Ex Parte Doppler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 1, 2017

12627103 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/627,103 11/30/2009 Klaus Franz Doppler 059864.02031 3452
11051 7590 02/03/2017
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Nokia Technologies Oy
8000 Towers Crescent Drive, 14th Floor
Vienna, VA 22182
EXAMINER
MIAN, OMER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/03/2017 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):
sonia. whitney @ squirepb.com
ipgeneralty c @ squirepb .com
nokia.ipr@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KLAUS FRANZ DOPPLER,
JARKKO LAURI SAKARI KNECKT, JUHA SAKARI KORHONEN,
and CASSIO BARBOZA RIBEIRO
Appeal 2016-000474
Application 12/627,103
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—14, and 21—23, all
pending claims of the application.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Technologies
Oy. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 4, 10, and 15—20 are cancelled.
Appeal 2016-000474
Application 12/627,103
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellants, the application relates to power saving
operations in wireless network elements such as base stations and access
points. Spec. 1—3.3 Claims 1 and 9 are independent. Claim 1 is
representative and is reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method comprising:
determining at a base station an activity level;
selecting, by the base station, an availability mode for the
base station based at least in part on the activity level, wherein
the availability mode is one of a full-availability mode, a semi­
availability mode and a minimum-availability mode, wherein
each of the full-availability mode, semi-availability mode and
minimum-availability mode is defined by different numbers of
receiving-on periods of the base station;
configuring radio resources for at least the minimum-
availability mode; and
switching to the selected availability mode.
Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App’x).
REFERENCES
The art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal
includes:
Sugaya et al. (“Sugaya”)
Bowser et al. (“Bowser”)
Sampathkumar
Zhang et al. (“Zhang”)
US 2006/0268800 Al
US 2010/0002610 Al
US 2010/0284316 Al
US 2011/0039499 Al
Nov. 30, 2006
Jan. 7, 2010
Nov. 11,2010
Feb. 17,2011
3 Throughout this Decision, we refer to: (1) Appellants’ Specification
(“Spec.”) filed Nov. 30, 2009; (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”)
mailed Feb. 27, 2015; (3) the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed June 30,
2015; (4) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Sept. 24, 2015; and (5)
the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Oct. 8, 2015.
2
Appeal 2016-000474
Application 12/627,103
Park et al. (“Park”) US 2011/0244792 A1 Oct. 6, 2011
Shun-Ren Yang & Yi-Bing Lin, Modeling UMTS Discontinuous Reception
Mechanism, 4:1 IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications 312—
19 (2005) (“Yang”).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1,3,5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Sampathkumar. Final Act. 2—7.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Sampathkumar and Bowser. Final Act. 7—8.
Claims 2, 7, 11, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Sampathkumar and Yang. Final
Act. 8-11.
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Sampathkumar, Sugaya, Park, and
Zhang. Final Act. 11—14.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
issues raised by Appellants. We have not considered other possible issues
that have not been raised by Appellants and which are, therefore, not before
us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
ISSUES
1. Does the Examiner err in finding Sampathkumar discloses
“selecting, by the base station, an availability mode for the base station
based at least in part on the activity level, wherein the availability mode is
one of a full-availability mode, a semi-availability mode and a minimum-
availability mode,” as recited in claim 1?
3
Appeal 2016-000474
Application 12/627,103
2. Does the Examiner err in finding Sampathkumar discloses
“configuring radio resources for at least the minimum-availability mode,” as
recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with
Appellants’ contentions and we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—20) and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief
(Ans. 2—10). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and
we highlight the following for emphasis.
§ 102(e) Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 14
Issue 1
With respect to independent claims 1 and 9, the Examiner finds
Sampathkumar discloses “selecting, by the base station, an availability mode
for the base station based at least in part on the activity level, wherein the
availability mode is one of a full-availability mode, a semi-availability mode
and a minimum-availability mode, wherein each . . . mode ... is defined by
different numbers of receiving-on periods of the base station, ” as recited in
representative claim 1. Final Act. 3, 14—17 (citing Sampathkumar, Figs.
5A—5B, || 20, 28, 32, 33, 43, 45^47, 49) (emphasis omitted).
4
Appeal 2016-000474
Application 12/627,103
Figures 5A—5B of Sampathkumar are reproduced below:
FIG. 6A F!G. SB
Figure 5A of Sampathkumar shows an access point configured to wake up
every beacon interval and Figure 5B shows an access point configured to
wake up every second beacon interval. See Sampathkumar || 42 49.
Appellants argue “Sampathkumar does not disclose or suggest a three­
tiered availability defined by [three] different [sets of] numbers of receiving-
on periods of the base station.” Appeal Br. 9. Specifically, Appellants
argue,
the timing diagram 500 in Fig. 5A of Sampathkumar only
shows at most one availability mode that is defined by a single
set of awake periods in a situation in which there is no station
connected to the access point, and the timing diagram 550 in
Fig. 5B shows at most one other availability mode that is
defined by another single set of awake periods in which there is
a station connected to the access point. . . [and thus]
Sampathkumar discloses a configuration of awake and sleep
period patterns for two different situations, one when there is no
station connected to the access point, and one when there is a
station connected to the access point.
Appeal Br. 8—9.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive.
5
Appeal 2016-000474
Application 12/627,103
As illustrated at Figure 5A, Sampathkumar discloses a first mode in
which an access point is caused to wake up for one period (Quiet Offset
period 502) for each beacon interval 508. This is indicated by arrows 510
and 512 waking the access point during the first beacon interval 508 and
arrows 514 and 516 waking the access point during the second beacon
interval 508. Sampathkumar 143. Figure 5B of Sampathkumar discloses a
second mode in which an access point is caused to wake up for one period
(Quiet Offset period 552) “every second beacon interval.” This is indicated
by arrows 560 and 562 waking the access point during the beacon interval
558. Sampathkumar 143.
Accordingly, in light of the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed
“receiving-on period” as a time period of length equal to the length of
Sampathkumar’s Quiet Offset period, we agree with the Examiner’s finding
that Figures 5A and 5B discloses two different modes “defined by different
numbers of receiving-on periods of the base station.” Ans. 3-5. That is,
Figure 5A discloses two Quiet Offset (receiving-on) periods per beacon
interval 508 and Figure 5B discloses one Quiet Offset (receiving-on) period
per beacon interval 558. Appellants fail to establish why Figures 5A and 5B
should not be interpreted to disclose two different modes merely because
“Sampathkumar discloses a configuration of awake and sleep period patterns
for two different situations, one when there is no station connected to the
access point, and one when there is a station connected to the access point.”
Appeal Br. 9.
Appellants further argue Sampathkumar fails to show a third mode at
cited paragraph 20 because “the beacon interval. . . which is described in
paragraph [0020], corresponds to the beacon intervals shown in the timing
6
Appeal 2016-000474
Application 12/627,103
diagrams 500, 550 of Figs. 5A and 5B . . . and is not as separate modes in
and of itself.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellants also argue, “Sampathkumar is silent
as to the AP being awake for a time equivalent to multiple receive-on
periods within a sample time interval, but instead discloses that the AP is
awake for one beacon interval.” Reply Br. 5.
We find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive because we agree with
the Examiner’s finding that Sampathkumar’s discussion of configuring the
access point to “remain awake to receive and transmit information for [an
entire] beacon interval” discloses a third, full-availability mode. Ans. 5
(emphasis omitted). Similar to Appellants’ claimed method, this full-
availability mode of Sampathkumar is a separate mode simply because it
keeps the access point awake for the entire beacon period, in contrast with
the modes of Figures 5 A and 5B, which depict the access point being kept
awake for only a portion of the beacon period — that is, kept awake for a
Quiet Offset period each beacon period, and for a Quiet Offset period every
second beacon period, respectively. Also, contrary to Appellants’ argument,
by being maintained awake for the entire beacon period, as opposed to just a
portion of the beacon period as in the modes of Figures 5 A and 5B,
Sampathkumar’s full-availability mode is awake for a time equivalent to
multiple Quiet Offset periods (receive-on periods).
Appellants have, therefore, not persuaded us of Examiner error.
Issue 2
Appellants argue “Sampathkumar fails to disclose or suggest
‘configuring radio resources for at least the minimum-availability mode,’ as
recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 10-11. Specifically, Appellants argue
7
Appeal 2016-000474
Application 12/627,103
Sampathkumar merely discloses “transmitting a beacon indication when and
for how long the communication channel will be quieted in order to enter the
sleep mode, and determining that the communication channel should be
opened for access and cause the access point to wake up from sleep mode in
order to transmit the beacon and allow channel access.” Appeal Br. 10.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive.
In describing beacon configuration, Sampathkumar discloses:
It should be noted that the time intervals during which the
access point is awake and in sleep mode and the beacon interval
are configurable. The user can configure any one or all of the
time intervals depending on the type and nature of the traffic
that is estimated to pass through the access point.
Sampathkumar 149.
Sampathkumar, thus, discloses configuring the access point for at
least the minimum-availability mode, i.e., any mode including the minimum-
availability mode of Figure 5B. We also agree with the Examiner’s finding
that in Sampathkumar’s disclosure of “determin[ing] when and for how long
the access point can lock the communication channel and enter a sleep
mode. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret a
communication channel as a radio resource.” Ans. 9. We, therefore, agree
that Sampathkumar discloses “configuring radio resources,” as recited in
claim 1.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not persuaded us of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, and similarly independent claim 9, as well as their
respective dependent claims 3, 5, 8, 12, 13, and 14, which Appellants do not
argue separately.
8
Appeal 2016-000474
Application 12/627,103
§ 103(a) Rejections of Claims 2, 6, 7, 11, and 21—23
With respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent
claims 2, 6, 7, 11, and 21-23, Appellants reiterate the same patentability
arguments presented against claim 1. App. Br. 11—18. For the same reasons
discussed, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1,3,5, 8, 9, 12,
13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2, 6, 7, 11, and
21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
9