Ex Parte BHUSHAN

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 31, 2019

14597116 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/597,116 01/14/2015
15055 7590 06/04/2019
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Naga BHUSHAN
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
145578US 7139
EXAMINER
CHU, WUTCHUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2019 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):
qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com
P AIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NAGA BHUSHAN
Appeal2018-007332
Application 14/597,116 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11-15, 17-21, and23-
25.2 App. Br. 15-19 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
WeAFFIRM. 3
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is QUALCOMM
Incorporated. Appeal Brief 3.
2 Claims 2, 5, and 16 have been cancelled (see App. Br. 15-17 (Claims
App.)), and pending claims 10 and 22 are not before us on appeal as they are
only objected to by the Examiner (see Notice of Panel Decision from Pre-
Appeal Brief Review (mailed January 24, 2018); see also Final Office
Action ("Final Act.") (mailed September 6, 2017), Office Action Summary).
3 Our Decision refers to Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed
February 21, 2018; Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed July 10, 2018;
Appeal2018-007332
Application 14/ 597, 116
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to methods and devices "for indication
of channel usage in a wireless communication environment" by
"determin[ing] a residual length of an ongoing transmission burst including
a plurality of segments" and "transmit[ ting], in at least one segment of the
transmission burst, control information indicating the residual length of the
ongoing transmission burst." Spec. ,r 2; Abstract.
Claims 1, 13-15, 24, and 25 are independent. Representative claim 1
is reproduced below:
1. A method for wireless communication by an apparatus,
compnsmg:
monitoring a segment of an ongoing transmission burst
comprising a plurality of segments;
determining a residual length of the ongoing transmission
burst, based on control information transmitted in the monitored
segment, wherein the control information indicates the residual
length as a number of segments remaining in the transmission
burst; and
powering down one or more radio components during the
residual length of the transmission burst.
App. Br. 15-19 (Claims App.).
Evidence Considered
Un et al. ("Un") US 2007/0162610 Al July 12, 2007
Gerendai et al. US 7,542,472 Bl June 2, 2009
("Gerendai")
Pannell US 2012/0230348 Al Sept. 13, 2012
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed May 17, 2018; and original
Specification ("Spec.") filed January 14, 2015.
2
Appeal2018-007332
Application 14/ 597, 116
I Madan et al. ("Madan") I US 2010/0202289 Al I Aug. 12, 2010
Examiner's Rejections4
(1) Claims 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19-21, 24, and 25 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Un and Gerendai.
Final Act. 4--11. 5
(2) Claims 4, 12, 18, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Un, Gerendai, and Pannell. Final Act. 11-13.
(3) Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Un, Gerendai, and Madan. Final Act. 13-14.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Un's method
for implementing a media-access control layer of a network device teaches a
wireless communication method that (i) monitors a segment (Un's MAC
PDU (media-access-control protocol data unit)) of an ongoing transmission
burst of segments (MAC PDUs of a frame transmitted in one burst), and (ii)
determines a residual length of the transmission burst based on control
information (Un's downlink map indicating a number of subsequent
transmission bursts) transmitted in the monitored segment, as claimed. Final
4 A rejection of claims 1, 13-15, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Final Act. 2--4) was withdrawn
in the Examiner's Advisory Action mailed November 8, 2017 (see Advisory
Act. 2).
5 Claim 5, which was also rejected over Un and Gerendai (see Final Act. 4,
7), has been incorporated into claim 1 by Appellant's After-Final
Amendment (dated November 3, 2017) which was entered by the
Examiner's Advisory Action (see Advisory Act. PTOL-303).
3
Appeal2018-007332
Application 14/ 597, 116
Act. 5 (citing Un ,r,r 31-34, 54--57, 63, 68). The Examiner further finds Un
discloses guard times after a sub-frame gives a base station and subscriber
stations time to ramp down their transmission carrier signals, thereby
teaching "powering down one or more radio components during the residual
length of the transmission burst" as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 7 ( citing
Un ,r 32, Fig. 3) (rejecting claim S's limitations currently incorporated into
claim 1 ).
To support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner relies on
Gerendai for teaching the claimed "control information [that] indicates the
residual length as a number of segments remaining in the transmission
burst." Final Act. 5-7 (citing Gerendai 4:1-12, 5:27-30, 5:47-53, 6:26-34,
9:55-57, 15:1--4). Particularly, the Examiner finds Gerendai discloses a data
stream for a message is segmented into an ordered sequence of packets that
include information (such as a Packet Sequence Number (PSN)) indicating a
number of segments/packets remaining in the stream. Ans. 4--5.
Appellant disputes the Examiner's factual findings regarding Un and
Gerendai. In particular, Appellant argues "while a PSN [ of Gerendai] may
indicate a position of a data packet within the data stream, it cannot indicate
the residual length of the data stream" because "the PSN s wrap around after
reaching either of the ends of the PSN range." App. Br. 11-12. Thus,
Appellant contends, "Gerendai fails to teach any intention on part of the
[transmitting] base station to indicate a residual length of a transmission" as
required by claim 1. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 5. Appellant also argues Un
does not teach or suggest "powering down one or more radio components
during the residual length of the transmission burst" as claimed. App. Br.
12. Appellant asserts Un's "ramping down transmission carrier signals
4
Appeal2018-007332
Application 14/ 597, 116
during a guard time is not the same as [the claimed] powering down one or
more radio components for a residual length of an ongoing transmission
burst" because "[t]he guard times of Un are between subframes when no
transmissions are taking place" while "the residual length of claim 1
corresponds to a residual length of an ongoing transmission burst." Id.
( citing Un ,r 32).
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. Rather, we find the
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellant's arguments
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 4---6. Therefore, we adopt
the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For
additional emphasis, we note that----contrary to Appellant's assertion that
"Gerendai fails to teach any intention on part of the [transmitting] base
station to indicate a residual length of a transmission" (see App. Br. 11 }-
Gerendai discloses some packets in the data stream include control
information indicating a number of packets (segments) remaining in the
stream. Ans. 4--5; Final Act. 5---6 (citing Gerendai 4:1-12, 5:27-30, 5:47-
53, 6:26-34, 9:55-57, 15: 1--4).
For example, Gerendai teaches PDU (Protocol Data Unit) packets
whose headers include (i) the "Packet Sequence Number (PSN) ... used for
numbering segmented messages and data packets .... [to] indicate[] the
position of the data packet inside a sequenced data flow" and to "increase or
decrease from one packet to a following packet," (ii) a "Group Trailer
(GTR) flag which indicates the last packet of a transmission group (the GTR
packet)," and (iii) a "Transmission Trailer (TTR) flag which indicates the
last packet of the segmented message (the TTR packet)," such that a "PSN
... equal to the packet sequence number of the GTR or the TTR packet"
5
Appeal2018-007332
Application 14/ 597, 116
indicates the last packet of a transmission group or the last packet of a
segmented message. See Gerendai 4:1-12 (emphasis added), 6:32-35, 9:55-
67, 14:28-31, 15: 1--4, Fig. 2 (showing packets with control information).
Thus, Gerendai teaches control information (PSN, GTR flag, TTR
flag) in a packet (segment) indicates the last packet of a transmission group
or the last packet of a segmented message and, as such, teaches control
information is transmitted in a segment/packet to indicate a residual length
as a number of segments ( e.g., a number of zero segments follow the
indicated last segment) remaining in a transmission burst, as required by
claim 1. 6
Appellant also argues Un's paragraph 32 does not teach or suggest
"powering down one or more radio components during the residual length of
the transmission burst," as claimed. App. Br. 12. Appellant asserts "[t]he
guard times of Un are between subframes when no transmissions are taking
place" while "the residual length of claim 1 corresponds to a residual length
of an ongoing transmission burst." Id. This argument is not persuasive
6 We additionally note, Appellant's Specification provides "a segment may
define a minimum granularity (in time) for a transmission" and "each
transmission burst may contain an integer number of segments." See Spec.
,r 55. The Specification further provides that "[i]n conventional WiFi
transmissions ( e.g., defined by the [IEEE] 802.11 family of standards), the
preamble of each PPDU and MAC header of each MPDU contains a
duration field that specifies the length of the current packet/transaction"
thereby "allowing non-targeted devices to know how long to defer (refrain
from transmitting potentially interfering signals)." See Spec. ,r 53 ( emphasis
added). Thus, Appellant's Specification also indicates that signaling a
transmission's residual length via control information in a segment or packet
( similar to Appellant's claim 1) would have been known to an artisan skilled
in the art of WiFi communications and IEEE standards.
6
Appeal2018-007332
Application 14/ 597, 116
because claim 1 does not preclude the "residual length of the transmission
burst" from being a zero length indicating the transmission's endpoint.
Because Un teaches powering down base and subscriber stations at the end
of a transmission, we agree with the Examiner that Un teaches and suggests
the claimed powering down one or more radio components (Un's base and
subscriber stations) during a residual length of a transmission burst. Ans. 5-
6; Final Act. 7.
For these reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1. As such, we sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 3, 4, 6-9, 11, and 12,
argued for their dependency. App. Br. 12-13.
With respect to independent claims 13-15, 24, and 25, Appellant
reiterates the same arguments presented against claim 1. App. Br. 12-13.
For the same reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of independent claims 13-15, 24, and 25, and dependent claims
17-21 and 23, argued for their dependency. App. Br. 13.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellant has not demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11-15, 17-21, and 23-25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3,
4, 6-9, 11-15, 17-21, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
7
Appeal2018-007332
Application 14/ 597, 116
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8