Application No. 15/216,641
`Reply to Office Action dated February 23, 2018
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 will be pending upon entry of this amendment. Claims
`
`1 and 3-11 have been amended. Claims 2 and 12 have been canceled. Support for the
`
`amendments is found, for example, in paragraphs [0066]—[0070] of the application as filed. No
`
`new matter has been added to the application by way of these amendments.
`
`In the Office Action, claims 1 and 11 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Frederiksen (US. 2006/0067229 A1) in view of Zeira et al. (US.
`
`2017/0094553 A1). In response, applicant has amended claims 1 and 3-11 to more particularly
`
`recite the subject matter that applicant considers as their invention and to more clearly
`
`distinguish the claims from the cited references.
`
`Amended claim 1 recites a mobile station comprising:
`
`a receiver, which, in operation, receives an indeX indicating a transmission
`
`format,
`
`circuitry, which, in operation, executes coding processing of data and
`control information, the coding processing including a code rate adjustment for the data,
`wherein the code rate adjustment for the data is performed by changing a number of bits
`of the data depending on whether or not the control information is to be transmitted
`together with the data, and
`a transmitter, which, in operation, transmits the data and the control
`information, of which the coding processing is executed.
`
`Frederiksen fails to teach or suggest the code rate adjustment as recited in claim 1.
`
`Frederiksen describes a base station that adjusts a transport block size if a desired code rate is
`
`associated with a reduced performance. See paragraphs [0010]-[0011]. The transport block size
`
`is derived using a transport resource indicator (TFRI) and look up tables. See paragraph [0024]
`
`and Tables 1 and 2. If a calculated transport block size is indicated as a dangerous value in the
`
`look up table (e.g., blacked out in Tables 1 and 2), then an adjusted transport block size is used.
`
`See paragraphs [0049]—[0050]. Frederiksen is silent to adjusting the desired code rate, let alone
`
`adjusting the desired code rate by changing a number of bits of the data depending on whether or
`
`not control information is to be transmitted together with data to be transmitted. Rather, the
`
`transport block size is adjusted.
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/216,641
`Reply to Office Action dated February 23, 2018
`
`In addition, Frederiksen describes that the base station implements packet
`
`scheduling and link adaptation algorithms for transmitting packet data to user equipment. See
`
`paragraph [0055]. The scheduling and link adaptation algorithms are not applied to data to be
`
`transmitted by the user eguip_ment. Instead, the scheduling and link adaptation algorithms are
`
`applied to packet data transmitted by the base station.
`
`Further, Frederiksen describes that the base station receives channel quality
`
`information (CQI) from the user equipment to aid the packet scheduling and link adaptation
`
`algorithms. See paragraph [0055]. The scheduling and link adaptation algorithms are not
`
`adjusted depending on whether or not control information is to be transmitted together with the
`
`data. Rather, the scheduling and link adaptation is based on the cg 21, itself, that was previously
`
`received.
`
`Zeira fails to cure the deficiencies of Frederiksen. Zeira describes a radio network
`
`controller (RNC) 105 that monitors measurement reports to determine when it needs to adjust a
`
`current data bit rate to maintain the quality and maXimum data bit rates of radio links 120A,
`
`120B with a wireless transmit/receive unit 110 (WTRU). See paragraphs [0019]-[0020] and
`
`Figure 1. Similar to Frederiksen, the current data bit rate is not adjusted by the WTRU 110.
`
`Instead, the current data bit rate is adjusted by the RNC 105. Further, similar to Frederiksen, the
`
`current data bit rate is not adjusted depending on whether or not control information is to be
`
`transmitted together with the data transmitted by the WTRU 110. Rather, the RNC 105 adjusts
`
`the current data bit rate depending on the measurement rep_orts, themselves, that were previously
`
`received.
`
`Applicant submits claim 1 is allowable over Frederiksen and Zeira.
`
`Although the language of claim 11 is not identical to the language of claim 1, the
`
`allowability of claim 11 will become apparent in light of the discussion above with respect to
`
`claim 1.
`
`Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`as being unpatentable over Frederiksen in view of Zeira as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and
`
`further in view Dotting et al. (US. 2006/0133402).
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/216,641
`Reply to Office Action dated February 23, 2018
`
`Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20 depend from claims 1 and 11.
`
`Applicant submits that claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20 are allowable for the features
`
`recited therein as well as for the reasons discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 11.
`
`Claims 3, 7, 13, and 17 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Frederiksen in view of Zeira as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further
`
`in view Onggosanusi et al. (US. 2006/0250941).
`
`Claims 3, 7, 13, and 17 depend from claims 1 and 11. Applicant submits that
`
`claims 3, 7, 13, and 17 are allowable for the features recited therein as well as for the reasons
`
`discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 11.
`
`Claims 9 and 19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Frederiksen in view of Zeira as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view Lochi
`
`(US. 7,257,432).
`
`Claims 9 and 19 depend from claims 1 and 11. Applicant submits that claims 9
`
`and 19 are allowable for the features recited therein as well as for the reasons discussed above
`
`with respect to claims 1 and 11.
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/216,641
`Reply to Office Action dated February 23, 2018
`
`Closing
`
`All of the claims remaining in the application are now clearly allowable.
`
`Favorable consideration and a Notice of Allowance are earnestly solicited.
`
`In the event the Examiner disagrees or finds minor informalities that can be
`
`resolved by telephone conference, the Examiner is urged to contact Applicant’s undersigned
`
`representative by telephone at (206) 694-4874 in order to expeditiously resolve prosecution of
`
`this application.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`SEED Intellectual Property Law Group LLP
`
`/Blake K. Kumabe/
`
`Blake K. Kumabe
`
`Registration No. 68,240
`
`BKszhl
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, Washington 98104-7092
`Phone:
`(206) 622-4900
`Fax: (206) 682-6031
`
`608507471
`
`