Ex Parte Ji et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2016

12817825 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/817,825 06/17/2010
66547 7590 02/10/2016
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hyoung Ju Ji
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.
1398-339
(YPF201005-0007)
CONFIRMATION NO.
6398
EXAMINER
REDDIV ALAM, SRINIV ASAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2016 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 HYOUNG m JI, JOON YOUNG CHO,
MYUNG HOON YEON, and YOUNG BUM KIM
Appeal2014-004444
Application 12/81 7 ,825
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, PETER P. CHEN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-004444
Application 12/81 7 ,825
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
determining a transmission band for initial access in a multicarrier system.
(Spec. 1 ). Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in
italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for performing initial access by a mobile device in a
multi-carrier system, the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station through a carrier trying initial
access, system information including a multi-carrier indication
information and initial access resource information about at least one
carrier among carriers in an entire system band;
selecting an initial access resource by using the received initial
access resource information; and
transmitting, to the base station, an initial access signal by using
the selected initial access resource,
1lvherein the multi=carrier indication ir/ormation indicates
information regarding the multi-carrier.
The Examiner's Rejections
Appellants seek our review of the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-10, 12-14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Novak et al. (US
2012/0063409 Al, published Mar. 15, 2012) and Pelletier et al. (US
2010/0296467 Al, Nov. 25, 2010).
Claims 3, 7, 11, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Novak, Pelletier, and Zhang et
al. (US 2010/0222060 Al, published Sept. 2, 2010).
2
Appeal2014-004444
Application 12/81 7 ,825
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Novak and
Pelletier teaches or suggests "receiving ... system information including a
multi-carrier indication information" and "wherein the multi-carrier
indication information indicates information regarding the multi-carrier" as
recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent
claims 9 and 13?
After considering each of Appellants' arguments, we agree with and
adopt the findings and conclusions as set forth in the Examiner's Answer
and in the action from which this appeal was taken. (Ans. 19-23; Final Act.
2-23). Our discussion here will be limited to the following points of
emphasis.
Appellants contend Pelletier does not teach or suggest the disputed
limitations. (App. Br. 6). Specifically, Appellants argue Pelletier "merely
describes a WTRU [wireless transmit/receive unit] and network configured
for use with multiple UL [uplink] carriers and DL [downlink] carriers that
may maintain a set of RACH [random access channel] configurations that
may potentially be used by the WTRU for random access." (Id.; see also
Reply Br. 2). Appellants also argue there is "no equivalence" between the
disputed limitations and the sections of Pelletier cited by the Examiner. (Id.;
see also Reply Br. 2).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Pelletier describes a
method and apparatus for initial random access transmission using an uplink
random access channel multicarrier scheme by selecting an uplink carrier
from a plurality of uplink carriers. (Pelletier i-f 10). In other words, Pelletier
is directed to a multi-carrier system where a mobile device selects an uplink
3
Appeal2014-004444
Application 12/81 7 ,825
carrier from a plurality of uplink carriers. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, that Pelletier therefore teaches or suggests a mobile device receiving
multi-carrier indication information from the downlink channel (base
station) from system information block 1 (SIB 1 ). (Ans. 19-20, citing
Pelletier i-fi-f l 0, 48, 49). We agree with the Examiner that such a finding is
consistent with the Appellants' Specification, which describes the multi-
carrier indication information as part of SIB 1 information. (Ans. 20, citing
Spec. ,-r 66, Fig. 4).
We also agree with the Examiner's findings that Pelletier teaches or
suggests the multi-carrier indication information indicates information
regarding the multi-carrier. (Ans. 20-21, citing Pelletier i-fi-147--49, 51, Fig.
3). For example, the Examiner relies in part on paragraph 51 of Pelletier to
teach or suggest this limitation, which states "the WTRU [mobile device]
may acquire system information pertaining to one or a plurality of DL
carriers ... " (Ans. 20-21 ).
Given the above teachings in Pelletier, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments in the Reply Brief that the cited sections of Pelletier
relate to initial access resource information rather than multi-carrier
indication information, (Reply Br. 2), or that the Examiner "has not provided
any rational underpinning as to why any of the recitations of paragraph
[0051] would be equivalent to" the disputed limitation, (Reply Br. 3).
Appellants do not specifically explain why the Examiner's findings
are erroneous in the opening Brief or Reply Brief. To show error in the
Examiner's position, Appellants must explain why the relied-upon disclosure
does not teach or suggest the claimed feature under its broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification, rather than merely alleging that
4
Appeal2014-004444
Application 12/81 7 ,825
the feature is not shown or is different because it is described in different
terms. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011). Rather, Appellants' argument constitutes little more than
attorney argument and a conclusory statement unsupported by factual
evidence. Consequently, we afford Appellants' argument little weight. See
In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Attorney arguments and
conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled
to little probative value).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of independent claims 1, 9, and 13, for the foregoing reasons. We also
sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of dependent claims 2-8, 10-12,
and 14--16, which were not argued separately, for the same reasons.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-16 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
rwk
5