Ex Parte Cheng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2016

12766031 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121766,031 04/23/2010 Fang-Chen Cheng
46368 7590 02/23/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P,CJAlcatel-Lucent
400 W MAPLE RD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
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.
67108-387PUS1; 805117 1633
EXAMINER
RIV AS, SALVADORE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2016 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FANG-CHEN CHENG and SAID TA TESH
Appeal2014-004272
Application 12/766,031
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
AppeUants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-13 and 15-20. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of communicating through a relay node that uses a
cell identifier that is also used by a base station having a
coverage area within which the relay node is located,
comprising the steps of:
1 Claim 14 was objected to, but indicated to be allowable if rewritten in
independent form. Final Act. 24 ..
Appeal2014-004272
Application 12/766,031
(A) determining that a mobile station is within a
communication range of the relay node;
(B) controlling a transmission power from the relay node
so that the total transmission power of at least one transmission
from the relay node and the base station corresponds to a
selected transmit power limit;
( C) coordinating a timing of a downlink transmission
from the base station and the relay node based on a schedule
determined by the base station; and
(D) setting at least one uplink control parameter at the
base station based upon uplink information regarding a link
between the mobile station and the relay node.
REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Garrison
Gu et al.
Muharemovic et al.
Wang et al.
Leinonen
Rosenqvist et al.
Blankenship et al.
US 2004/0063433 Al Apr. 1, 2004
US 2008/0037413 Al Feb. 14, 2008
US 2008/0045260 Al Feb. 21, 2008
US 2008/0214182 Al Sept. 4, 2008
US 2009/0168800 Al July 2, 2009
US 2009/0279480 Al Nov. 12, 2009
US 2010/0254301 Al Oct. 7, 2010
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Blankenship and Wang.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Blankenship, Wang, and Muharemovic.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § § 103(a) Blankenship,
Wang, and Garrison.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Blankenship, Wang, and Gu.
2
Appeal2014-004272
Application 12/766,031
Claims 12, 13, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Blankenship, Wang, and Rosenqvist.
Claims 16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Blankenship, Wang, and Leinonen.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the combination of Blankenship and Wang set forth
by the Examiner fails to teach or suggest the "setting" limitation emphasized
in claim 1 above. Specifically, Appellants argue Wang does not teach or
suggest (i.) setting an uplink control parameter at a base station, nor (ii.)
setting an uplink control parameter at a base station based upon uplink
information regarding a link between a mobile station and a relay node.
App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 4--5.
The Examiner finds paragraph 31 of Wang teaches a "UL [uplink]
subframe 414 [that] may provide opportunities (UL bursts), e.g., upon
request, for the mobile stations to transmit data in an UL direction at
scheduled times" and that this teaching meets the disputed limitation of
claim 1. Final Act. 5. The Examiner further cites Wang's teaching of
"power control and channel reuse techniques for wireless networks" and
"equates the Appellant's uplink control parameter with Wang et al. frame
(Fig. 4 @410) with other fields." Ans. 10-11 citing Wang i-fi-14, 30, Fig. 4.
We agree a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established.
See App. Br. 2. "[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained with mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
3
Appeal2014-004272
Application 12/766,031
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see
also KSR Int'! v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (quoting In re Kahn).
Neither the final Office Action nor the Examiner's Answer
sufficiently articulates how Wang teaches or suggests that the UL subframe
414 or UL bursts are scheduled or otherwise set at Wang's base station, nor
how the scheduling or setting is based upon uplink information regarding a
link between a mobile station and a relay node. Thus, we are not persuaded
the "setting" limitation is explicitly disclosed in Wang, nor does the record
indicate this limitation to have been found to be implicit or inherent in
Wang. Moreover, the record does not evidence a conclusion that it would
have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan in light of the combined
teachings of Blankenship and Wang to (i.) set an uplink control parameter at
a base station and (ii.) based upon uplink information regarding a link
between a mobile station and a relay node, nor the requisite articulated
reasoning with sufficiently rationale underpinnings for the conclusion. See
Final Act. 5. Rather, the Examiner's articulated rationale relates to
modifying the teachings of Blankenship with the teachings of Wang. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Blankenship and Wang teaches or suggests each
of the limitations recited in claim 1, and inherited by dependent claims 2-13
and 15-20.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-13 and 15-20 is
reversed.
REVERSED
4