Ex Parte KalhanDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 201814357615 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/357,615 05/12/2014 32968 7590 06/01/2018 KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 8611 Balboa Ave SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Amit Kalhan 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. TUTL 00211 4343 EXAMINER WONG, XAVIER S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2413 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2018 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): KII-USPatents@kyocera.com Kathleen.Connell@kyocera.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD EX PARTE AMIT KALHAN Appeal2017-011700 Application 14/357,615 Technology Center 2400 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 4--10, and 13-20, which are all of the claims pending in the application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Kyocera Corporation. App. Br. 3. 2 Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 21-24 have been cancelled. Appeal2017-011700 Application 14/357,615 INVENTION Appellant's invention relates to wireless communications and more particularly to device-to-device (D2D) communication management using macrocell communication resources. Spec. ,r 3. Claim 10 reads as follows: 10. A wireless communication user equipment device compnsmg: a transceiver comprising a receiver configured to receive communication resource allocation information from a base station transmitted using scheduled communication resources of defined macrocell communication resources defined by a communication specification for macrocell communication for transmitting from base stations to wireless communication user equipment devices, the communication resource allocation information identifying device-to-device (D2D) communication resources of the defined macrocell communication resources defined by the communication specification for transmitting from base stations to wireless communication user equipment devices, the transceiver configured to use the D2D communication resources to communicate through a D2D communication link with another wireless communication user equipment device. REJECTIONS 3 Claims 1, 4, 10, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hugl et al. (US 2009/0325625 Al, published Dec. 31, 2009) ("Hugl") and Hakola et al. (US 2011/0275382 Al, published Nov. 10, 2011) ("Hakola"). Final Act. 4. Claims 14--18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hugl, Hakola, and Doppler et al. (WO 3 The Pre-Brief Appeal Conference decision, mailed Feb. 7, 2017, states the Examiner's rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been withdrawn. See Final Act. 3--4. 2 Appeal2017-011700 Application 14/357,615 2010/082114 Al, published July 22, 2010) ("Doppler"). Final Act. 6. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hugl, Hakola, and Rhodes et al. (US 2011/007 6940 A 1, published Mar. 31, 2011) ("Rhodes"). Final Act. 7. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hugl, Hakola, Rhodes, and Husted al. (US RE45,236 E, reissued Nov. 11, 2014) ("Husted"). Final Act. 8. ANALYSIS In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner found Hakola's downlink power control commands teach or suggest the limitation "the communication specification for transmitting from base stations to wireless communication user equipment devices" recited in claim 10. Final Act. 5 ( citing Hakola ,r 63: "When a D2D pair UE 1, UE2 is using the uplink resources for their D2D communications, the D2D devices UE 1, UE2 can listen to the downlink resources continuously .... downlink fast power control commands sent on the POCCH by the eNB to decrease transmission power if needed."); see also Final Act. 6 (claim 1 rejected for same reasons as claim 1 0). Appellant contends the cited portion of Hakola teaches that D2D communication occurs only using uplink resources, not downlink resources as claim 1 requires. App. Br. 9-10. Appellant argues the uplink resources used for D2D communication in Hakola cannot reasonably be interpreted as explicitly or inherently teaching or suggesting "the communication resource allocation information identifying device-to-device (D2D) communication resources of the defined macrocell communication resources defined by the communication specification for transmitting from base stations to wireless 3 Appeal2017-011700 Application 14/357,615 communication user equipment devices," as recited in claim 10. Reply Br. 11. In the Answer, the Examiner pointed to Hugl as teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation, mapping the recited "communication specification" to Hugl' s "backoff value" and "power control command." Ans. 3--4. The Examiner also found Hakola' s teaching of reusing L TE Release 8/9 SRS transmissions with D2D-specific transmission power settings for the D2D link, as well as the link between the individual D2D devices and eNB, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Id. at 4. The Examiner also finds that the recited "communication specification" is based on L TE, which both Hugl and Hakola teach. Id. at 5. In reply, Appellant argues the uplink radio resources allocated for D2D communication between the first radio node and the second radio node of Hugl cannot be reasonably interpreted as explicitly or inherently teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation. Reply Br. 3. Appellants also argue the Examiner's finding that Hakola' s macrocell communication resources are defined by "the communication specification for transmitting from base stations to wireless communication user equipment devices" ignores the plain language of claim 1, which requires downlink resources are allocated for D2D communication. Id. at 4. Appellant further argues that the mere existence of the 3 GPP L TE communication specification is insufficient to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Id. at 5. We are persuaded the Examiner erred. We agree with Appellant that the disputed limitation requires communication resources defined by the communication specification for downlink transmissions. The Examiner has not clearly identified where Hugl and/or Hakola teach or suggest the 4 Appeal2017-011700 Application 14/357,615 disputed limitation. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 4--5. Moreover, we observe Appellant's Specification defines the disputed term "communication specification": The communication specification defines at least a data channel and a control channel for uplink and downlink transmissions and specifies at least some timing and frequency parameters for physical downlink control channels from a base station to a wireless communication device. Spec. ,r 20. Reading claim 1 in light of the Specification, we agree with Appellant that Hugl' s power control commands are unrelated to the "timing and frequency parameters for physical downlink control channels from a base station to a wireless communication device," as described in the aforementioned definition. See App. Br. 9; Spec ,r 20. 4 Moreover, the Examiner has not identified where the cited prior art teaches a communication specification that "defines at least a data channel and a control channel for uplink and downlink transmissions and specifies at least some timing and frequency parameters for physical downlink control channels from a base station to a wireless communication device," as described in the Specification. See Spec. ,r 20. On the record before us, therefore, we find a preponderance of the evidence supports Appellant's contentions. For these reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Hugl and Hakola teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claims 1 and 10. 5 4 See In re Smith Int'!, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (guiding our claim construction). 5 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because we find the identified issues are dispositive of the Appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments. 5 Appeal2017-011700 Application 14/357,615 Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of independent claim 1. Nor do we sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of independent claim 10, which recites a similar limitation and which Appellant argues is patentable for similar reasons. App. Br. 11-12. Dependent claims 4--9 and 13-20 stand with the independent claims from which they depend. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4--10, and 13-20. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation