Ex Parte Huang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 24, 201713495010 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2017) 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. 13/495,010 06/13/2012 Jen-Chieh Huang MTKP1440USA 9963 27765 7590 02/28/2017 NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION P.O. BOX 506 MERRIFIELD, VA 22116 EXAMINER KANG, SUK JIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2477 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2017 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): Patent. admin. uspto. Rev @ naipo .com mis.ap.uspto@naipo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEN-CHIEH HUANG, YING-CHIEH LIAO, YU-TING CHEN, and TSUNG-CHIEH CHANG Appeal 2016-002809 Application 13/495,0101 Technology Center 2400 Before LARRY J. HUME, LINZY T. MCCARTNEY, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify MediaTek Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.) Appeal 2016-002809 Application 13/495,010 THE INVENTION Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a wireless communications device adjusting the queuing data volume in response to detecting the data transfer speed at a physical layer. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A control method for a wireless communications device supporting a specific protocol, comprising: detecting a data transfer speed at a physical layer of the wireless communications device regarding an architecture of the specific protocol in a wireless network, and accordingly generating a detection result to indicate a change in the data transfer speed; and adjusting queuing data volume of the wireless communications device according to the detection result by adjusting a size of an internal buffer of the wireless communications device which queues the data. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1—6 and 8—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2010/0098047 Al, pub. Apr. 22, 2010) and Oshikiri et al. (US 2008/0016265 Al, pub. Jan. 17, 2008). (Final Act. 3-7.) The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhou, Oshikiri, and Furlong et al. (US 2009/0232151 Al, pub. Sept. 17, 2009). (Final Act. 7.) 2 Appeal 2016-002809 Application 13/495,010 ISSUE ON APPEAL Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs present the following issue:2 Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Zhou and Oshikiri teaches or suggests the limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 14. (Amend. App. Br. 6—11.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3—7) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Amended Appeal Brief (Ans. 8—14). We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner, and emphasize the following. In finding Zhou and Oshikiri teach or suggest the independent claim limitations at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Zhou of determining a physical layer transmission rate in a wireless network, and on the disclosure in Oshikiri of a buffer control circuit of a high-speed serial bus that adjusts buffer size based on transfer rate information. (Final Act. 2-A; Zhou 124; Oshikiri H 111, 114.) Appellants argue Zhou fails to teach that queue size is adjusted according to a change in data transfer speed. (Amend. App. Br. 9.) 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the findings of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 30, 2015); the Amended Appeal Brief (filed June 24, 2015); the Reply Brief (filed Jan. 15, 2016); the Final Office Action (mailed Nov. 21, 2014); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Nov. 19, 2015) for the respective details. 3 Appeal 2016-002809 Application 13/495,010 However, the Examiner relies on Zhou as teaching determining a physical layer transmission rate, and relies on Oshikiri for controlling buffer size. (Ans. 8, 10.) One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants further argue the combination of references is improper because Oshikiri is nonanalogous art, because it is directed to a high speed serial interface system rather than a wireless network. (Amend. App. Br. 10.) We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. “A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citation and quotation marks omitted). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the references are sufficiently related, as both “teach storing data prior to transmission or transfer, and both teach the correlation and relationship between the size of the storage means and the transmission/transferrate.” (Ans. 13.) Appellants also argue Oshikiri is directed to a different problem than that to which their Application is directed, in that Oshikiri is concerned with buffering data transferred between a Master and a Slave in a high speed serial interface system, whereas the application concerns buffering data transmitted in a wireless network. (Amend. App. Br. 10—11.) However, we agree with the Examiner, “[i]t would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate 4 Appeal 2016-002809 Application 13/495,010 adjusting a buffer size based on a determined transfer rate as taught by Oshikiri with the method as disclosed by Zhou for the purpose of providing control in order to improve the performance of data transmission, preventing queuing delay, and improving quality of service.” (Ans. 12.) Appellants do not point to any evidence of record that the combinations would be “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters. Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418—19 (2007)). Nor have Appellants provided objective evidence of secondary considerations which our reviewing court guides “operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Examiner’s findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” because the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. We are persuaded the claimed subject matter exemplifies the principle that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 1, 8, and 14 over Zhou and Oshikiri. We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2—6 and 9—13, and 15—19 over Zhou and Oshikiri, and of claims 7 and 20 over Zhou, Oshikiri, and Furlong, which rejections are not argued separately with particularity. (Amend.App.Br.il.) 5 Appeal 2016-002809 Application 13/495,010 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation