Ex Parte Kuo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2017

13347295 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 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.
13/347,295 01/10/2012 Richard Lee-Chee Kuo 1291-045.201 1780
106622 7590 09/21/2017
Rliie Fanital T aw Firm Pf
EXAMINER
650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1530
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
OVEISSI, MANSOUR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2415
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2017 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):
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 KUO
Appeal 2017-003757
Application 13/347,295
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., SHARON FENICK, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 11, 12, 16, 17, and 21—24, which are all the pending claims.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Innovative Sonic Ltd. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 1—10, 13—15, and 18—20 have been canceled. See App. Br. 9—10
(Claims App’x).
Appeal 2017-003757
Application 13/347,295
Introduction
Appellant describes the invention as relating to “enhancing receiving
efficiency of a multimedia broadcast multicast service (MBMS) in a wireless
communications system, and more particularly to . . . avoiding waste of
processing resources and power in a user equipment (UE) of a wireless
communications system.” Spec. 12. Appellant identifies problems with
power consumption and receiving efficiency that can arise under certain
scenarios because the relevant MBMS standards “do not disclose methods
for distinguishing whether an MBMS service is transmitted on an MBSFN
[(MBMS over a Single Frequency Network)] carrier or a non-MBSFN
carrier.” Id. ^ 9; see also id. 10.
Claim 11 is exemplary:
11. A method for enhancing receiving efficiency of a
multimedia broadcast multicast service (MBMS), in network
terminal of a wireless communications system, the method
comprising:
creating at least one MBMS service;
determining a carrier frequency for each MBMS service
for transmitting the MBMS service; and
sending the carrier frequency for an MBMS service to a
user equipment (UE) of the wireless communication system to
enable the UE to monitor, based on the carrier frequency,
notifications of the MBMS service from a single frequency
network (SFN) responsible for transmission of the MBMS
service, wherein the carrier frequency is sent via an MBMS
user service announcement and discovery mechanism.
App. Br. 9 (Claims App’x).
2
Appeal 2017-003757
Application 13/347,295
Rejection
Claims 11, 12, 16, 17, and 21—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable in view of Hu (US 2009/0116417 Al; May 7,
2009) and Aaltonen (US 2009/0122204 Al; May 14, 2009). Final Act. 4-9.
ISSUES
Based on Appellant’s arguments (see App. Br. 5—8), the issues are
whether the Examiner errs in the rejection (a) of claims 11 and 16, from
which we select claim 11 as representative (37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)), and
(b) of claims 21 and 23, from which we select claim 21 as representative
{id.). Appellant does not separately argue error in the rejection of dependent
claims 12, 17, 22, and 24; accordingly, these claims stand or fall with their
respective parent independent claims 11, 16, 21, and 23. Id.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions of reversible error. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions.
Instead, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasons as set forth in the
Final Rejection from which this appeal is taken and as set forth in the
Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellant argues the combination of Hu and Aaltonen fails to teach or
suggest:
sending the carrier frequency for an MBMS service to a
user equipment (UE) of the wireless communication system to
enable the UE to monitor, based on the carrier frequency,
notifications of the MBMS service from a single frequency
network (SFN) responsible for transmission of the MBMS
service, wherein the carrier frequency is sent via an MBMS
user service announcement and discovery mechanism,
3
Appeal 2017-003757
Application 13/347,295
as recited in claims 11 and 16. App. Br. 5. Appellant also argues Hu and
Aaltonen similarly fail to teach “receiving a carrier frequency for an MBMS
service via an MBMS user service announcement and discovery
mechanism,” as recited in claims 21 and 23. Id.
Specifically Appellant contends the Examiner errs in relying on
paragraphs 7 and 79 of Aaltonen for teaching “notifications of the MBMS
service from a single frequency network (SFN) responsible for transmission
of the MBMS service, wherein the carrier frequency is sent via an MBMS
user service announcement and discovery mechanism,” as recited in claims
11 and 16, because “Aaltonen is silent on MBMS notification.” Id. Thus,
Appellant contends, “there is no teaching from Aaltonen to motivate [one of]
ordinary skill in this art to adapt the design principle of Hu to arrive at
Claims 11, 16, 21, and 23.” Id. at 6.
This argument is unpersuasive. Each reference cited by the Examiner
must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination
with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner primarily relies on Hu, not Aaltonen, for
MBMS-related teachings such as “creating at least one MBMS service,”
“determining a carrier frequency for each MBMS service for transmitting
the MBMS service,” and “sending the carrier frequency for an MBMS
service to a user equipment (UE) of the wireless communication system to
enable the UE to monitor,” as recited in claim 11. See Final Act. 4—5 (citing
Hu H 7—16, 22, Figs. 1—3). The Examiner relies on Aaltonen only to teach
MBMS services can be “from a single frequency network (SFN) responsible
for transmission of the MBMS service, wherein the carrier frequency is sent
4
Appeal 2017-003757
Application 13/347,295
via an MBMS user service announcement and discovery mechanism.” Id.
(citing Aaltonen Abstract, || 7, 13, 14, 47, 79—80, Figs. 3 4).
Aaltonen specifically teaches that its disclosure applies to MBMS
networks. Aaltonen 125. Aaltonen also specifically teaches the network
transmitters can be part of a single frequency network (SFN). Id. 1 80.
Given that Aaltonen’s broadcast service-related teachings are informed both
by its disclosure that they apply to MBMS and SFN technologies, and by the
teachings of Hu, we find no error in the Examiner’s determination that both
Aaltonen and Hu are consistent with the design principles of “determin[ing]
a single frequency to transmit MBMS related services (MBMS service
announcement, MBMS notification, and MBMS data transfer) to user
equipment (UE) on the preferred frequency or SFN, and [the] UE receiving]
the MBMS related services on the preferred frequency or SFN.” Ans. 5
(emphasis removed); see also id. at 3—6.
In reply, Appellant provides a table that posits the result of the
combination of the teachings of Hu and Aaltonen. Reply Br. 7. In this table,
Appellant characterizes claims 11 and 21 as requiring the “UE receives the
MBMS notification on the frequency included in the service
announcement'’'’ whereas the combination of Hu and Aaltonen teaches the
“UE receives the MBMS notification on the current frequency.” Id.
This is unpersuasive because the information listed in the table is not
commensurate with the scope of the claims. Claim 11 does not specify that
the UE must receive the MBMS notification on the frequency included in a
service announcement. Rather, claim 11 requires “sending the carrier
frequency . . . wherein the carrier frequency is sent via an MBMS service
announcement and discovery mechanism,” without specifying the frequency
5
Appeal 2017-003757
Application 13/347,295
on which the service announcement and discovery mechanism is sent and
received. As recited, this “enable[s] the UE to monitor, based on the carrier
frequency, notifications of the MBMS service from a single frequency
network (SFN).” Similarly, claim 21 recites “receiving a carrier frequency
for an MBMS service via an MBMS user service announcement and
discovery mechanism” and then “monitoring and receiving, based on the
carrier frequency, a notification of the MBMS service from a single
frequency network (SFN),” which does not specify the frequency on which
the service announcement and discovery mechanism is received. To the
extent requiring notification from a single frequency network can implicitly
require using only the single frequency, we note Aaltonen’s disclosure of
broadcast services that use MBMS and SFN technologies, as discussed
above, supports the Examiner’s finding that Aaltonen, in view of Hu,
teaches this requirement.
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner’s findings for how an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have adapted the teachings of Hu to use
Aaltonen’s approach of transmitting broadcast services using an SFN
network to achieve claim 11. See Final Act. 4—6; Ans. 3—8. Appellant’s
argument construes the teachings of Hu and Aaltonen too narrowly. “A
person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). The
relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings
of the references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant provides no persuasive argument or evidence that
combining the MBMS-related teachings from Hu with the SFN-related
6
Appeal 2017-003757
Application 13/347,295
teachings from Aaltonen as proposed by the Examiner was “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Nor has Appellant provided objective evidence of secondary considerations
which our reviewing court guides “operates as a beneficial check on
hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., 725
F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Instead, we are persuaded, on the record
before us, that the Examiner has sufficiently articulated a “rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at
418).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 11
and 21, and also of claims 12, 16, 17, and 22—24, for which Appellant
provides no arguments separate from those for claims 11 and 21.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 11, 12, 16,
17, and 21—24 under § 103(a)
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