InterDigital Technology Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 30, 2021

2020003405 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 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.
14/477,247 09/04/2014 Sudheer A. Grandhi IDC-2005P00333US02 5222
24374 7590 08/30/2021
VOLPE KOENIG
DEPT. ICC
30 SOUTH 17TH STREET -18TH FLOOR
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
EXAMINER
MCCALLUM, LATRESA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2469
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2021 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 SUDHEER A. GRANDHI, ARTY CHANDRA,
ELDAD M. ZEIRA, and MOHAMMED SAMMOUR
Appeal 2020-003405
Application 14/477,247
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JASON V. MORGAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, 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 1–3, 6, 7, 11–13, 16, 17, and 21–28.
Claims 4–5 and 14–15 are allowed. Claims 8–10 and 18–20 are cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

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
InterDigital Technology Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003405
Application 14/477,247

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “a method and system for improving
responsiveness in exchanging management, control or data frames,” in a
wireless local area network (“WLAN”). Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced
below with the key limitation in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for use in a first station (STA), the method
comprising:
transmitting, by the first STA to a second STA, a
modulation and coding scheme (MCS) request frame including a
request identity number;
receiving, by the first STA from the second STA, a MCS
feedback frame, wherein the MCS feedback frame includes a
request identity field that indicates the request identity number
included in the MCS request frame.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES2
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Li US 2006/0187964 A1 Aug. 24, 2006
Gu US 2006/0034247 A1 Feb. 16, 2006
Mishra US 2006/0034248 A1 Feb. 16, 2006
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 6, 11–13, 16, and 21–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Gu. Final Act. 9–21.

2 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named
inventor only.
Appeal 2020-003405
Application 14/477,247

3
Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Li, Gu, and Mishra. Final Act. 21–23.
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding a motivation to
combine Gu’s traffic identifier and/or traffic stream identifier with Li’s
initiator aggregate control frame?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Gu teaches or
suggests a “feedback frame includes a request identity field that indicates the
request identity number included in the MCS request frame,” as recited in
claim 1?
Third Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Gu teaches or
suggests “wherein the request identity number included in the request
identity field unambiguously identifies the MCS request frame,” as recited in
claim 21?
Fourth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Li and Gu teach or
suggest “wherein the request identity number of the MCS request frame is
set, by the first STA, in accordance with a training procedure,” as recited in
claim 23?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner’s Findings and Conclusion of
Obviousness of Claim 1
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Li and Gu. The
Examiner primarily relies on Li, finding that it teaches the claimed method
with the exception of a “frame including a request identity number” and a
feedback frame “wherein the frame includes a request identity field that
Appeal 2020-003405
Application 14/477,247

4
indicates the request identity number included in the MCS request frame.”
Final Act. 9–10. To address this deficiency, the Examiner cites Gu:
Gu discloses frame including a request identity number (Table 4
and page 3, paragraphs 49-51; frame including a request identity
number/TSID); wherein the frame includes a request identity
field that indicates the request identity number included in the
MCS request frame (see Table 4 and page 3, paragraphs 49-51;
wherein the frame includes a request/traffic identity/ID
field/subfield that indicates the request identity number/(TSID)
included in the MCS request/(ADDBA request) frame/frame).
Final Act. 10. The Examiner concludes:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include
“frame including a request identity number” or “wherein the
MCS feedback frame includes a request identity field that
indicates the request identity number included in the MCS
request frame” as taught by Gu in the system of Li to provide a
better block acknowledgement method (see page 2, paragraph 25
of Gu).
Final Act. 10.
First Issue
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in combining the teachings of
Li and Gu. Specifically, Appellant argues Li teaches exchanging control
frames to provide information about current conditions in a wireless channel.
Appeal Br. 15 (citing Li ¶ 13). Appellant asserts Gu’s TSID “indicate[s]
traffic priority information which would not change as often as compared to
the condition of a wireless channel” and “one of skill in the art would
recognize that including a . . . TSID in each IAC or RAC frame for
negotiation purposes would be a waste of bandwidth.” Appeal Br. 15.
According to Appellant, “one of skill in the art would be more inclined to
Appeal 2020-003405
Application 14/477,247

5
negotiate . . . TSID as needed and not each time an MCS type IAC / RAC
frame was exchanged by an initiator and responder.” Appeal Br. 15.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in combining the references.
Appellant argues that “traffic priority information would not change as often
compared to the condition of the wireless channel.” However, Appellant
does not provide any evidentiary support for this assertion. In re Pearson,
494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot
take the place of evidence.”). Even if Appellant’s assertion were adequately
supported, it still would not be sufficient to show error in the Examiner’s
conclusion. Appellant argues an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
recognized that including the TSID in each frame would have wasted
bandwidth and would have instead negotiated TSID only as needed.
However, although it would have used more bandwidth, including the TSID
in each frame would allow for traffic priority information to be always
available when needed, avoiding the need for negotiation. Thus, while
including the TSID in each frame would have a drawback of less efficient
use of bandwidth, it also would have provided a benefit of information
availability. The Federal Circuit has recognized when a proposed
modification of a reference may impede some of its functionality, a
combination of references is still proper. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,
437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[a] given course of action often has
simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily
obviate motivation to combine”).
Appeal 2020-003405
Application 14/477,247

6
Further, the Examiner provides additional reasoning in the Answer
that was not addressed by Appellant.3 In the Answer, the Examiner states:
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one
skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed
by known methods with no change in their respective functions,
and the combination would have yielded predictable results to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Ans. 20. This rationale is consistent with controlling case law, which
recognizes that substitution of one known element for another in a manner
that yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art may support a
conclusion that the claim would have been obvious. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415–21 (2007); see also id. at 418 (“If a person
of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.”). As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
combining the teachings of Li with those of Gu to achieve the invention
recited in claim 1.
Second Issue
Appellant also contends the Examiner erred because Gu’s TSID,
which the Examiner finds corresponds to the recited “request identity
number,” does not identify any request, and therefore cannot be considered a
“request identity number.” Appeal Br. 13–14. We do not agree.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner concludes that “the term ‘request
identity number’ is not a term known in the art and the request identity is a
field with an identity number.” Ans. 18. Based on this interpretation, the
Examiner finds that Gu’s traffic ID subfield from an ADDBA request is a
request identity number within the meaning of claim 1. Id.

3 Appellant did not file a Reply Brief.
Appeal 2020-003405
Application 14/477,247

7
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s interpretation:
As claimed, a “request identity number” is provided in a
modulation and coding scheme (MCS) request frame. In
response, a “feedback frame” is received which indicates the
“request identity number included in the MCS request frame.”
By indicating the request identity number in the feedback frame,
the MCS request frame and feedback frame are uniquely
correlated.
Appeal Br. 14. According to Appellant, because “the TID and TSID do not
identify the ADDBA request itself, they do not meet the plain language of
claim 1.” Appeal Br. 13.
This issue turns on claim construction—specifically, the meaning of
“request identity number.” In the prosecution context, “the PTO gives a
disputed claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation.” In re Bigio, 381
F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We look to the Specification for context.
Appellant’s Specification describes that additional fields are included in
action frames to indicate a preferred signaling mechanism. Spec. ¶ 27. The
Specification further states that “[t]he new fields include, but not limited
to, . . . a request identity number field” and further that “[t]he request
identity number field includes a request identity number.” Spec. ¶¶ 28, 29.
The Specification adds that “[a] response frame uses a similar request
identity number field whose value corresponds to the request identity
number in the request frame.” Spec. ¶ 29. However, the Specification does
not provide additional detail about the purpose or content of the request
identity number. For example, nothing in the Appellant’s Specification
indicates that the request identity number must uniquely identify a request,
as Appellant argues. Nor does the Specification describe any requirement
that the request identity number that “corresponds to the request identity
Appeal 2020-003405
Application 14/477,247

8
number in the request frame” must be an identical value. Without further
detail in the Specification, we conclude the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “request identity number” is a numerical value that
identifies a characteristic of a request or the request itself.
Applying this interpretation, we agree with the Examiner that the
TSID described in Gu is a request identity number because it is a numerical
value (see Gu, TABLE 4, ¶ 51) that identifies a QOS priority associated with
the request. Although Appellant is correct that GU’s TSID does not
uniquely identify a request frame, as we discussed above, the claim does not
require a unique identification capability, and Appellant’s argument is not
commensurate with the broader scope of the argued limitation. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Gu teaches or suggests a
“request identity number” as recited in claim 1, and we sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Third Issue
Claim 21 depends from claim 1 and recites the limitation “wherein the
request identity number included in the request identity field unambiguously
identifies the MCS request frame.” Appeal Br. 23 (Claims Appendix). The
Examiner rejects claim 21 as obvious over Li and Gu, relying on the same
portions of Gu that were cited in connection with the rejection of claim 1.
Final Act. 15 (citing Gu, Table 4, ¶¶ 49–51).
Appellant presents similar arguments as were made in connection
with claim—that the TSID described in Gu does not unambiguously identify
the MCS as required by the claim. We agree.
Claim 21 is narrower in scope than claim 1. Unlike claim 1,
dependent claim 21 recites a clear requirement that the request identity
Appeal 2020-003405
Application 14/477,247

9
number unambiguously identify the MCS request frame. As we discussed
above, Appellant is correct that Gu’s TSID is insufficient to uniquely
identify a request frame. The Examiner provides no reasoning or
explanation for why it would have been obvious to modify Gu and/or Li to
include a number that uniquely identifies the MCS frame. Without such an
explanation, we are constrained by this record to reverse the rejection of
claim 21, as well as of claim 25 which depends from claim 11 and recites the
same limitation. Although we reverse the prior art rejection, in the event of
further prosecution, we invite the Examiner to consider whether the argued
limitation of claims 21 and 25 is adequately supported in the Specification
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Fourth Issue
Appellant also argues separately for patentability of claim 23, which
depends from claim 1 and recites the limitation “wherein the request identity
number of the MCS request is set, by the first STA, in accordance with a
training procedure.” Appeal Br. 23 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner finds
that this limitation is taught or suggested by the combination of Li and Gu.
The Examiner finds Li teaches the use of a training procedure. Final Act. 10
(citing Li ¶ 15, ll. 19–21). The Examiner relies on Gu for the “wherein the
request identity number of the MCS request is set.” Final Act. 10 (citing Gu
¶¶ 49–51).
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because Gu’s “TSID is
determined based on priority or QOS of data traffic.” Appeal Br. 17.
We are not persuaded of error because the Examiner relies on Li, and
not on Gu, as teaching a training procedure for setting values. Appellant’s
argument is made against Gu individually, while the Examiner’s conclusion
Appeal 2020-003405
Application 14/477,247

10
of obviousness is based on the combined teachings of Li and Gu. As such,
Appellant has not shown error in the rejection, and we sustain the rejection
of claim 23.
Remaining Claims
Appellant presents no separate arguments for patentability of any
other claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these
claims for the reasons stated with respect to the independent claims from
which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
We affirm in part the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6,
11–13, 16,
21–28
103 Li, Gu 1–3, 6, 11–13,
16, 22–24,
26–28
21, 25
7, 17 103 Li, Gu, Mishra 7, 17
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 6, 7, 11–
13, 16–17,
22–24, 26–28
21, 25
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 IN PART