Ex Parte Chen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 28, 201613195250 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation