Ex Parte Koc et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 22, 2018

14587779 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2018)

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.
14/587,779 12/31/2014 Ali T. Koc P49253C 7014
45459 7590 01/24/2018
GROSSMAN, TUCKER, PERREAULT & PFLEGER, PLLC
1600 Kolb Rd., Suite 118
Tucson, AZ 85715
EXAMINER
ANWAR, MOHAMMAD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/24/2018 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):
drobertson@gtpp.com
rmendez@gtpp-tucson.com
intel_docketing @ gtpp .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALI T. KOC, SATISH C. JHA, MARUTI GUPTA,
SANGEETHA L. BANGOLAE, MARTA MARTINEZ TARRADELL, and
RATH VANNITHAMBY
Appeal 2017-008002
Application 14/587,7791
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—9, 11, 13, 17, 19, and 21. Claims 3, 10, 12,
14—16, 18, and 20 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Intel Corporation as the real party in interest. (App.
Br. 1.)
Appeal 2017-008002
Application 14/587,779
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to improved
signaling of User Equipment (UE) assistance information in a wireless
network. (Abstract.) Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. User Equipment (UE) comprising:
a processing circuit to generate an assistance information
message comprising a power preference indicator (PPI), wherein
said PPI specifies a desired power consumption state for said UE
in a connected mode with a wireless network;
a signal generation module to generate a Radio Resource
Control (RRC) message comprising said UE assistance
information message;
a transmitter circuit to transmit said RRC message on an
uplink dedicated control channel (UL DCCH) to an evolved
Node B (eNB) of the wireless network; and
a timer circuit to delay transmission of said RRC message
such that a time period between consecutive transmissions of
said RRC message exceeds a minimum elapsed time threshold.
App. Br. 25 (Claims Appendix 1).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 17, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2
Meeting #77, Mar. 30, 2012 (hereinafter “Research In Motion” or “RIM”) in
view of Demirhan et al (US 2007/0291673 Al, pub. Dec. 20, 2007)
(hereinafter “Demirhan”). (Final Act. 3).
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 11, 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Research in Motion, Demirhan, and Ohlsson et al
2
Appeal 2017-008002
Application 14/587,779
(US 2013/0223307 Al, pub. Aug. 29, 2013) (hereinafter “Ohlsson”). (Final
Act. 9).
The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Research in Motion, Demirhan, and Kojima (US
8,620,210 B2, iss. Dec. 31, 2013). (Final Act. 10).
The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Research in Motion, Demirhan, and Islam et al (US
8,265,034 B2, iss. Sept. 11, 2012) (hereinafter “Islam”). (Final Act. 11).
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue2:
Whether the Examiner erred in combining the teachings of Demirhan
with the teachings of Research In Motion. (App. Br. 14—22.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments,
and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—
11), (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 1—2), and (3) the corresponding findings and
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Jan. 12, 2017) (herein, “App.
Br.”); the Reply Brief (filed May 4, 2017) (herein, “Reply Br.”); the Final
Office Action (mailed April 18, 2016) (herein, “Final Act.”); the Advisory
Action (mailed Aug. 1, 2016) (herein, “Adv. Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer (mailed Mar. 14, 2017) (herein, “Ans.”) for the respective details.
3
Appeal 2017-008002
Application 14/587,779
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. (Ans. 2—7.) We concur with the applicable
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and emphasize the following.
In finding the combination of Research In Motion and Demirhan
teaches or suggests limitations of the claims at issue, the Examiner relies,
inter alia, on the disclosure in Research In Motion of user equipment (“UE”)
having discontinuous reception period (“DRX”) values, while providing the
UE information to the evolved Node B (“eNB”) transceivers enables the
network to make better and more reliable decisions. (Final Act 3; Ans. 3;
Research In Motion at 2—3, Sections 2—3, Fig. 2.) The Examiner further
relies on the disclosure of Demirhan of a timer circuit to delay transmission
of a radio resource control (“RRC”) such that the period between
consecutive transmissions exceeds a minimum elapsed time threshold.
(Final Act. 4; Demirhan Fig. 3, items 302, 314.)
Appellants make a number of arguments in support of their contention
that argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined RIM
and Demirhan as asserted by the Office. Particularly, Appellants contend:
1. “RIM’s disclosure is singularly focused on PPI signaling . . . between
normal and background optimized connected mode configurations,”
whereas “Demirhan is drawn to technologies that enable the use of an
adaptive idle mode [DRX] period.” (App. Br. 16, citing Demirhan
1 io.);
2. “[0]ne of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to modify
RIM to include the Demirhan’s timers, at least because the references
are drawn to different problems and identify different solutions to
those different problems.” (App. Br. 17.);
4
Appeal 2017-008002
Application 14/587,779
3. “[NJothing in RIM suggests that its proposed pre-configuration of a
UE does not adequately function for its intended purpose” and “RIM’s
fully functional solution does not require the use of any timer.” (App.
Br. 18.); and
4. “[0]ne of ordinary skill in the art would consider the use of a timer
circuit undesirable in the context” of RIM’s invention because use of
a timer “cuts directly against RIM’s expressed goal of providing a
quick transition between normal and power optimized connected
mode states.” (App. Br. 21, citing RIM at 3, emphasis in original.)
We are not persuaded by these arguments. Here the Examiner finds,
and we agree, that
it would have been obvious to one [of] ordinary skill in the art
at the time of invention was made to include [the] Demirhan
timer scheme into [the] Research in Motion PPI scheme. . . .
The motivation of doing this is to inhibit mobile device to
transmit RRC messages and thus save resources and battery
power.
(Final Act. 4—5; see also Ans. 4, citing Demirhan || 10, 32.) The Supreme
Court stated that “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSRInt'ICo. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007).
The Examiner articulated a rational underpinning to combine the references
by introducing Demirhan’s teaching of the timer in RIM to save resources
and battery power as taught by Demirhan (see Final Act. 4—5; Demirhan’s
Abstract and ^fl[ 10, 32). We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Demirhan “is an analogous art since the UE informs the power level
5
Appeal 2017-008002
Application 14/587,779
information to the network or eNB in the connected mode.” (Ans. 4, citing
Demirhan|| 10, 32.)
Appellants’ arguments (1) regarding the differences between normal
and RIM’s background optimized connected mode configurations and
Demirhan’s adaptive DRX, and (2) that “the references are drawn to
different problems” are unpersuasive, as RIM seeks “improvements [that]
will allow for better trade-offs to be achieved when balancing the needs of
network efficiency, UE battery life, signaling overheads, and user
experience / system performance.” (App. Br. 17; RIM at 1, Section 1
(emphasis omitted).) See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
(“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference .... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art”).
Appellants’ assertion that “RIM’s fully functional solution does not
require the use of any timer” is unpersuasive, as RIM specifies “[c]ycle
lengths approach or are similar to those employed in idle” and “DRX
inactivity timers are short.” (App. Br. 18; RIM at 2, Section 2.) We are also
not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider use of a
timer circuit “undesirable” in the context of RIM’s transition from
background to normal mode, because as RIM itself indicates, “trade-offs”
are to be achieved among needs such as “UE battery life, signaling
overheads, and user experience /system performance,” and one of ordinary
skill art would consider the power savings afforded by timers (as taught by
Demirhan) in conjunction with transitioning among operation modes. (RIM
at 1, Section 1 (emphasis omitted).)
6
Appeal 2017-008002
Application 14/587,779
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent
claims 1, 9, and 17, and all dependent claims not separately argued. See
App. Br. 22—23.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—9, 11, 13, 17, 19,
and 21 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
7