Ex Parte Hannu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 23, 201512809129 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 12/809,129 07/08/2010 Hans Hannu 4015-6915 / P24585-US1 7395 24112 7590 09/23/2015 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC 1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300 Cary, NC 27518 EXAMINER WANG, FANGHWA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/23/2015 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 HANS HANNU, MARTEN ERICSON, and PETER OKVIST ____________________ Appeal 2013-008195 Application 12/809,129 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2013-008195 Application 12/809,129 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 11–20. Claims 1–10 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants disclose a method in a communication system node of providing a parameter value associated with the transmission power of a radio signal sent from a second node. (Spec. 1). Claim 11, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 11. A method in a first node for providing a reference parameter value associated with a relation between a transmission power level of a first channel and a transmission power level of a second channel, to a second node, said method comprising: receiving a signal from the second node, the signal comprising a transfer service request for a first type of requested service; obtaining a reference parameter value, based on the first type of requested service, by: acquiring statistics on prior usage of reference parameter values for the first type of requested service; and selecting a reference parameter value based on the acquired statistics; and signaling the selected reference parameter value to the second node. The Examiner’s Rejections Appellants seek our review of the following rejections: Appeal 2013-008195 Application 12/809,129 3 R1. Claims 11, 12, and 15–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sommer (US 2003/0148781 A1, published Aug. 7, 2003), Jarbot et al. (US 6,816,507 B1, issued Nov. 9, 2004), and DiFazio et al. (US 2004/0125785, published July 1, 2004). R2. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sommer, Jarbot, DiFazio and Carmon et al. (US 2007/ 0280171 A1, published Dec. 6, 2007). R3. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sommer, Jarbot, DiFazio, and You et al. (US 2006/ 0133313 A1, published June 22, 2006). ANALYSIS After consideration of each of Appellants’ arguments, we agree with the Examiner. We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions set forth in the Examiner’s Answer and in the action from which this appeal was taken. Our discussions here will be limited to the following points of emphasis as follows. Appellants contend that Sommer “is unrelated to service requests, and is also unrelated to TFCI [transport format combination indicator] selection.” (App. Br. 6) (emphasis omitted).1 In particular, Appellants contend that Sommer “only discusses services – not service requests.” (App. Br. 6) (emphasis omitted). Appellants further contend that “Sommer’s receiving node determines what TFCI it has received, but cannot be said to select the TFCI.” (App. Br. 6). Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive of error because the Examiner relies on DiFazio, not Sommer, as teaching or suggesting TFCI or 1 The Examiner has mapped TFCI to the “reference parameter value” claim limitation, which Appellants do not dispute. (App. Br. 6; see also Ans. 8). Appeal 2013-008195 Application 12/809,129 4 reference parameter selection based on a first type of service request. (Final Act. 7 (DiFazio discloses the feature of “selecting a reference parameter value based on the acquired statistics”)). In particular, Appellants do not persuasively show error in the Examiner’s finding that DiFazio’s selection of a TFCI value from a list teaches or suggested the claimed selection. (Id. (citing DiFazio ¶ 50)). Likewise, Appellants contend that there is no disclosure of a service request and no discussion of TFCI selection in Jarbot. (App. Br. 6–7). According to Appellants, Jarbot “discloses an indication of a service, but not a service request.” (App. Br. 7 (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 5). However, as described above, the Examiner relies on DiFazio for teaching or suggesting TFCI selection, not Jarbot. (Final Act. 7). With respect to DiFazio, Appellants contend that there is “no disclosure that the TFCI selection or the ‘statistics’ are at all related to a type of requested service.” (App. Br. 7) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner points to Appellants’ After Final Arguments/Remarks, where Appellants admitted that “DiFazio admittedly does disclose that a list of recently decoded valid TFCI values may be maintained, and a TFCI value may be selected from that list.” (App. Br. 7; see also Final Act. 7). However, the Examiner relies upon Jarbot and Sommer for the requested service, not DiFazio. (Final Act. 5–7). Specifically, the Examiner finds that “Sommer teaches that the TFCI is determined/generated based on the type of the services and transmitted to the mobile station.” (Ans. 6 (emphasis added) (citing, e.g., Sommer ¶¶ 5, 7–10, 12, 35, and 39); see also Final Act. 3 and 6). The Examiner further finds Jarbot teaches or suggests a “TFCI sequence . . . with a number . . . of bits . . . for traffic format channel indication, which indicate . . . the type of service . . .” (Final Act. 6, emphasis added; see also Appeal 2013-008195 Application 12/809,129 5 Ans. 7, citing Jarbot col. 3, ll. 4–26, Figures 1 and 2, where Jarbot’s “type of service” teaches or suggests “a first type of requested service,” as recited). Appellants argue the Examiner erred because “no service is being requested [in Jarbot] – rather a type of service already in use is being indicated.” (Reply Br. 5). However, as the Examiner correctly finds, Jarbot’s traffic format channel indication shows a “type of service [that] is provided and transmitted by the mobile station and received by the base station, and vice versa.” (Ans. 7). Thus, an artisan of ordinary skill would have recognized that because it is a type of service that is provided, it is a type of service that can be requested. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Sommer and Jarbot teach or suggest a requested service as claimed. Appellants further contend that none of the three references disclose that the first node signals the selected reference parameter value to the second node. (App. Br. 8). However, the Examiner correctly relies on Sommer for this limitation. (Final Act. 6). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Sommer’s “base station BS . . . transmits a TFC identifier (TFCI) to the mobile station MS.” (Ans. 9, citing ¶ 39).2 Appellants’ argument that Sommer “only discusses how the mobile station receives the TFCI” (App. Br. 8) is unresponsive to the Examiner’s reliance on Sommer’s teachings 2 Appellants contend that the Examiner interprets the “first node” as being the mobile station and the “second node” as being the base station. (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 6). We agree with the Examiner that this is an incorrect interpretation of the Examiner’s position. (Ans. 9). In the Final Office Action, the Examiner interprets the base station as the “first node” and the mobile station as the “second node.” (Final Act. 5–6). We note that either interpretation is consistent with Appellants’ Specification. (Spec. 4, l. 7–5, l. 7). Appeal 2013-008195 Application 12/809,129 6 and suggestions related to the transmission (i.e., signaling) of a TFCI (i.e., a reference parameter). Appellants also argue for the first time in the Reply Brief that there is no motivation to modify Sommer in the manner proposed by the Examiner. (Reply Br. 6–7). However, this argument is not based on any new arguments or grounds of rejection in the Examiner’s Answer. (See Final Act. 5–12; Ans. 4–11). As a result, Appellants have waived such untimely argument because Appellants have not shown any good cause for the belated presentation. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012). As discussed above, Appellants’ arguments, many of which are not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection, do not persuasively show error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 11. Appellants present the same arguments for patentability of claims 12, and 15–20, and Appellants do not separately argue claims 13 and 14. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 12–20. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11–20 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED aj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation