`
`\PE
`
`“‘32.
`( M ”W-
`‘3»“4,,
`
`‘ TRAY!
`
`#0/&
`Patent (510
`Attorney's Docket No. (M529 —
`c} W
`
`[N THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`) BQXAE
`)
`) Group Art Unit: 2664
`)
`_
`) Examiner: F. Duong
`)
`
`RECEIVED
`MAY 1 6 2002
`Technology Centerzeoo
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`In re Patent Application of
`Alex Krister RAl’l‘H ct a1.
`
`Application No: 09899371
`
`Filed: September 21, 1999
`
`For: MULTI-RATE
`RADIOCOMMUNICATION
`SYSTEMS AND TERMINALS
`
`AMENDMENI
`
`Assistant Commissioner for Patents
`
`Washington, D.C. 20231
`
`Sir:
`
`In response to the Office Action issued on February 11, 2002, the Examiner's
`
`approval is respectfully requested to amend the above-identified application as follows.
`
`
`
`t'
`W \"
`"fl
`gill I09—
`
`/
`[E [HE CLAIMS:
`.
`,
`.
`.
`/- .
`.
`l/i .
`Kindly cancel claims 26-36 and 52-66 without prejudice or disclaimer.
`Kindly replace claim 45 asfollows.
`,drS’:
`(Twice Amended) A communication station eompnsmg:
`
`]
`
`a processor for arranging information for transmission including providing
`
`l
`
`5
`
`at least one first field in which payload information is disposed and providing at least one
`
`second field, separate from said first field. which includes a service type identifier which
`
`identifies a type of payload information provided in said at least one first field; and
`
`a transmitter for transmitting information received from said processor
`
`including said at least one first field and said at least one second fiel ___,________.=;_.,.'___
`BROADCOM 1016
`_
`
`1
`
`v
`
`)I
`
`.
`
`
`
`Application No. 991322771
`Attorney's Docket No. {Emmi-490
`Page 2
`
`REMARKS
`
`Reconsideration and allowance of the above-identified application are respectfully
`
`requested. Claims 45-51 remain pending, wherein it is proposed to amend claim 45 and to
`
`cancel claims 26-44 and 52-66. Entry of these amendments is appropriate because they
`
`would not require further search and/or consideration.
`
`Initially, Applicants would like to thank Examiner Duong for his time and courtesy
`
`during the personal interview conducted with the undersigned on May 6, 2002. The
`
`following discussion elaborates upon the issues discussed during the personal interview.
`
`In the first and second paragraphs of the Office Action it is noted that non~elected '
`
`claims 26—36 and 52-66 have not been canceled. Upon entry of the amendment above these
`
`claims will‘be canceled thereby addressing this concern.
`
`In the third paragraph of the Office Action claim 45 is objected to for minor
`
`informalities.
`
`It is proposed to amend claim 45 to address this informality. Accordingly,
`
`entry of the amendment to claim 45 and withdrawal of this ground of objection is
`
`respectfully requested.
`
`It is respectfully submitted that the amendment to claim 45 does not
`
`narrow the scope of coverage of this claim, or of any element of this claim.
`
`In the fourth paragraph of the Office Action the proposed drawing changes filed on
`
`November 21, 2001 have been approved. Accordingly, attached herewith is a submission
`
`of Formal Drawings incorporating the approved drawing changes.
`
`In the fifth paragraph of the Office Action claims 45-51 are rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e) as allegedly being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,757,813 to Raith
`
`("Raith"). This ground of rejection is respectfully traversed.
`2
`
`
`
`Application No. {£899,771
`Attorney's Docket No.W
`Page 3
`
`Prior to addressing this ground of rejection in detail, a brief description of the
`
`present invention is presented to highlight advantageous characteristics thereof.
`
`The present invention is directed to radiocommunications systems. and more
`
`particularly to methods and apparatus for identifying the type of payload information in a
`
`transmission payload. As commercial radiocommunications continues to grow. many other
`
`types of information in addition to voice information are being transmitted using
`
`radiocommunications systems. For example. in addition to voice information. video and
`
`data Communications are being implemented in radiocommunications systems. Each of
`
`these types of information has different transmission characteristics. for example. the
`
`amount of channel coding required and the ability to tolerate delay. Accordingly, it would
`
`be desirable to provide sufficient flexibility in radiocomrnunications systems for the variety
`
`of information.
`
`Due to the different transmission characteristics associated with the different types
`
`of information, it would be desirable to provide an ability for a transmitter to be able to
`
`inform a receiver of the type of information in a transmission payload. One conventional
`
`technique foridentifying the type of information in a transmission payload is to employ call
`
`control signaling over the Fast Associated Control Channel (FACCH) to identify which
`
`type of instantaneous service is to be supported over the channel. One technique for
`
`discriminating between different types of information in a transmission payload on a slot by
`
`slot basis requires a mobile station to discriminate based upon the differences in channel
`
`coding. Although discrimination based upon channel coding may be sufficient in systems
`
`3‘
`
`i
`
`‘
`
`in which there are two different types of information possible in a transmission payload, as
`3
`
`
`
`Application No. 99399311
`Attorney's Docket No.W
`Page 4
`
`the number of different types of information expands beyond two, the complexity of
`
`discriminating between different types of information in this manner becomes excessive.
`
`Accordingly, the present invention overcomes the above-identified and other
`
`deficiencies of the prior art by employing a field which identifies the type of payload
`
`information in another field.
`
`In accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
`
`the fast out-of-band channel (FOC) can be employed to include a service type identifier to
`
`identify the type of payload information in another field. By providing the service type ‘
`
`_
`
`identifier, the present invention overcomes the complexity required of discrimination based"
`
`upon channel coding when more then two different types of information are employed 'in a
`
`radiocommunications system.
`
`Raith does not anticipate Applicants' claim 1 because Raith does not disclose or
`
`suggest all of the elements of Applicants’ claim 45. For example. Raith does not disclose
`
`or suggest a processor for "providing at least one second field. separate from said first
`
`field, which includes a service type identifier which identifies the type of payload
`
`information provided in said at least one first field" as recited in Applicants' claim 45.
`
`Raith discloses a method for achieving optimal channel coding in a communication
`
`system. Specifically, Raith discloses a method in which the reserved field or the
`
`CSFP/PCF field can be provided with an indication bit for indicating the type of channel
`
`coding being used in the data field. However, Raith does not disclose a service type
`
`identifier which identifies a type ofpayload information. Moreover, there is nothing in
`
`Raith which explicitly or inherently discloses that the type of channel coding being used in '
`
`the data field identifies a type ofpayload information. Accordingly, Raith cannot disclose
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Application No. 091322.17]
`Attorney's Docket No. {ELMO-490
`Page 5
`
`a processor "providing at least one second field, separate from said first field, which '
`
`includes a service type identifier which identifies a type‘of payload information provided in
`
`said at least one first field" as recited in Applicants' claim 45.
`
`In the Response to Arguments section of the Office Action it is asserted that since
`
`the last paragraph on page 15 of the present application describes that the FCC field can
`
`provide information regarding channel coding, that Raith's disclosure of identifying a type
`
`of channel coding anticipates the "service type identifier which identifies the type of
`
`payload information provided in said at leaSt one first field " recited in Applicants' claim
`
`45. However, as discussed during the personal interview, this section of Applicants"
`
`specification states that "the FOC can provide information regarding the type of service
`
`which the associated payload is currently supporting, the channel coding and/or
`
`interleaving associated therewith." (emphasis added). Accordingly, it is clear that the
`
`FCC field can provide information regarding three different aspects of the transmission,
`
`namely, 1)
`
`type of service, 2) channel coding, and 3) interleaving. These different aspects
`
`can be alternatives or they can all be indicated by the FCC field. However. Applicants'
`
`claim 45 recites that "at least one second field...identifies the type of payload information. "
`
`Accordingly, the plain language of this claim makes clear that Applicants are claiming the
`
`use of a field to identify the type of payload information and not the type of channel
`
`coding. Therefore,lit is respectfully submitted that a disclosure of the identification of the
`
`type of channel coding does not anticipate the "at least one second field" which " identifies
`
`the type of payload information" as recited in Applicants' claim 45.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Application No. 02/399,771
`Attorney‘s Docket No.W
`Page 6
`
`During the personal interview, the Examiner discussed that Applicants'
`
`specification, at page 15, lines 11-20. describes a prior system which employs
`
`discrimination of channel coding to identify a type of transmission payload information.
`
`and in view of Raith's disclosure of employing a field to identify the type of channel
`
`coding, that the identification of channel coding would necessarily identify the type of
`
`transmission payload information. However, Raith does not disclose. expressly or
`
`inherently, that channel coding can be employed to identify a type of transmission payload
`
`information. Accordingly. reliance upon the disclosure of prior systems in Applicants'
`
`specification in combination with Raith is not proper as an anticipation rejection under 35
`
`U .S.C. § 102 since the rejection requires a modification of the disclosure of Raith to
`
`allegedly meet the elements of Applicants‘ claim 45.
`
`Nevertheless, as discussed during the personal interview, the type of channel coding
`
`may not necessarily identify the type of payload information.
`
`In other words, each
`
`different type of payload information may have more than one type of coding. and the
`
`types of coding between these different types of payload information may overlap.
`Accordingly, it may not be possible identify the type of payload information 'hased upon an
`
`indication of channel coding since the type of channel'coding identified may be employed
`
`for different types of information. This argument is intended to illustrate that the
`
`identification of the type of channel coding in Raith does not inherently identify the type of
`
`payload information because the identification of channel coding does not necessarily
`
`identify the type of payload information as would he required for a rejection based upon
`
`inherency.
`
`
`
`Application No. 09/329,771
`Attorney's Docket No.W
`Page 7
`
`Since there is nothing in Raith which expressly or inherently discloses a processor
`
`"providing at least one second field, separate from said~first field, which includes a service
`
`type identifier which identifies a type of payload information provided in said at least one
`
`first field" as recited in Applicants' claim 45, Raith cannot anticipate Applicants' claim 45.
`
`Claims 46-51 depend from claim 45, and hence, these claims are patentably
`
`distinguishable over Raith for at least those reasons stated above with regards to
`
`Applicants' claim 45. For at least those reasons stated above, it is respectfully requested .
`
`that the rejection of claims 45—51 as allegedly being anticipated by Raith be withdrawn
`
`All outstanding objections and rejections having been addressed is respectfully
`
`submitted that the present application is in condition for allowance. Notice to this affect is
`
`respectfully requested. If there are any questions regarding this response or the application
`
`in general, the Examiner's is encouraged to contact the undersigned at 703-838-6578.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BURNS, DUANE, SWECKER & MATI-IIS, L.L.P.
`
` p en W. Palan
`
`Registration No. 43,420
`
`PO. Box 1404
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1404
`(703) 836-6620
`
`Date: May 10, 2002
`
`
`
`Application No. 091329.771
`Attorney‘s Docket No. 040010-490
`Page 1
`
`AttashmenfloAmcndmenLdatchayJflJflfl;
`
`Marked-up Claim 45
`
`45.
`
`(Twice Amended) A communication station comprising:
`
`a processor for arranging information for transmission including providing
`
`at least one first field in which payload information is disposed and providing at [lest] least
`
`one second field. separate from said first field, which includes a service type identifier
`
`which identifies a type of payload information provided in said at least one first field; and
`
`a transmitter for transmitting information received from said processor
`
`including said at least one first field and said at lease one second field.
`
`