Ex Parte Kaminski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2016

12050571 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/050,571 03/18/2008
48116 7590
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
06/01/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephen KAMINSKI
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.
LUTZ 200877US01 8928
EXAMINER
HANIDU, GANIYU A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 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):
docketing@faysharpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN KAMINSKI, UWE DOETSCH,
OSMAN AYDIN, HAJO BAKKER, KLAUS KEIL, and
MARCUS GRUBER
Appeal2014-008218
Application 12/050,571
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--10-14, and 17-23. Claims 3, 15, and 16 are canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Alcatel Lucent. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-008218
Application 12/050,571
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is generally directed to
scheduling of service data in downlinks using persistent scheduling
with a reduced waste of radio resources. Spec. 3, 11. 16-18.2
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method for scheduling downlink service data,
compnsmg:
sending at least one control message from a base station to
a user terminal for scheduling downlink service data to be sent
from the base station to the user terminal over radio interfaces,
wherein one or more of said at least one control message
comprises at least one of an order when the user terminal shall
perform reception of downlink data and an order when and under
which circumstances the user terminal shall send HARQ
feedback information in upcoming transmission time intervals;
and
detecting a silence period in a persistently scheduled
downlink between the base station and the user terminal at the
base station through recognition of a reduction of a data rate of
the service data sent to the user terminal;
wherein the sending of the at least one control message is
initiated in conjunction with the detecting of the silence period.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 4--14, and 17-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Novak (US 2013/0010729 Al; published Jan. 10,
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed Oct. 1, 2013 ("Final Act."),
Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Apr. 1, 2014 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's
Answer mailed May 28, 2014 ("Ans."), Appellants' Reply Brief filed
July 22, 2014 ("Reply Br."), and the original Specification filed Mar. 18,
2008 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2014-008218
Application 12/050,571
2003), Lee (WO 2005/078962 Al; published Aug. 25, 2005), and Li (US
2013/0039333; published Feb. 14, 2013).
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue raised by Appellants' briefs is whether Li
teaches or suggests the limitation "detecting a silence period in a persistently
scheduled downlink between the base station and the user terminal at the
base station through recognition of a reduction of a data rate of the service
data sent to the user terminal," as recited in claim 1, and as similarly recited
in claims 11, 13, and 14.
The Examiner finds that Novak and Lee fail to teach the limitation at
issue, but Li does so. See Final Act. 3---6; Ans. 13-15 (citing Li i-fi-155-57).
In regard to Li, the Examiner finds, and we agree, paragraph 55 of Li teaches
that a vocoder of a mobile device detects a period of silence using V AD
technology. Ans. 14. The Examiner finds, and we agree, paragraph 56 of Li
teaches that, in the uplink direction, the mobile device sends a special MAC
message to the base station indicating that the voice data rate is being
temporarily reduced, and upon receipt of such indication, the MAC
scheduler can reduce the airlink resource allocated to the voice connection.
Id. The Examiner also finds, and we agree, paragraph 57 of Li teaches that,
in the downlink direction, if there is not a voice packet to be transmitted over
a voice connection, the MAC scheduler allocates the resource to other voice
connections. Id.
The Examiner further finds, however, that Li teaches the disputed
limitation because the MAC scheduler at the base station is using the
indication of "no voice packet to be transmitted" as detection of "a silence
3
Appeal2014-008218
Application 12/050,571
period," whereupon the MAC scheduler allocates the resource to other voice
connections. Id. 14--15. Appellants argue that it is a MAC message that
informs the base station of a reduction in the voice data rate and that none of
the cited paragraphs of Li disclose a base station that detects a silence period
as claimed. Reply Br. 3.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments the Examiner has erred.
See App. Br. 6-12; Reply Br. 2-7. In particular, we agree with Appellants
that Li does not teach or suggest the limitation at issue because "Li discloses
detecting a silent period at the user terminal using a V AD and sending a
message to the base station indicating that the voice data rate is being
temporarily reduced." App. Br. 7 (emphasis added); cf (Spec. 6-7
(describing buffer management and packet-size variations as means by
which the base station detects a silent period). Although we agree, as
indicated above, with the Examiner's findings regarding the specific
teachings of paragraphs 55-57 of Li, we do not agree with the Examiner's
finding and interpretation that the indication to the MAC scheduler of "no
voice packet" to be transmitted constitutes "detecting a silence period ... at
the base station through recognition of a reduction of a data rate of the
service data sent to the user terminal," as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 14--15.
According! y, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 11, 13, and
14, as well as dependent claims 2, 4--10, 12, and 17-23.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--14, and
17-23.
4
Appeal2014-008218
Application 12/050,571
REVERSED
5