2020003256 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2021)

ASUSTek Computer Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 26, 2021

2020003256 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 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. 15/634,501 06/27/2017 Yu-Hsuan Guo 1426-129.101 1022 106622 7590 08/26/2021 Blue Capital Law Firm, P.C. 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1530 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 EXAMINER ROUDANI, OUSSAMA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2413 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/26/2021 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): docketing@bluecapitallaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YU-HSUAN GUO, MENG-HUI OU, WEI-MING YIN, and RICHARD LEE-CHEE KUO Appeal 2020-003256 Application 15/634,501 Technology Center 2400 Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGELS, 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, 2, 4–12, and 14–26. Claims 3 and 13 are cancelled and no other claims are pending. 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 ASUSTek Computer Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-003256 Application 15/634,501 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of a UE (User Equipment), comprising: receiving a configuration of a first threshold and a configuration of a second threshold from a network node; measuring a signal of a cell to derive information related to beamforming; and providing the information to the network node, wherein the information comprises at least an average or a summation of measurement results for a number of qualified beams of the cell, wherein the number of qualified beams to derive the average or the summation is limited by the first threshold, and wherein a beam is qualified if the measurement result of the beam is better than the second threshold. REJECTION Claims 1, 2, 4–12, and 14–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Nigam (US 2017/0214444 A1; July 27, 2017). OPINION The Examiner finds Nigam discloses each limitation of claim 1. In particular, the Examiner finds that Nigam discloses providing information to a network node in the form of a measurement report, where the measurement report is triggered for a serving cell when the number of beam pairs having the beam state measurement value larger than or equal to a first threshold is smaller than a present number. Non-final Act 3, 6–8 (citing Nigam ¶¶ 91–95). Appellant argues Nigam does not disclose applying the present number to limit the qualified beams used for deriving the beam state measurement average, as claimed. Appeal Br. 9. According to Appellant, Appeal 2020-003256 Application 15/634,501 3 Nigam uses a preset number to determine whether to trigger a measurement report but Nigam uses all qualified beam pairs to calculate the average. Id. (citing Nigam ¶ 78); accord Reply Br. 5. We disagree with Appellant and agree with the Examiner. As cited by the Examiner (Non-Final Act 3), Nigam discloses user equipment receiving measurement report configure information, measuring signals, and providing measurement reports to network nodes. Nigam ¶¶ 91–95. Contrary to Appellant’s argument that Nigam uses all qualified beams, Nigam discloses, for example, that when the cell priority is determined based on the measurement average, “the average may be calculated using the present number of beam pairs” such that the number of qualified beams reported is limited by a preset threshold. Nigam ¶ 80; see Ans. 4; Nigam ¶¶ 50, 65, 91, 93; see also Non-Final Act. 8 (citing Nigam ¶ 80 regarding dependent claim 2). For the first time in the Reply Brief, Appellant contends the Examiner did not address the cell selection or reselection aspects of claims 6 and 16. Reply Br. 6. Appellant did not raise this issue in the Appeal Brief and therefore waived the argument. Moreover, we disagree with Appellant’s contention that the Examiner failed to address those aspects of claims 6 and 16. See, e.g., Non-final Act 9–10 (addressing claims 6 and 16). CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–12, and 14–26 as being anticipated by Nigam. Appeal 2020-003256 Application 15/634,501 4 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–12, 14–26 102 Nigam 1, 2, 4–12, 14–26 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