Ex Parte Butler et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 3, 2010

10981359 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 3, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte BRIAN K. BUTLER and KLEIN S. GILHOUSEN
_____________

Appeal 2009-006851
Application 10/981,359
Technology Center 2600
______________

Decided: June 7, 2010
_______________

Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN C. MARTIN, and JOSEPH F.
RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-006851
Application 10/981,359

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 32-44.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a paging method and apparatus for a
wireless communication device. An initial page is sent on a less encoded
channel to notify the wireless communication device of a full page message
on a second highly encoded channel. The communication device
subsequently monitors the second channel and receives the full message
during an appropriate time slot. See Spec: 1-3. Claim 32 is representative of
the invention and reproduced below:
32. A method for paging a wireless communication
device in a wireless telecommunications system
comprising:
transmitting a quick page message via a first, less
encoded channel, said quick page message notifying the
wireless terminal to begin monitoring a second highly
encoded channel for a full page message;
transmitting a full page message via said second
channel;
wherein processing said second channel includes encoding
through a convolutional encoder, interleaving through an interleaver,
and adding cyclic redundancy check through a cyclic redundancy
check circuit to said full page message, wherein said quick page
message contains less data bits than said full page message, such that
the amount of processing to process said quick page message is
substantially less than for the full page message in the wireless
communication device;

1 Claims 1-31 were cancelled in an Amendment After Non-Final, filed
January 5, 2007.
Appeal 2009-006851
Application 10/981,359

3
wherein said wireless communication device is a particular
wireless communication device included within a set of
wireless communication devices in said wireless
communication system;
wherein said set of wireless communication devices
includes a plurality of wireless terminals;
wherein said quick page message is for directing said set of
wireless communication devices to monitor said second channel
for said full page message;
wherein said full page message identifies said particular
wireless communication device among said set of wireless
communication devices;
wherein said transmitting said quick page message is during
a first time slot assigned to the set of wireless communication
devices;
wherein said transmitting said full page message is during a
second time slot assigned to the set of wireless communication
devices,
wherein said second time slot is assigned to said first time
slot by way of having a determined time delay between said
first and second time slots;
wherein said second time slot occurs after said first time
slot.

REFERENCES
Godoroja US 5,485,463 Jan. 16, 1996

Miller US 5,511,067 Apr. 23, 1996

Odenwalder US 6,173,007 B1 Jan. 9, 2001

Appeal 2009-006851
Application 10/981,359

4
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 32-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim
the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention. Ans. 14.
Claims 32-37 and 39-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Godoroja in view of Miller. Ans. 3-7.
Claims 38 and 41-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Godoroja in view of Miller and Odenwalder. Ans. 7-14.

ISSUES
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejections
Appellants argue on pages 11-12 of the Appeal Brief and pages 4-5 of
the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 32-44 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is in error. Appellants argue that the terms
“highly encoded” and “less encoded” are sufficiently described in the
Specification.
Thus, with respect to claims 32-44, Appellants’ contentions present us
with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the Specification does
not adequately describe the terms “highly encoded” and “less encoded” so as
to render the claims indefinite?
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
Appellants argue on pages 8-10 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2-3 of
the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 32 and
dependent claims 33-37 and 39-40 is in error. Appellants argue that neither
Godoroja nor Miller discloses transmitting, on a first less encoded channel, a
Appeal 2009-006851
Application 10/981,359

5
quick page message that notifies a wireless terminal to monitor a second
highly encoded channel for a full page message. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2.
Additionally, Appellants argue on pages 10-11 of the Appeal Brief and
pages 2-3 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 41 and 43 and dependent claims 38, 42, and 44 is in error for the
same reasons as independent claim 32.
Thus, with respect to claims 32-44, Appellants’ contentions present us
with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Godoroja in view of
Miller discloses transmitting, on a first less encoded channel, a quick page
message that notifies a wireless terminal to monitor a second highly encoded
channel for a full page message?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Godoroja
1. Godoroja discloses using a forward channel to send out a locate signal
to find a particular paging unit. Once the paging unit is located, a
signal is sent on a reverse channel to notify the system that the paging
unit is located and to determine the closest base station to the paging
unit. Once the closest base station is determined, the full paging
message is transmitted to the paging unit. Col. 5, ll. 2-25.

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejections
Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 32-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Appeal 2009-006851
Application 10/981,359

6
Independent claims 32, 41, and 43 recite the terms “less encoded channel”
and “highly encoded channel.” The Examiner finds that the Specification
does not provide a specific definition and the claims do not define these
terms. Ans. 14. As a result, the Examiner finds that the terms are relative
and the claims are rendered indefinite. Ans. 14. We disagree.
The term “less encoded” refers to a first channel and the term “highly
encoded” refers to a second channel. Spec. 3. While these terms may be
relative, they are relative to one another. In other words, the second channel
contains more encoding than the first channel and the first channel contains
less encoding than the second channel. Also, we agree with Appellants
(Reply Br. 4) that the Examiner (Ans. 16) has misinterpreted their reliance in
the Brief on paragraph [0035] of their Specification. The Examiner reads
that paragraph as referring to a channel (e.g., the less encoded channel),
when Appellants referred to that paragraph as discussing data (e.g., quick
paging data) (Reply Br. 4). Therefore, while the terms are broad, we do not
find that they are indefinite. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 32, 41, and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, nor will we sustain dependent claims 33-40, 42, and 44
which depend from the independent claims.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 32-44. Claim 32 recites “transmitting a quick page
message via a first, less encoded channel, said quick page message notifying
the wireless terminal to begin monitoring a second highly encoded channel
for a full page message.” Claims 41 and 43 contain similar limitations and
claims 33-40, 42, and 44 depend upon and incorporate the limitations found
Appeal 2009-006851
Application 10/981,359

7
in the independent claims. The Examiner finds that the term “less encoded”
refers to a page that is not a full page since a locating page would have less
coded data . Ans. 15. Additionally, the Examiner finds that the term
“highly encoded” refers to a full page since a full page has more coded data.
Ans. 15. Therefore, the Examiner finds that Godoroja discloses transmitting
a quick page message on a less encoded channel and a full message on a
more encoded channel. Ans. 3. Appellants argue that Godoroja does not
disclose one level of encoding for the locate signal and one level of encoding
for the paging message. App. Br. 9. We agree.
Godoroja’s system discloses how a paging unit is located, how the
closest base station is determined, and how a full message is sent to the
paging unit from the closest base station. FF 1. While two messages are
sent (a locate page and a full message), the Examiner has not cited and we
cannot find where Godoroja discloses different levels of encoding for the
two messages. Rather, the Examiner’s rejection seems to equate amount of
data coded with a level of encoding but has not provided evidence to support
this assertion. Further the Examiner has not shown that additional teachings
of Miller and Odenwalder make up for the deficiencies noted above.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 32-44.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that the Specification does not
adequately describe the terms “highly encoded” and “less encoded” and thus
renders the claims indefinite.
The Examiner erred in finding that Godoroja in view of Miller
discloses transmitting, on a first, less encoded channel, a quick page
Appeal 2009-006851
Application 10/981,359

8
message that notifies a wireless terminal to monitor a second, highly
encoded channel for a full page message.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 32-44 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 32-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is also reversed.

REVERSED

ELD

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121