Ex Parte GENG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2016

13596749 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/596,749 08/28/2012
77399 7590 11/23/2016
Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd
(for Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd)
Two Prudential Plaza Suite 4900
180 North Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tingting GENG
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.
HW713856 7516
EXAMINER
CEHIC, KENAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2016 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):
Chgpatent@leydig.com
uspatent@huawei.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TINGTING GENG, SHUNQING ZHANG, WEI ZHANG, and
SHUGONGXU
Appeal2015-006862
Application 13/596,749
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 2-5, 14--17, 26, and 29--44, which are all the claims
pending and rejected in the application. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 Appellants' Notice of Appeal incorrectly identifies the claims that are
appropriately the subject of the present appeal. See Notice of Appeal; App.
Br. 11-16 (Claims Appendix). The Appeal Brief correctly identifies the
claims. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-006862
Application 13/596,749
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to communications. See generally Spec.
1. Claim 29 is exemplary:
29. A control method for multi-carrier frequency power
amplifier resources, comprising:
sending control signaling to a primary carrier frequency
during a time slot that cannot be turned off;
distributing service data among available working carrier
frequencies during the time slot before any remainder of the
service data is distributed to a subsequent time slot, and
turning off the available working carrier frequencies after
all of the remainder of the service data has been distributed and
when the available working carrier frequencies are otherwise
idle.
References and Rejections
Claims 2-5, 14--17, 26, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Rezaiifar (US 2009/0285158 Al;
published Nov. 19, 2009) and Yuk (US 2011/0159903 Al; published June
30, 2011).
Claims 32--44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rezaiifar, Yuk, and Wang (US 2013/0176988 Al;
published July 11, 2013).
ANALYSIS
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 29.
We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner's findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
2
Appeal2015-006862
Application 13/596,749
appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our
analysis below.2
I
Appellants contend Rezaiifar and Yuk do not collectively teach
"sending control signaling to a primary carrier frequency during a time slot
that cannot be turned off; distributing service data among available working
carrier frequencies during the time slot before any remainder of the service
data is distributed to a subsequent time slot," as recited in independent claim
29 (emphasis added). See App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 2-5.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. As explained below,
Appellants fail to show error in the Examiner's findings because they fail to
address the Examiner's specific findings. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs.,
952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court [or
this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an
appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.").
First, Appellants argue Rezaiifar does not teach the disputed claim
limitation, because "'slot t' in Sector Y does not align with the MAC and
Pilot time slots in Sector X." App. Br. 8. Appellants' argument does not
address the Examiner's specific findings, as the Examiner "does not use
Rezaiifar's teachings in regards to sector X, but merely the teachings of
sector Yin figure 4 (as related to sector Y)." Ans. 3.
Second, Appellants argue Yuk does not cure the alleged deficiency
associated with Rezaiifar, because Yuk does not teach the italicized claim
limitation. See App. Br. 8. Appellants' argument is not directed to the
2 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
3
Appeal2015-006862
Application 13/596,749
Examiner's specific findings, as the Examiner relies on Rezaiifar-not
Yuk-for teaching the italicized claim limitation. See Ans. 2-5.
Third, Appellants argue:
the Examiner interprets the MAC and Pilot transmission in
Sector Y of Rezaiifar to be equivalent to the claimed "control
signaling," and interprets the "Data" in "Slot t" transmitted in
the same Sector Y of Rezaiifar as being equivalent to the
claimed "service data." ... However, this analysis provided by
the Examiner is in clear error.
Reply Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants' argument is not directed to
the Examiner's specific findings, as the Examiner does not map the claimed
control signaling to Rezaiifar' s MAC and Pilot. Instead, the Examiner cites
Yuk for teaching the claimed control signal, and maps the claimed "service
data" to Rezaiifar's MAC and Data. See Final Act. 17; Ans. 3-5; Rezaiifar
Fig. 4.
II
Appellants contend Rezaiifar and Yuk do not collectively teach
"turning off the available working carrier frequencies after all of the
remainder of the service data has been distributed and when the available
working carrier frequencies are otherwise idle," as recited in independent
claim 29. See App. Br. 8-9. In particular, Appellants contend in both
references, the primary carrier frequency remains activated. See App. Br. 8-
9.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. In response to Appellants'
arguments, the Examiner explains:
[T]he claims merely state that "turning off the available
working carrier frequencies" where those carrier frequencies
refer to frequencies on which data was transmitted; the claims
4
Appeal2015-006862
Application 13/596,749
do not state nor do they require that any and all carrier
frequencies that exist in the system must be turned off ....
[T]he fact that in Rezaiif1a]r and Yuk a primary carrier is not
turned off does not prove that the combination does not teach
"turning off the available working frequencies" as the Appellant
argues.
Ans. 6-7.
Because Appellants do not respond to the Examiner's above findings,
Appellants fail to show error in the Examiner's findings. See Baxter
Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391.
Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 29.
For similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 30 and 31.
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2-5, 14--17, 26, and 32--44, which Appellants do not argue separately
with substantive contentions.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2-5, 14--17, 26,
and 29--44.
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