then reassign spectrum based on the collected data.
Appeal Br. 16–17.
Based on our review of Alamouti and Kim, as discussed above, we are
unpersuaded of Examiner error. Alamouti, as stated by the Examiner,
assigns portions of the bandwidth to a number of users using DMT
technology and later modifies the bandwidth allocation based on optimized
signal-to-noise-ratio. See Ans. 5–6; see also Alamouti ¶¶ 197–199.
Although reactivation of a base station is followed by reassignment of
Appeal 2020-000443
Application 15/300,542

10
bandwidth to the users (see Reply Br. 7–8), Alamouti reallocates the initially
assigned bandwidth partly based on optimized signal-to-noise ratio. See
Alamouti ¶ 198 (“at lower constellation sizes a lower signal-to-noise ratio is
required to demodulate the signal, and this lower signal-to-noise ratio
requirement can be used to extend the range of the base station that provides
additional system flexibility.”). That is, the signal-to-noise ratio data that is
based on the initial allocation of bandwidth meets the recited input data
collected from the users of the initially assigned bandwidth.
CONCLUSION
As discussed herein, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us
that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Ahn, Alamouti, and
Kim teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claims 1, 16, as well as
claims 9, 12, and 17 which are argued based on similar reasons presented for
claims 1 and 16, and the remaining claims which are not argued separately.
See Appeal Br. 17. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
of claims 1–5, 7–13, and 15–17.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–13,
15–17
103 Ahn, Alamouti,
Kim
1–5, 7–13,
15–17

Appeal 2020-000443
Application 15/300,542

11
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED