Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2016

13195250 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/195,250 08/01/2011
74365 7590 08/01/2016
Slater Matsil, LLP
17950 Preston Road, Suite 1000
Dallas, TX 75252
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dong Chen
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.
HW 81364118US05 1601
EXAMINER
MORLAN, ROBERT M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2475
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2016 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):
uspatent@huawei.com
docketing@slatermatsil.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DONG CHEN, JIE MA, and
SHUKUNWANG
Appeal2014-010012
Application 13/195,250
Technology Center 2400
Before: JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and SCOTT
B. HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final decision to reject claims 25, 28-30, 33-35, 38, and 39, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 1-24, 26, 27,
31, 32, 36, and 37 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Throughout this opinion, we also refer to (1) the Final Action, mailed Oct.
22, 2013 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed May 22, 2014 ("Br."); and
(3) the Examiner's Answer mailed July 17, 2014 ("Ans.").
Appeal2014-010012
Application 13/195,250
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "[a] method for [a] processing
radio link failure (RLF)." More specifically,
When a user equipment (UE) communicates with a network
through two or more carriers, if a downlink RLF occurs on at
least one of the two or more carriers, the UE determines whether
there is a carrier among the two or more carriers on which no
downlink RLF occurs. The UE stops sending information on an
uplink dedicated physical control channel (DPCCH) of the
carrier on which the downlink RLF occurs if there is a carrier on
which no downlink RLF occurs.
Abstract.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A method for processing radio link failure (RLF)
compnsmg:
determining, by a base station, whether an uplink
RLF occurs on a primary carrier or at least one secondary
carrier when the base station communicates with a user
equipment (UE) through the primary carrier and the at
least one secondary carrier;
stopping, by the base station, sending information
on a downlink dedicated physical channel or fractional
dedicated physical channel (DPCH/F-DPCH) of a
secondary carrier of the at least one secondary carrier if
the uplink RLF occurs on the secondary carrier;
keeping, by the base station, communication
between the base station and the UE through one or more
other carriers on where the uplink RLF does not occur; and
determining, by the base station, the secondary
carrier on which the uplink RLF occurs is deactivated.
2
Appeal2014-010012
Application 13/195,250
THE REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS 2
The Examiner rejected claims 25, 28-30, 33-35, 38, and 39 under 35
U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph for lack of enablement. Final Act.
3-5.
The Examiner rejected claims 25, 28-30, 33-35, 38, and 39 under 35
U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph for lack written description support.
Final Act. 5-6.
The Examiner rejected claims 25, 28-30, 33-35, 38, and 39 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mariner et al. (US 2010/0195507 Al;
Aug. 5, 2010) ("Mariner"). Final Act. 7-11.
ANALYSIS
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in construing the recited
term "deactivated." According to Appellants, "'deactivated' means that a
transmission is disallowable. That is, the failed carrier is disallowable but
the failed carrier resources are maintained (means not stopped or shut off)."
Br. 5. In support of this interpretation, Appellants relies solely on a
technical specification, 3rd Generation Partnership Project Technical
Specification dated June 2013 ("3GPP TS 25.214Vl1.6.02"), which states:
Activated uplink frequency: For a specific UE, an uplink
frequency is said to be activated if the UE is allowed to transmit
on that frequency. The primary uplink frequency is always
activated when configured while a secondary uplink frequency
2 We agree with Appellants that since claims 26, 27, 31, 32, 36, and 37 are
canceled, the rejection based on Mariner and Samuels (Final Act. 11-12) is
moot. The written description and enablement rejections of these claims
would also be moot.
3
Appeal2014-010012
Application 13/195,250
has to be activated by means of an HS-SCCH order in order to
become activated. Similarly, for a specific UE, an uplink
frequency is said to be deactivated if it is configured but
disallowed by the NodeB to transmit on that frequency (3GPP
TS 25.214 Vll.6.0, page 8, section 3.1).
Br. 5 (citing 3GPP TS 25.214Vl1.6.0). While Appellants acknowledge the
date of the technical specification is after the priority date of the present
application, Appellants maintain it provides useful evidence and "the
definition of 'deactivated' did not change from the time of the filing of the
present application to the time that the reference was published." Br. 5.
The Examiner, on the other hand, determines that Appellants'
proposed construction is unduly narrow and not supported by the
Specification. Ans. 5. Specifically, the Examiner finds that "[t]he ordinary
meaning of the term inactive state would be simply a state where the carrier
is not active." Ans. 5. Further, the Examiner identifies use of the term
"deactivate" in other applications at the time of the invention that are
inconsistent with Appellants; proposed interpretation. See, e.g., Ans. 6;
Final Act. 4--5. And the Examiner notes that earlier versions of the 3rd
Generation Partnership Project Technical Specification did not include the
definition relied upon by the Appellants. Final Act. 4.
We agree with the Examiner. In the instant case, the Specification
does not provide any particular definition of deactivate and merely describes
that a carrier is considered to be deactivated when a radio uplink failure has
been detected on that carrier. See, e.g., Spec, i-f 65 ("The UE considers that
the carrier on which the downlink RLF occurs is deactivated, and therefore
does not send a message to the network."); i-f 104 ("If there is a carrier on
which no uplink RLF occurs among the two or more carriers used by the
UE, the NodeB considers that the carrier on which uplink RLF occurs is
4
Appeal2014-010012
Application 13/195,250
deactivated, and therefore does not send a message to the RNC."). As such,
there is no limitation in either the claims or Specification that suggest
deactivate requires maintaining failed carrier resources.
Appellants' reliance on the 3GPP TS 25.214 Vll.6.02 technical
specification, a document from four years after the priority date of the
present application, is also unpersuasive. Even if Appellants' cite to the
3GPP TS 25.214Vl1.6.02 technical specification shows that one
interpretation of deactivated is not active but maintaining carrier resources,
we are not persuaded that this is the only interpretation of the term
deactivate at the time of the invention and, more specifically, that use of the
term here should be limited to only this interpretation.
To the contrary, a broad, but reasonable, interpretation of deactivated,
particularly in view of the language of the claims and the disclosure of the
Specification, is inactive or not active. See Ans. 5 (noting that the plain and
ordinary meaning of deactivate is simply not active); see also Webster's II
New College Dictionary (1994) (defining "deactivate" as "to render
inactive"). This interpretation is further supported by the Examiner's
identification U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0196196 Al, to Ghosh, that describes a
carrier as in an inactive state even when configuration of the carrier is not
maintained. Ans. 6 (citing Ghosh, i-f 81 ).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting Appellants' proposed construction that deactivated means
5
Appeal2014-010012
Application 13/195,250
disallowable but the failed carrier resources are maintained and we adopt the
Examiner construction that deactivated means inactive or not active. 3
THE INDEFINITENESS AND WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REJECTIONS
Claims 25, 28-30, 33-35, 38, and 39
The Examiner notes that the written description and enablement
rejections were based on the Appellants' narrow construction of
"deactivated." Final Act. 3, 6. The Examiner also states that, under the
Examiner's interpretation, the claims would be enabled and there is
sufficient written description support. Final Act. 7. As such, because we
reject the Appellants' construction and adopt the Examiner's interpretation,
we do not sustain the written description and enablement rejections.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON MARINER
Claims 25, 28-30, 33-35, 38, and 39
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 25, 28-30, 33-35, 38, and 39 as unpatentable over
Mariner.
Because we disagree with Appellants' proposed definition of
3 We note that the Examiner directs the Board to consider the issues
discussed in a related application, Ser. No. 13/243, 170. See Ans. 2. In the
Final Action of that case, the Examiner makes additional arguments
regarding the interpretation of the recited term "deactivate," particularly
relying on additional extrinsic evidence. See Final Action dated Aug. 20,
2015, Ser. No. 13/243,170. However, we agree with the Examiner's
interpretation based on the arguments and evidence presented within this
proceeding. We also note that the related proceeding, Ser. No. 13/243,170,
was abandoned as of Mar. 9, 2016.
6
Appeal2014-010012
Application 13/195,250
deactivated, we also disagree with Appellants' contention that Mariner's
determining of a radio link failure and stopping of transmission is distinct
from the claimed determining that the carrier on which the uplink RLF
occurs is deactivated. See, e.g., App. Br. 6. As the Examiner explains,
The ordinary meaning of the term inactive state would be simply
a state where the carrier is not active. Mariner under the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the term "deactivated" would teach
the limitation by shutting off the transmitter, the transmitter
transmitting on the carrier and the carrier for that link is no longer
active.
Ans. 5. We agree with the Examiner and adopt the Examiner's findings as
our own.
Equally unavailing is Appellants' contention that Mariner fails to
teach the recited stopping limitation. Appellants assert that the manner of
stopping required by claim 25 allows the DPCH/F-DPCH to be activated
again whereas Mariner's manner of stopping does not. App. Br. 6-7. This
limitation, however, is notably absent from the claim. See Ans. 8. Claim 25
merely recites stopping the sending of information without any further
limitation guaranteeing later activation. Moreover, as Appellants admit,
Mariner would permit reactivation, although after re-establishing a
connection with the carrier. See App. Br. 7.
Appellants also contend that Mariner's "all radio resources" cannot
teach the claimed limitation of DPCH/F-DPCH. While the Examiner points
out that Mariner does not expressly refer to DPCH or F-DPCH as the radio
resources, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that the DPCH or
F-DPCH would have been one of those radio resources to be released. Final
Act. 8; see also Ans. 8-9. This is consistent with the additional disclosures
of Mariner. For example, Mariner describes monitoring the F-DPCH for the
7
Appeal2014-010012
Application 13/195,250
radio link failure. See, e.g., Mariner, ilil 6, 32, 35, and 48. If a particular
downlink F-DPCH is determined to have the radio link failure, it is precisely
this resource that will no longer be active and will be released.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
claim 25 as well as claims 28-30, 33-35, 38, and 39, not argued with
particularity, are unpatentable over Mariner.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 25, 28-30, 33-35, 38,
and 39 under§ 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 25, 28-30, 33-35,
38, and 39 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, but reverse the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 25, 28-30, 33-35, 38, and 39 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description support and lack
of enablement.
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