2020006276 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2021)

Sun Patent Trust

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 6, 2021

2020006276 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 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. 15/966,369 04/30/2018 Mikihiro OUCHI 2018-0680 6689 513 7590 12/06/2021 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 EXAMINER CADEAU, WEDNEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2632 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/06/2021 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): eoa@wenderoth.com kmiller@wenderoth.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte MIKIHIRO OUCHI, YUTAKA MURAKAMI, and TOMOHIRO KIMURA ________________ Appeal 2020-006276 Application 15/966,369 Technology Center 2600 ________________ JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection of claims 5–32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. INVENTION The invention relates to a transmission device and a reception 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Sun Patent Trust of New York is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-006276 Application 15/966,369 2 device for communication using multiple antennas. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 5 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 5. A transmission device comprising: a frame configuration circuit configured to generate a frame such that the frame includes signalling data and subframes following the signalling data in a time axis, the subframes being arranged in the time axis, the subframes each consisting of OFDM symbols arranged in the time axis, the subframes each being different from a Physical Layer Pipe (PLP); and a signal generation circuit connected to the frame configuration circuit to generate a transmission signal based on the frame, the transmission signal being to be transmitted through an antenna, the signal generation circuit comprising a pilot insertion circuit configured to insert pilots in the OFDM symbols, wherein each of the OFDM symbols is one of a subframe boundary symbol and a data symbol, the subframe boundary symbol being provided at at least one of a head or a tail end of the OFDM symbols in the time axis, a number of pilots in the subframe boundary symbol being greater than a number of pilots in the data symbol. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS Claims 5–32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 5–32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stadelmeier (US 2012/0327879 A1; December 27, 2012), Ramesh (US 2008/0298264 A1; December 4, 2008), and Ko (US 2011/0044401 A1; February 24, 2011). 2 2 We note that in the Statement of Rejection (Final Act. 5) the Examiner did not include the Ko reference; however, the Examiner described the Ko Appeal 2020-006276 Application 15/966,369 3 ANALYSIS We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the Briefs.3 Arguments Appellant could have made in the Briefs, but chose not to make, are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). SECTION 112, FIRST PARAGRAPH, REJECTION The Examiner finds that the Specification does not disclose “the subframes each being different from a Physical Layer Pipe (PLP)” as claimed and, therefore, the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 3–4. Appellant argues that the Specification supports the claim limitation, citing to paragraph 1061 and Figure 104. Appeal Br. 5–6. Appellant contends that according to paragraph [1061] and Fig. 104, each sub-frame (e.g., “MISO/MIMO sub-frame” and “SISO sub-frame”) includes a plurality of PLPs. For example, as shown in Fig. 104, the “MISO/MIMO sub-frame” includes “Common PLP” and “PLP#1”. Accordingly, as each subframe includes a plurality of PLPs, it is clear that a subframe itself is not the same as a PLP. reference in the body of the Final Action (Final Act. 6–8). See also Ans. 3, 8. We find that the Examiner’s failure to mention the Ko reference was an inadvertent and harmless error. 3 Claims 6–32 are not argued separately from claim 5 in either of Appellant’s briefs (Appeal Br. 6–13; Reply Br. 1–3), and will not be separately addressed. Appeal 2020-006276 Application 15/966,369 4 Id. at 6 (emphasis omitted). In the Answer, the Examiner finds Appellant’s: original disclosure clearly shows that a subframe can have either one PLP (7404 or 7405_1 in Figs. 110-114) or more PLPs (7405_2 ... 7405_N in Figs. 110-114). Therefore, the claimed ‘the subframes each being different from a Physical Layer Pipe (PLP)’ is not supported by the Specification (based on the arguments provided by applicant) or should be interpreted as to mean one or more PLPs. Ans. 5. In other words, Appellant’s original Specification discloses that the subframe can have only one PLP (7404 or 7405_1 as disclosed in Figures 110-114) because, as found by the Examiner, Appellant’s “specification never indicates that the parameter N (see 7405_N in Fig. 104) cannot be equal to 2. When N is 2, at least the last subframe in Fig. 104 only has one PLP (i.e., PLP#2).” Ans. 5–6. We agree with the Examiner’s findings that the Specification fails to provide written description support for the subframes each being different from a Physical Layer Pipe (PLP). Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Specification provides written description support for the limitation “the subframes each being different from a Physical Layer Pipe (PLP),” and the Examiner has not erred by rejecting pending claims 5–32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. SECTION 103(a) REJECTION Claim 5 recites, inter alia: a frame configuration circuit configured to generate a frame such that the frame includes signalling data and subframes following the signalling data in a time axis, the subframes being arranged in the time axis, the subframes each consisting of Appeal 2020-006276 Application 15/966,369 5 OFDM symbols arranged in the time axis, the subframes each being different from a Physical Layer Pipe (PLP); . . . . . . wherein each of the OFDM symbols is one of a subframe boundary symbol and a data symbol, the subframe boundary symbol being provided at at least one of a head or a tail end of the OFDM symbols in the time axis, a number of pilots in the subframe boundary symbol being greater than a number of pilots in the data symbol. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.) (hereinafter “the disputed limitations”). The Examiner finds that Stadelmeier teaches the disputed limitations (Final Act. 5–6, citing Stadelmeier, ¶¶ 7, 12, 13, 18, 22, 26, 115, 137, 138, Figures 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 12). Appellant argues that Stadelmeier does not teach the disputed limitations in various contentions argued on pages 7 through 10 of the Appeal Brief. We note the Examiner makes new findings in the Answer. Compare Ans. 6–10 (presenting the new findings by citing to Stadelmeier, ¶¶ 116, 123, 127, Figures 4, 9), with Final Act. 5–6 (without citing Stadelmeier, ¶¶ 116, 123, 127, Figures 4, 9). Appellant does not rebut the Examiner’s new findings in their Reply Brief. In addition, we agree with the Examiner’s new findings that Stadelmeier teaches the disputed limitations recited in claim 5. Ans. 6–10. Finally, Appellant does not argue claims 6–32 separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 6–13. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 5–32. Appeal 2020-006276 Application 15/966,369 6 CONCLUSION In summary: 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). AFFIRMED Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 5–32 112, first paragraph Written Description 5–32 5–32 103(a) Stadelmeier, Ramesh, Ko 5–32 Overall Outcome 5–32