Ex Parte KAIROUZ et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

14446064 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/446,064 07/29/2014
12371 7590 08/23/2018
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C./QUALCOMM
4000 Legato Road, Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
Peter KAIROUZ
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.
QC140041 7741
EXAMINER
ULYSSE, JAEL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2018 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):
meo.docket@mg-ip.com
meo@mg-ip.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER KAIROUZ, AHMED KAMEL SADEK,
KAMBIZ AZARIAN Y AZDI, and NACHIAPP AN V ALLIAPP AN 1
Appeal2018-001597
Application 14/446,064
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm, Inc. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2018-001597
Application 14/446,064
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-36. Claims 37-64 have been withdrawn due to
the restriction requirement mailed April 8, 2016. 2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1, under appeal, with emphases and
bracketed lettering added to the key/disputed portion of the claim, reads as
follows:
1. A method of interference management for a wireless
device in a wireless communication system, comprising:
[A] receiving, at a first wireless device from a second
wireless device of the wireless communication system, channel
measurement statistics associated with a communication
channel of the wireless communication system;
comparing the channel measurement statistics to a
corresponding bursty interference signature characteristic of a
power level associated with bursty interference;
identifying a bursty interference condition on the
communication channel based on the comparing; and
generating a bursty interference indicator based on the
identifying of the bursty interference condition.
Examiner's Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-36 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Janecek (US 2011/0286340 Al; published Nov. 24,
2 See Non-Final Rejection mailed June 30, 2016, p.1 (boxes 5-9, Disposition
of Claims), p.2 (para. 3).
2
Appeal2018-001597
Application 14/446,064
2011) and Ji (US 2008/0119215 Al; published May 22, 2008). Final Act.
3-35.
Issue on Appeal3
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-8)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-5), the following issue is presented on
appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-36 as being obvious over
the combination of Janecek and Ji because Janecek, and thus the
combination, fails to teach or suggest receiving channel measurement
statistics as recited in limitation [A] of representative independent claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 3-35; Ans.
2-15) in light of Appellants' contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-8)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-5) that the Examiner has erred, as well as
the Advisory Action mailed March 15, 2017, and the Examiner's response
(Ans. 2-15) to Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief. We disagree with
Appellants' arguments.
With regard to representative claim 1, we concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner, and adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in (a) the action from which this appeal is taken
3 Appellants primarily present arguments as to independent claim 1 (App.
Br. 5-7). Appellants rely on the arguments presented for claim 1 as to the
patentability of remaining dependent claims 2-36 which contain similar
features (see App. Br. 7-8). Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as
representative of the group of claims (claims 1-36) rejected for obviousness
over the combination of Janecek and Ji.
3
Appeal2018-001597
Application 14/446,064
(Final Act. 3-6) as well as the Advisory Action (p.2), and (2) the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-15). We highlight certain teachings and suggestions
of the references, as well as certain ones of Appellants' arguments as
follows.
We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 7-14) that Janecek
discloses receiving channel measurement statistics associated with a
communication channel of the wireless communication system as recited in
claim 1. We also agree with the Examiner, as to representative claim 1
(Final Act. 4; Ans. 4--6) that Janecek (Figs. IA, IB; ,r 81) discloses that
wireless communication device 40 communicates with other wireless
communication devices, and that the other wireless communication devices
can be either an AP 12 or other wireless communication devices 16 and/or
32 (Janecek ,r 81 ). Thus, there are a finite number of identified, predictable
solutions (see KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,421 (2007); i.e.,
signals in a wireless communication network/system are sent either from an
AP or wireless communication devices within the network.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis (see In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073
(Fed. Cir. 1988)), and provide articulated reasoning in the rejection
possessing a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness (KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (citing
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006))). An improved product in
the art is obvious if that "product [is] not [one] of innovation but of ordinary
skill and common sense." KSR, 5 5 0 U.S. at 4 21.
4
Appeal2018-001597
Application 14/446,064
InKSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,421 (2007),
the Court explained that "obvious to try" may apply when "there are a finite
number of identified, predictable solutions" to a known problem." When the
path has been identified and "leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the
product [ was derived] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common
sense." The Federal Circuit has elaborated on KSR that the identified path
must "present a finite (and small in the context of the art) number of options
easily traversed to show obviousness." Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan
Labs., Inc., 520 F. 3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
In this light, Appellants' contention that Janecek fails to disclose,
teach, or suggest that device 40 or analyzer 94 receives channel
measurement statistics from another wireless device (App. Br. 6-7), is
unpersuasive. Likewise, Appellants' contention that although Janecek
discloses in paragraph 81 that device 40 may correspond to either access
point AP 12 or wireless communication device 16, Janecek does not
disclose, teach, or suggest AP 12 receives statistics from device 16 (App. Br.
7), is not persuasive. And, based on the teachings and suggestions of
Janecek, taken with the knowledge of the ordinarily skilled artisan in
wireless communication systems, Appellants' contention that Janecek only
measures statistics locally, and does not send statistics between devices as
claimed (Reply Br. 2--4), is also unpersuasive.
We find an artisan would have been motivated at the time of
Appellants' invention to combine (1) Janecek' s receipt of channel
measurement statistics at a first wireless device from an Access Point (AP)
in a wireless communication network; (2) Ji's bursty interference indicator;
and (3) the knowledge of the ordinarily skilled artisan in the field of wireless
5
Appeal2018-001597
Application 14/446,064
communications ( such as receiving signals in the network from either an AP
or another wireless device) in order to provide a way to manage interference
for the first wireless device operating over the wireless communication
network. See In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing In re
LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936 (CCPA 1962)) (confirming the longstanding
interpretation that the teachings of a reference may be taken in combination
with knowledge of the skilled artisan to put the artisan in possession of the
claimed invention even though the patent does not specifically disclose
certain features.). An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of Appellants'
invention recited in representative claim 1 would have recognized that
wireless signals in a wireless network come from either an AP or wireless
device (whether in-network or not).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of representative claim 1, along with claims 2-36 grouped
therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-36 as being obvious
over the combination of Janecek and Ji because Janecek, and thus the
combination, teaches or suggests receiving channel measurement statistics as
recited in limitation [A] of representative independent claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
6
Appeal2018-001597
Application 14/446,064
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
7