Ex Parte Kuo

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 25, 2019

12403347 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/403,347 03/12/2009
106622 7590 06/27/2019
Blue Capital Law Firm, P.C.
650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1530
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard Lee-Chee Kuo
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.
1291-137.101 9519
EXAMINER
ANWAR, MOHAMMAD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2019 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@bluecapitallaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD LEE-CHEE KU0 1
Appeal2018-002521
Application 12/403,347
Technology Center 2400
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN, and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 4--10 and 13-18, which are all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Innovative Sonic
Limited. App. Br. 2.
2 This panel affirmed a prior appeal of this case. See "Decision on Appeal,"
entered April 2, 2015. The claims have been since amended. See, e.g.,
Amendment filed September 11, 2015.
Appeal2018-002521
Application 12/403,347
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE3
Appellant's claimed subject matter relates to handling a contention-
based random access procedure in user equipment of a wireless
communication system. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation italicized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for handling a contention-based random
access procedure in a user equipment (UE) of a wireless
communication system, the method comprising:
sending a Scheduled Transmission message, the
Scheduled Transmission message applying a Hybrid Automatic
Repeat reQuest (HARQ) process for transmission;
starting a Contention Resolution Timer and monitoring a
Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH); and
flushing data in a HARQ buffer of the HARQ process
used for transmission of the Scheduled Transmission message
at a time when a contention result of the random access
procedure is determined, no matter whether the contention
result is successful or unsuccessful, so as to terminate the
retransmission of the Scheduled Transmission message.
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 4--6, 10, and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Cave et al. (US 2009/0186624 Al, published Jul. 23,
3 Our decision relies upon Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
March 15, 2017); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 14, 2017); Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 15, 2015); and Final Office Action ("Final
Act.," mailed October 26, 2016).
2
Appeal2018-002521
Application 12/403,347
2009) ("Cave") and Chun et al. (US 2009/0080380 Al, published Mar. 26,
2009) ("Chun"). Final Act. 3-6.
Claims 7-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Cave, Chun, and Yi et al. (US 7,463,891 B2, issued Dec.
9, 2008) ("Yi"). Final Act. 6-8
ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. To the extent Appellant has not
advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other
issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellant's arguments with respect to claim 1 and,
unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by reference herein and adopt as our
own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's arguments. We highlight
and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis
as follows.
Appellant argues error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 because
"the combination of Cave and Chun does not teach or suggest" "flushing
data in a HARQ buffer of the HARQ process used for transmission of the
Scheduled Transmission message at a time when a contention result of the
random access procedure is determined, no matter whether the contention
result is successful or unsuccessful, so as to terminate the retransmission of
the Scheduled Transmission message," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6.
Specifically, Appellant argues that "[p]aragraphs [0013] and [0027] of Cave
3
Appeal2018-002521
Application 12/403,347
disclose the WTRU flushes the HARO buffer if the contention resolution
of the random access procedure is unsuccessful," and that "[p]aragraph
[0040] of Cave discloses the WTRU flushes the HARO buffer if the
contention resolution of the random access procedure is unsuccessful."
Reply Br. 5. Appellant contends, however, that Cave otherwise implies that
"the WTRU should keep the data the HARQ buffer so as to complete all the
HARQ retransmissions if the contention resolution is successful because the
E-DCH resources are still valid in this situation." Id. at 6 (referring to Cave
,r 27). Thus, the crux of Appellant's argument is that "Cave does not
disclose the WTRU flushes the HARQ buffer if the contention resolution of
the random access procedure is successful." Id. See also Id. ("In other
words, the HARO buffer is not flushed if the contention resolution is
successful.").
The Examiner finds, and we are persuaded, that Cave's paragraph 40
discloses "[i]f the contention resolution is successful, the data is discarded."
Cave ,r 40. To whatever extent Appellant argues "the Examiner improperly
combined" the teachings of Cave's paragraphs 13, 27, and 40, Appellant
overlooks that the Examiner finds "Cave's paragraph 49 discloses
['a]lthough features and elements are described above in particular
combinations, each feature or element can be used alone without the other
feature and elements or in various combinations with or without other
features and elements.[']" Ans. 4 ( quoting Cave ,I40 ( emphasis added)). In
other words, Appellant does not persuasively rebut that Cave expressly
discloses that the disclosed features and elements may be combined in
various combinations.
4
Appeal2018-002521
Application 12/403,347
Based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded
of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art combination to teach
or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 1, nor do we find error in the
Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, and claims 4--10 and 13-18, not argued separately with
particularity. See App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 4--7.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4--10 and 13-
18.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5