Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2017

13763411 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 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.
13/763,411 02/08/2013 Ying Li 2012.03.007.SR0 9498
106809 7590
Docket Clerk - SAMS
P.O. Drawer 800889
Dallas, TX 75380
EXAMINER
HOLLIDAY, JAIME MICHELE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2017 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):
patents @ munckwilson. com
munckwilson @ gmail. com
patent, srad @ samsung.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YING LI, ZHOUYUE PI, SRIDHAR RAJAGOPAL,
PAVANNUGGEHALLI, SHADI ABU-SURRA, and
SUDHIR RAMAKRISHNA
Appeal 2016-004551
Application 13/763,411
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, AMBER L. HAGY, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1—24. App. Br. I.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
1 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their details: the Final
Action mailed February 3, 2015 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed
August 8, 2015 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 21,
2016 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed March 21, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-004551
Application 13/763,411
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as follows:
A mobile station is configured to scan cells in a wireless network.
The mobile station includes at least one antenna configured to
transmit and receive wireless signals. The mobile station also
includes a processor coupled to the at least one antenna, the
processor configured to scan for one or more neighboring base
station cells in a same frequency band as a serving base station
cell using one or more receive beams. The one or more receive
beams used for scanning are different than receive beams used
for data communication with the serving base station cell.
Abstract.
Independent claim 7, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed
claims:
7. An apparatus for use in a mobile station configured to scan
cells in a wireless network, the apparatus comprising:
a plurality of radio frequency (RF) chains;
a processor configured to:
scan for one or more neighboring base station cells
in a same frequency band as a serving base station cell
using one or more receive beams, wherein the one or more
receive beams used for scanning are different than receive
beams used for data communication with the serving base
station cell, and
use at least one first RF chain for data
communication with the serving base station cell and use
at least one second RF chain for scanning the one or more
neighboring base station cells, wherein the data
communication and the cell scanning are concurrent.
Claims 1, 3, 5—7, 9, 11—13, 15, 17—19, 21, 23, and 24 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lee (US 2007/0054667 Al;
published Mar. 8, 2007) in view of Chen (US 2002/0137538 Al; published
2
Appeal 2016-004551
Application 13/763,411
Sept. 26, 2002) and Patel (US 2008/0220807 Al; published Sept. 11, 2008).
App. Br. 12.
Claims 2, 8, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Lee in view of Chen, Patel, and Kim (US 2007/0178898 Al;
published Aug. 2, 2007). Id.
Claims 4, 10, 16, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Lee in view of Chen, Patel, and Lee ’599 (US 2010/0296599
Al; published Nov. 25, 2010). Id.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
In relation to independent claims 1 and 7, the Examiner finds that Lee
discloses a mobile station that scans cells in a wireless network, wherein the
mobile station “scan[s] for one or more neighboring base station cells in a
same frequency band as a serving base station cell.” Final Act. 4 (citing Lee
1116, 63). The Examiner finds that “Lee et al. fail to specifically disclose
wherein the one or more receive beams used for scanning are different than
receive beams used for data communication with the serving base station
cell.” Id.
The Examiner finds that Chen teaches “scanning using one or more
receive beams, wherein the one or more receive beams used for scanning are
different than receive beams used for data communication with the serving
base station cell.” Id. (citing Chen, 120). The Examiner concludes that
3
Appeal 2016-004551
Application 13/763,411
it would have been obvious ... to have a beam that
communicates with a serving base station and a beam that
searches for other base stations as taught by Chen et al. in the
system of Lee et al., in order to scan for[,] as well as
communicate with[,] multiple base stations.
Id. at 4—5.
The Examiner additionally finds that the combination of Lee and
Chen further
fail[s] to specifically disclose wherein the mobile station
comprises a plurality of radio frequency (RF) chains, using at
least one first RF chain for data communication with the serving
base station cell and using at least one second RF chain for
scanning the one or more neighboring base station cells, wherein
the data communication and the cell scanning are concurrent.
Id. 5. But the Examiner finds that Patel teaches this feature. Id. (citing Patel
16, 64, 70, and 82). And the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious “to provide the receive chains with the highest quality to tune to the
serving cell as taught by Patel et al. in the system of [Lee and Chen] in order
to receive serving and neighboring cells simultaneously.” Id.
Appellants present several arguments in relation to the independent
claims. See generally App. Br. 14—22. For example, Appellants argue that
“Lee and Patel are opposing references that evidence a choice of only one
of: (i) reception at separate times via a same frequency; or (ii) concurrent
reception via different frequencies.” Id. at 15. To support this conclusion,
Appellants urge that
Figure 2 of Lee shows that the [mobile station] MS (200)
communicates with the non-serving base stations (240 and 260)
only during the scanning interval (which have a duration of
N frames), and that the MS (200) communicates with the serving
base station (220) only outside the scanning intervals.
4
Appeal 2016-004551
Application 13/763,411
Lee states “the MS cannot receive data traffic during the
scanning period.” Thus, Lee expressly teaches away from
concurrent data communication and scanning.
Id. at 15—16 (citing Lee, 123).
In relation to Patel, Appellants further argue
Patel suggests that neighbor cell frequencies do not include the
serving cell frequency by teaching that an additional separate
synthesizer (3102, 3IO3) is required to allocate RF Chains for
neighbor cell reception yet turned off for MIMO mode. [] Patel
does not teach or suggest that the remaining RF chains (302N-i,
302n) allocated for neighbor cell reception can be used for
scanning the same channel as the serving cell frequency. Patel
does not teach that the mobile station concurrently receives from
neighbor cells and the serving cell on a same channel, but instead
teaches that the mobile station tunes additional/remaining
RF chains “to a different channel for neighbor cell reception.”
Id. (citing Patel, H 18, 64, 70).
ANALYSIS
Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. Patel explains that “[i]n a
traditional receiver with multiple chains, whenever the multiple receive
chains are used[,] they are all tuned to the same channel.” Patel, 114.
Patel’s solution to the traditional necessity of changing all of the receive
chains’ channels in concert, is to “efficiently employ multiple receive
chains.” Id. 119. Patel does this by using separate receive chains to scan
neighboring cells in different channels. Id. 128.
The rejection does not explain why one of ordinary skill, after
employing Patel’s inventive concept of using multiple receive chains to
enable independent channel control for scanning neighboring cells, would
then instead opt to scan the neighboring cells using the same channel as the
5
Appeal 2016-004551
Application 13/763,411
serving station. The rejection appears to be the result of improper hindsight
in which the claims are used as a roadmap. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d
1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 19,
each of which sets forth scanning neighboring base station cells in a same
frequency while using a separate RF chain for scanning one or more
neighboring base station cells. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of those claims or of claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17,
18, 21, 23, and 24, which depend from these independent claims.
With respect to the remaining rejections of dependent claims 2, 4, 8,
10, 14, 16, 20, and 22, the Examiner does not rely on either Kim or Lee ’599
to cure the deficiencies of the obviousness rejection explained above.
Final Act. 12—18.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—24 is reversed.
REVERSED
6