10895720 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2012)

Ex Parte Laroia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 24, 2012

10895720 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2012)

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. 10/895,720 07/21/2004 Rajiv Laroia Laroia 32-23-16 7202 46304 7590 10/25/2012 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP 90 FOREST AVENUE LOCUST VALLEY, NY 11560 EXAMINER ELPENORD, CANDAL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2473 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/25/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RAJIV LAROIA, JUNYI LI, and SATHYADEV VENKATA UPPALA ____________ Appeal 2010-007430 Application 10/895,720 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before STEPHEN C. SIU, JONI Y. CHANG, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-007430 Application 10/895,720 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. Br. at 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants’ Invention Appellants invented an apparatus and method directed to a unique “super” paging time slot format that reduces latency in receiving and detecting paging messages at a wireless terminal. Abstract. Illustrative Claim Claims 1, 6, and 11 are independent claims. Independent claim 1 is illustrative: 1. Apparatus for use in a wireless terminal of a wireless communications system to receive paging messages comprising: a controller for controllably maintaining said wireless terminal in a standby mode of operation; a receiver for receiving a super time slot format including a plurality of cyclically recurring super time slots to transport paging messages to one or more wireless terminals, wherein each of said plurality of super time slots includes a plurality of time slots, each time slot intended to transport a wireless terminal paging message; wherein said controller controllably causes said wireless terminal to enter into a monitor mode for monitoring at least a portion of a received super time slot associated with said wireless terminal for a paging message intended for said wireless terminal and otherwise returning to said standby mode of operation, wherein the super time slot format allows the paging message intended for said wireless terminal to be included in any one of the plurality of time slots of the received super time slot associated with said wireless terminal, and Appeal 2010-007430 Application 10/895,720 3 wherein power consumption is reduced. Prior Art Relied Upon Andersson US 5,604,744 Feb. 18, 1997 Dailey US 6,532,224 B1 Mar. 11, 2003 (filed May 10, 1999) Rejection on Appeal Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Andersson and Dailey. Ans. at 4-13. Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions The Examiner finds that neither Andersson nor Dailey explicitly discloses that a paging message can only be transmitted within a particular time slot of a hyperframe or superframe. Ans. at 14 (emphasis omitted). Instead, the Examiner finds that Dailey’s Figure 10 and corresponding description teach that the hyperframe or superframe associated with a plurality of time slots can carry both group and individual paging messages. Id. For example, the Examiner finds that Dailey discloses transmitting a common group paging message for a first and second wireless terminal. Ans. at 15 (citing col. 6 at ll. 50-62). Therefore, the Examiner finds that Dailey teaches including the super time slot carrying the paging message intended for the wireless terminal in any one of the plurality of time slots, as required by independent claims 1, 6, and 11. Ans. at 14. Appellants’ Contentions Appellants contend that Dailey’s Figure 10 and corresponding description only teaches assigning a paging message to the specific time slot which corresponds to the identification number to which that paging message is addressed. Br. at 7. That is, Appellants argue that Dailey Appeal 2010-007430 Application 10/895,720 4 teaches transmitting a paging message which is addressed to a mobile terminal using its mobile identification in time slot Tx’. Id. Similarly, Appellants argue that Dailey teaches transmitting a paging message which is addressed to the group identification number assigned to a group to which the mobile terminal belongs in time slot Ty’. Id. Appellants assert that Dailey does not disclose a paging message capable of being included in either time slot Tx’ or Ty’. Id. Therefore, Appellants contend that rather than teach the arrangement required by independent claim 1—namely a super time slot format that allows a paging message intended for a wireless terminal to be included in any one of the plurality of time slots associated with that wireless terminal within a received super time slot—Dailey only teaches transmitting a paging message during a particular time slot within a frame. Id. (emphasis omitted). Appellants rely upon the same argument presented for the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 to rebut the obviousness rejections of independent claims 6 and 11. Br. at 8. II. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in determining that the combination of Andersson and Dailey collectively teach “wherein the super time slot format allows the paging message intended for said wireless terminal to be included in any one of the plurality of time slots of the received super time slot associated with said wireless terminal,” as recited in independent claims 1, 6, and 11? Appeal 2010-007430 Application 10/895,720 5 III. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 6, and 11 Based on the record before us, we do not discern error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 6, and 11, which recite, inter alia, “wherein the super time slot format allows the paging message intended for said wireless terminal to be included in any one of the plurality of time slots of the received super time slot associated with said wireless terminal[.]” We begin our analysis by first looking at Dailey’s Figure 10 reproduced below. Dailey’s Figure 10 illustrates monitoring a first time slot Tx’ of a superframe for individual paging messages addressed to the mobile identification number of mobile terminal 137’, and monitoring a second time slot Ty’ of the superframe for group paging messages addressed to the group identification number associated with a group of mobile terminals including mobile terminal 137’. Col. 12 at ll. 29-34. Further, Dailey discloses assigning both the first time slot Tx’ and the second time slot Ty’ of the Appeal 2010-007430 Application 10/895,720 6 superframe to the same time slot such that mobile terminal 137’ only needs to monitor one time slot. Col. 12 at ll. 63-66; see also col. 13 at ll. 31-41. Therefore, contrary to Appellants’ argument, Dailey contemplates transmitting both individual and group paging messages in either the first time slot Tx’ or the second time slot Ty’ of the superframe. Put another way, we find that both the individual and group paging messages are capable of being transmitted during the same time slot—either first time slot Tx’ or second time slot Ty’—within the superframe. Moreover, we note that Dailey does not preclude the superframe from including either individual or group paging messages intended for mobile terminal 137’ in any one of the plurality of time slots associated therewith. That is, Dailey’s Figure 10 and corresponding description imply assigning both individual or group paging messages intended from mobile terminal 137’ to any one of the plurality of time slots in the superframe (e.g., first time slot Tx’, second time slot Ty’, third time slot Tx”, or fourth time slot Tn’). Therefore, we find that the Examiner presents sufficient evidence to warrant that Dailey teaches the disputed claim limitation. It follows that the Examiner did not err in concluding that the combination of Andersson and Dailey renders independent claims 1, 6, and 11 unpatentable. Claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-20 Appellants do not provide separate and distinct arguments for patentability with respect to dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-20. See Br. at 6-8. Therefore, we accept Appellant’s grouping of these dependent claims with their underlying base claim. Id. at 8. Consequently, dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-20 fall with independent claims 1, 6, and 11, respectively. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2010-007430 Application 10/895,720 7 IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). V. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED