Ex Parte Jovicic et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 10, 2016

12164455 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/164,455 06/30/2008
23696 7590 06/14/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Aleksandar Jovicic
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.
071428U5 1377
EXAMINER
FLEMING-HALL, ERICA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEKSANDAR JOVICIC and JUNYI LI
Appeal2014-003794
Application 12/164,455
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DANIEL FISHMAN and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4---6, 10, 12,
13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
"In an ad hoc peer-to-peer communication network between wireless
devices, a low priory first receiver device calculates and provides three
transmission rates to its corresponding first transmitter device to allow
higher priority devices to concurrently use a shared frequency spectrum."
Specification [0007].
Appeal2014-003794
Application 12/164,455
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method operational in a first receiver device adapted to perform
successive interference cancellation (SIC) in an ad hoc peer-to-peer network,
the first receiver device being the intended receiver of a first traffic signal to
be transmitted from a first transmitter device, comprising:
wireless ly receiving a first pilot signal from the first transmitter
device via the ad hoc peer-to-peer network;
wirelessly receiving a second pilot signal from a second transmitter
device via the ad hoc peer-to-peer network, the second pilot signal
indicating that the second transmitter device intends to transmit a second
traffic signal that will interfere with the first traffic signal;
determining a first transmission rate as a function of the received
signal strength of the second pilot signal;
determining a second transmission rate as a function of the received
signal strengths of the first and second pilot signals;
determining a third transmission rate as a function of the received
signal strength of the first pilot signal; and
wirelessly sending a control message to the first transmitter device via
the ad hoc peer-to-peer network, the control message including data rate
information indicative of the first, second, and third transmission rates.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 23 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Uchida (US Patent
Application Number 2008/0112366 Al; published May 15, 2008), Kumaran
et al. (US Patent Application Number 2004/0102202 Al; published May 27,
2
Appeal2014-003794
Application 12/164,455
2004), Li (US Patent Application Number 2006/0245398 Al; published
November 2, 2006), Powell (Performance Analysis of a Hybrid Topology
CDD/TDD-CDMA Network Architecture) and Evers (Performance of a
hybrid TDD-CDMA system with random slot allocation (RSA) in
comparison with an equivalent FDD-CDMA system). Final Rejection 2-7.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 28, 2013), the Reply Brief (filed
February 7, 2014), the Answer (mailed December 19, 2013) and the Final
Rejection (mailed Mar. 1, 2013) for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants argue,
Powell is different from the recited claims for at least two
reasons. First, Powell relies on a central entity for interference
management, and thus is not ad hoc. Second, Powell describes
interference techniques that rely on code assignment and/or
random code shifting, which is different than what is recited in
the claims.
3
Appeal2014-003794
Application 12/164,455
Appeal Brief 10-11. Appellants provide several citations to Powell to
support their supposition. Appeal Brief 11-13. The Examiner finds that
Powell discloses a hybrid topology CDD/TDD-CDMA system that
facilitates MS-MS and BS-MS communication, resulting in the overlaying
of an ad hoc like architecture on the standard cellular infrastructure. Final
Rejection 6 (citing Powell, page 114). Appellants fail to address Powell's
disclosure of an ad hoc like architecture and, most importantly, how the
claimed invention distinguishes over Powell's disclosure.
Further, Appellants' Figure 1 discloses "a block diagram illustrating
the [sic] how an ad hoc peer-to-peer network may be implemented within
the same frequency spectrum as a wide area network." Specification [0052].
"The wide area network (WAN) may include a plurality of cells 102, 104,
and 106, in which each cell is serviced by one or more access nodes (e.g.,
base stations) AN-A 108, AN-B 110, and AN-C 112 that may be
distributively [sic] managed or centrally managed by a WAN controller
114." Specification [0052]. We do not find Appellants' arguments
persuasive because (1) although Powell does not specifically use the ad hoc
terminology, Powell discloses a P2P mode with a direct channel between the
UEs in the same manner as the claimed invention, (2) Appellants' definition
of ad hoc in the Specification does not distinguish the claimed invention
over Powell, nor over the Examiner's combination of Li, Powell, and Evers
(see Li paragraph [0024]; Evers, Abstract), and (3) Appellants' WAN
controller is also a central entity because each base station is centrally
4
Appeal2014-003794
Application 12/164,455
managed by the WAN controller and thus fails to distinguish over the
Examiner's combination including Powell. 1
Appellants argue that Evers relies upon random time slot assignment
for interference management that is "completely different than what is
recited in the claims." Appeal Brief 14. Appellants further argue that "the
claims recite receiving pilot signals and determining transmission rates as a
function of received signal strengths of pilot signals" and "Evers does not
describe any sort of pilot signal or transmission rate as a function of received
signal strength." Appeal Brief 14. The Examiner finds "Evers discloses a
hybrid form of ad-hoc networking where the public network frequency and
technology is re-used to establish an ad-hoc network." Final Rejection 6
(citing Evers, Abstract). We do not find Appellants' argument persuasive
because the Examiner relies upon Evers to disclose peer-to-peer ad hoc
networking and the fact that Evers discloses random slot allocation does not
diminish the relevance of the Examiner's finding that ad hoc peer-to-peer
networking is well known in the art.
DECISION
The Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 13,
15, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 23 is affirmed.
1 "As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int'! v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
5
Appeal2014-003794
Application 12/164,455
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6