Ex Parte Khandekar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

11852565 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/852,565 09/10/2007 Aamod Khandekar 061900 1464
23696 7590 02/01/2017
OTTAT mMM TNmRPORATFD
EXAMINER
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
NGO, NGUYEN HOANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2017 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 AAMOD KHANDEKAR,
ALEXEI GOROKHOV, and RAJAT PRAKASH
Appeal 2016-0008641
Application 11/852,565
Technology Center 2400
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—42 and 62, which are all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is QUALCOMM
Incorporated. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2016-000864
Application 11/852,565
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention “relates generally to wireless communications,
and more particularly subband scheduling and power amplifier backoff.”
(Sept. 10, 2007 Specification (“Spec.”) 11.) Claim 1 is representative and is
reproduced below:
1. A method of mitigating non-linear distortion on a spectral mask
margin, comprising:
scheduling, based upon power limitation information including a
QoS level, a first mobile device on an inner subband of an
allocated spectrum, wherein the power limitation information
indicates the first mobile device is power-limited at maximum
transmit power due to interference constraints, and wherein the
inner subband is not at an edge of the allocated spectrum; and
scheduling a second mobile device on an edge subband at an
edge of the allocated spectrum after scheduling the first mobile
device.
Prior Art and Rejection on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Love et al.
(“Love”) US 2008/0025254 Al Jan. 31, 2008
Alpert et al. us 2008/0291831 Al Nov. 27, 2008
(“Alpert”)
Claims 1—42 and 62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Love in view of Alpert. (See Final Office Action (mailed
Jan. 14, 2015) (“Final Act.”) 2-7.)
2
Appeal 2016-000864
Application 11/852,565
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—42 and 62.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that while Love “fails to
specifically disclose that the power information specifically includes a QoS
level and wherein the power limitation information indicates the first mobile
device is power-limited at maximum transmit power due to interference
constraints,” Alpert teaches or suggests the use of QoS (i.e., Quality of
Service). (Final Act. 3—4.) Appellants disagree and contend that neither
Love (App. Br. 10—15; Reply 2—5) nor Alpert (App. Br. 15—18) teaches or
suggests the use of QoS.
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. With
regard to Appellants’ contention that Love fails to teach or suggest the use of
QoS, we note that the Examiner is not relying on Love for the use of QoS.
(Final Act. 3—4, 7—8.) Appellants further argue that “Love also fails to
explicitly describe that the power limitation information indicates the first
mobile device is power-limited at maximum transmit power due to
interference constraints.” (App. Br. 14—15.) Other than contending that the
portions of Love cited by the Examiner “describe^ something different than
the distinguishing features of the Appellants’ claims,” Appellants, however,
do not explain why (except for contending that Love fails to teach or suggest
the use of QoS) the Examiner’s detailed findings are incorrect. (App. Br.
10—15.) We note that mere attorney argument and a conclusory statement
that is unsupported by factual evidence is entitled to little probative value.
In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736
3
Appeal 2016-000864
Application 11/852,565
F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Importantly, we agree with, and adopt as
our own, the Examiner’s detailed findings regarding this limitation. (Final
Act. 3—4, 7-8; Ans. 7-9.)
With regard to Appellants’ contention regarding Alpert, Appellants
have similarly not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. Appellants contend
that Alpert fails to teach or suggest “scheduling, based upon power
limitation information including a QoS level, a first mobile device . . . ,
wherein the power limitation information indicates the first mobile device is
power-limited at maximum transmit power due to interference constraints”
because QoS level is not used to calculate Alpert’s “reporting ratio.” (App.
Br. 15—18; see also Reply 5—7.) In other words, according to Appellants, the
QoS level in Alpert is not used for “scheduling transmission in different
subbands” as claimed. (Id. at 18.)
“[0]ne cannot show non-obviousness[, however,] by attacking
references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references.” See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981). Specifically, the Examiner finds the combination of Love and Alpert
teaches or suggests “scheduling, based upon power limitation information
including a QoS level, a first mobile device . . ., wherein the power
limitation information indicates the first mobile device is power-limited at
maximum transmit power due to interference constraints.” (Final Act. 3—4,
7—8.) We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Love teaches or suggests
“scheduling, based upon power limitation information” and Alpert teaches
or suggests “that the power information specifically includes a QoS level
and wherein the power limitation information indicates the first mobile
device is power-limited at maximum transmit power due to interference
4
Appeal 2016-000864
Application 11/852,565
constraints” and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art:
[T]o incorporate the concept of providing updating information
including power limitation information including a QoS level
and maximum transmit power as disclosed by Alpert into the
method of spectrum emission level variation in schedulable
wireless communication terminals involving scheduling
terminals at the carrier band edge and other terminals excluding
the carrier band edge as disclosed by Love in order to correctly
and efficiently obtain the proper information needed for
scheduling of terminals.
(Final Act. 3—4.)
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in
the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 1, as well as independent claims 14, 15, 28, and 31, which are not
argued separately. (App. Br. 9-19.) We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 2—13, 16—27, 29, 30, 32-42 and 62, which depend on one
of claims 1, 15, 28, or 31, and are not argued separately. (Id.)
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—42 and 62 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
5