Ex Parte Faniuolo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

12811870 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/811,870 07/07/2010
48116 7590 02/29/2016
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Antonella Faniuolo
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.
LUTZ 201140US01 2432
EXAMINER
WONG, TITUS
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTONELLA F ANIUOLO and TAO YANG
Appeal2014-000793
Application 12/811,870
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1-13, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Alcatel Lucent (App.
Br. 1).
Appeal2014-000793
Application 12/811,870
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to transmitting a message between user
equipment and network equipment (Spec. 1 :5---6). Exemplary claims 1 and 3
under appeal read as follows:
1. A method of transmitting a message between user
equipment and network equipment, the message comprising a
message header and a message payload, the message header
having a plurality of fields, the method comprising: setting an
indicator field in the message header to indicate that a report
providing scheduling information is included in the message
payload; setting a secondary indicator field in the message
header to indicate that, for at least some values of the secondary
indicator field, an alternative report having alternative
scheduling information is included in the message payload; and
transmitting the message header and message payload.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein, for at least one
value of the secondary indicator field, the alternative report
comprises both the scheduling information and the alternative
scheduling information.
The Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1-10 and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( a) as being anticipated by Applicant's Admitted Prior Art ( AAP A,
Fig. 1, Spec. page 1) (see Final Act. 2-7).
The Examiner further rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over AAPA and DiGirolamo et al. (US 2008/0095185
Al; Apr. 24, 2008) (see Final Act. 8).
2
Appeal2014-000793
Application 12/811,870
Claim 1
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants contend the relied-on
portion of AAP A does not disclose "setting an indicator in the message
header to indicate that a report providing scheduling information is included
in the message payload and additionally setting a secondary indicator field in
the header to indicate the presence of alternative scheduling information"
(App. Br. 5). In particular, Appellants argue that the Long Buffer Status
Report (LBSR), which the Examiner characterizes as the alternative report
containing the alternative scheduling information, is not sent separate from
the alternative scheduling information, as described in Appellants'
disclosure (App. Br. 6 (citing Spec. 2:36-3:4)).
In response, the Examiner relies on the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim term "alternative scheduling information" and
finds LBSR is an alternative report because it includes the scheduling
information (Ans. 11 ). The Examiner further explains the portion of the
Specification cited by Appellants "does not clearly distinguish a buffer
status report from an alternative report" (id.).
We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusion. As found by
the Examiner (id.), the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does
not preclude the alternative scheduling information from being a part of the
buffer status report. Additionally, contrary to Appellants' contention that a
disclosed alternative embodiment suggests separating the alternative report
and the buffer status report (App. Br. 6 (citing AAPA 2:36-3:4); Reply Br.
4), the Specification also discusses including the alternative report and the
buffer status report in a single message (see Ans. 11 (citing Spec. 1:34:38)).
3
Appeal2014-000793
Application 12/811,870
For the above-stated reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred in finding AAP A teaches the disputed
features of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
rejection of claim 1.
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding
LBSR is inclusive of the Short Buffer Status Report (SBSR) because the
relied-on portion of AAP A discloses SBSR includes information on the size
of a buffer group while the LBSR provides information on the size of every
buffer group (App. Br. 5). The Examiner responds by explaining:
The SBSR is interpreted as the report which contains
information such as the size of a buffer group (page 1, lines 3 8
and 39 and Fig. 1 ). And since LBSR is interpreted as the
alternative report, as mentioned in the above argument, which
includes information on the size of every buffer group (page 2,
lines 2-4 and Fig. 1 ), the information in the LBSR is inclusive
of the information in the SBSR. Therefore, LBSR comprises
both of the claimed information.
(Ans. 11-12).
We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusion and adopt
them as our own. As such, we are not persuaded by Appellants' contention
that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 3 is not anticipated by
AAPA. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) rejection of claim 3.
Claims 6, 9, and 10
Appellants argue the patentability of these claims based on reasons
similar to those presented for claims 1 and 3. For the reasons discussed
above, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner
erred in finding AAPA teaches the limitations of claims 6, 9, and 10.
4
Appeal2014-000793
Application 12/811,870
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) rejection of claims 6, 9, and
10.
Remaining Claims
Appellants do not argue the patentability of the remaining claims
separately and allow them to fall with their base claims.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) rejection of claims 2,
4, 5, 8, and 11-13 and the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 7.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-13 is affirmed.
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
5