Ex Parte Bontu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 4, 201713627647 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/627,647 09/26/2012 Chandra Sekhar Bontu 29717-0655001 2409 94149 7590 12/06/2017 Fish & Richardson P.C. (Blackberry) P.O.Box 1022 Minneapolis, MN 55440 EXAMINER MCCALLUM, LATRESA A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2469 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/06/2017 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): patdoctc@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHANDRA SEKHAR BONTU, YI SONG, and ZHIJUN CAI Appeal 2017-000963 Application 13/627,647 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-21, and 23^10, which constitute all claims pending in this application. App. Br., Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).1 We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Blackberry Ltd. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2017-000963 Application 13/627,647 Introduction According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter is directed to a method and system for performing transmit power adjustment for inter- device communication in a wireless communication system. Spec. ^ 1, Fig. 1. In particular, user equipment (UEO) transmits a first sequence to user equipment (UE1) over an inter-device communication link (e.g., evolved node B (eNB) 112a). Upon determining that a response sequence received from UE1 includes the first sequence, UEO increases its transmit power level for a next transmission to UE1. Id. 14, 35-37, Fig. 1, Fig. 4. Figure 1 Figure 1 illustrates an example cellular wireless communication system in which methods and systems consistent with the present disclosure may be implemented. 2 Appeal 2017-000963 Application 13/627,647 Representative Claim Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows: 1. A method for wireless communication, comprising: transmitting, at a first user equipment (UE), a first sequence to a second UE over an inter-device communication link; receiving, at the first UE, a response sequence from the second UE over the inter-device communication link; determining, at the first UE, that the response sequence comprises the first sequence; in response to the determining that the response sequence comprises the first sequence, increasing a transmit power level associated with the first UE based on the response sequence; and using the increased transmit power level of the first UE for a next transmission to the second UE over the inter-device communication link. Prior Art Relied upon Schiff US 2002/0111144 A1 Aug. 15,2002 Ahn US 2012/0163252 A1 June 28, 2012 Seo US 2013/0083719 A1 Apr. 4, 2013 Chen US 2013/0244585 A1 Sept. 19,2013 Robke US 8,649,809 B2 Feb. 11,2014 LTE Advanced, 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol specification, 11 3GPP 95-167 (2012) (hereinafter “3GPP”). 3 Appeal 2017-000963 Application 13/627,647 Rejections on Appeal Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Robke and Chen. Final Act. 10-14. Claims 4-6, 10-12, 15, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Robke, Chen, and Ahn. Final Act. 15-25. Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Robke, Chen, and Schiff. Final Act. 25-29. Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Robke, Chen, Ahn, and Seo. Final Act. 29-31. Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Robke, Chen, Ahn, and 3GPP. Final Act. 31-33. Claims 21, 23-26, 30-32, 35, and 38^10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ahn, Robke, and Chen. Final Act. 34^12. Claims 27-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ahn, Robke, Chen, and Schiff. Final Act. 43^16. Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ahn, Robke, Chen, and Seo. Final Act. 46^19. 4 Appeal 2017-000963 Application 13/627,647 Claims 36 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ahn, Robke, Chen, and 3GPP. Final Act. 49-50. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 4-9, and the Reply Brief, pages 1-3.2 We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ contentions. Except as otherwise indicated hereinafter, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final Office Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. Final Act. 3-50; Ans. 2-64. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Appellants argue that the combination of Robke and Chen does not teach or suggest “in response to the determining that the response sequence comprises the first sequence, increasing a transmit power level associated with the first UE based on the response sequence,” as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 1. In particular, Appellants argue that Chen teaches a first transceiver sending to a second transceiver an increased transmit power level in response to receiving a negotiation message from the second transceiver. App. Br. 5 (citing Chen ^ 18). According to Appellants, the negotiation message does not include a first sequence sent by the first 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 14, 2016), the Reply Brief (filed October 24, 2016), and the Answer (mailed August 25, 2016) (“Ans.”) for the respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). 5 Appeal 2017-000963 Application 13/627,647 transceiver. Id. at 5-6. Further, Appellants argue that Robke merely teaches including a response message and an original message in a message thread in response to detecting that the original message is included in the response message. App. Br. 6 (citing Robke 1:55-64). However, Appellants contend that Robke’s disclosure of including the messages in a message thread does not teach increasing the transmit power level as required by the claim. Id. at 6. This argument is not persuasive. At the outset, we note that there are no material disputes between Appellants and the Examiner regarding the teachings of Robke and Chen. In particular, both Appellants and the Examiner agree that Robke teaches determining that a response message and an original message are in a message thread in response to detecting that the original message is contained in the response message. App. Br. 6 (citing Robke 1:55-64), Ans. 54 (citing Robke 1:57-59, 2:35^41). Further, both Appellants and the Examiner agree that Chen teaches a first transceiver increasing a transmit power level in response to receiving a negotiation message from a second transceiver. App. Br. 5-6 (citing Chen 18), Ans. 55 (citing Chen]fl| 16, 18). We agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ arguments are tantamount to an individual attack against the references. Ans. 55-60. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). As correctly noted by the Examiner, Appellants’ argument about Chen not teaching a response sequence including an original sequence is misplaced because Robke’s disclosure is relied upon for that 6 Appeal 2017-000963 Application 13/627,647 teaching. Ans. 55-57. Likewise, Appellants’ argument that Robke does not teach adjusting a power transmit level is misplaced because the Examiner relied upon Chen for that teaching. Id. at 57-58. We therefore agree with the Examiner that Robke’s disclosure of determining that a response message is in a message thread with an original message based on “for example from an appropriate reference which has been assigned to the original message” (Robke 2:36-37) teaches “determining, at the first UE, that the response sequence comprises the first sequence.” Ans. 58. Similarly, we agree with the Examiner that Chen’s disclosure of a first UE increasing the transmit power level to communicate with a second UE in response to receiving a negotiation message from the second UE teaches “increasing a transmit power level associated with the first UE based on” a response. Id. With respect to the Examiner’s proposed combination of the two teachings, Appellants argue that there is no demonstrated “teaching, suggestion or motivation” for the proposed combination of Robke and Chen. Id. at 7. According to Appellants, the motivational statement relied upon by the Examiner for the proposed combination is taken from Chen, and is tantamount to “a conclusory statement, without any reasoning or rational underpinning.” Id. at 7 (citing Chen 5). Appellants argue that the cited motivational statement merely relates to a transmission power control negotiation method, which does not pertain to Robke’s message thread determination method. Id. at 8. Appellants contend that because the Examiner has not explained how Chen’s teachings would benefit Robke’s, and vice-versa, the motivation statement for the proposed combination is untenable. Id. at 8-9. 7 Appeal 2017-000963 Application 13/627,647 This argument is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that argument is unavailing. Ans. 61. The Supreme Court instructs that an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We find the Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited teachings of Robke and Chen is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. Id. at 416. The ordinarily-skilled artisan, being “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” would be able to fit the teachings of Robke and Chen together like pieces of a puzzle to predictably result in a UE increasing its power transmit level upon receiving a response sequence from another UE indicating an initial sequence is contained in the response sequence. Id. at 420-21. Because Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner’s proffered combination would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” we agree with the Examiner that the proposed modification would have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. Regarding the rejection of claims 3-21, and 23^40, because Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously 8 Appeal 2017-000963 Application 13/627,647 discussed for patentability of claim 1 above (App. Br. 4-9), those claims fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii). DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1,3-21, and 23^10. 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) (iv). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation