Ex Parte Butler et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 3, 201010981359 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 3, 2010) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation