Ex Parte Liberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2016

13202989 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/202,989 08/24/2011 OlofLiberg
96750 7590 09/16/2016
Patents on Demand, P,A,
4581 Weston Road, Suite 345
Weston, FL 33331
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.
P33086-US2 3805
EXAMINER
YOUNG, STEVER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2016 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 1@patentsondemand.com
docketing3@patentsondemand.com
docketing.ericsson@thomsonreuters.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLOF LIBERO, MARTEN SUNDBERG, and
KARIN W AHLQVIST 1
Appeal2015-005129
Application 13/202,989
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Non-
Final Decision rejecting claims 13-24. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget
L M Ericsson (publ). See Appeal Br. 2.
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellants' Specification filed
Aug. 24, 2011 ("Spec."); (2) the Non-Final Office Action ("Non-Final
Act.") mailed July 24, 2014; (3) the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed Nov.
10, 2014; (4) the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed Feb. 10, 2015; and (5)
the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") mailed Apr. 6, 2015.
Appeal2015-005129
Application 13/202,989
BACKGROUND
Appellants' application relates to an apparatus and method to provide
improved transmission in a Voice services over Adaptive Multi-user channel
on One Slot (VAMOS)-capable wireless communication system. Spec. 2.
Claims 13 and 24 are independent claims. Claim 13 is exemplary and is
reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized:
13. A method for transmitting information from a radio base
station node to a first mobile station and a second mobile station
paired on and sharing a same carrier frequency, Time Division
Multiple Access (TDMA) frame, and time slot in a wireless
communication system, wherein said first and second mobile
stations are allocated on a first and second Voice services over
Adaptive Multi-user channel on One Slot (V AMOS) sub-
channel, respectively, said method comprising:
transmitting a Gaussian Minimum Shift Keying (GMSK)
modulated Slow Associated Common Control Channel
(SACCH) burst of a SACCH block in a predetermined time slot
and TDMA frame on one of said first and second V AMOS sub-
channels; and
simultaneously muting the SACCH burst in the other of
said first and said second V AMOS sub-channels in said
predetermined time slot and TDMAframe.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal includes:
Lee et al. ("Lee") US 2011/0312362 Al
2
Dec. 22, 2011
(PCT filed Mar.
30, 2010)
Appeal2015-005129
Application 13/202,989
Lei et al. ("Lei")
Kreuzer ("Kreuzer")
US 2012/0155356 Al
US 2012/0182913 Al
REJECTIONS
June 21, 2012
(filed Aug. 25,
2010)
July 19, 2012
(filed Aug. 4,
2009)
Claims 13-15, 18, 19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Lei. Non-Final Act. 3-7.
Claims 16, 17, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lei and Kreuzer. Non-Final Act. 8-12.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Lei and Lee. Non-Final Act. 12-13.
Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejections and issues
raised by Appellants. We have not considered other possible issues that
have not been raised by Appellants and which are; therefore; not before us.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Lei discloses
"simultaneously muting the SACCH burst in the other of said first and said
second VAMOS sub-channels in said predetermined time slot and TDMA
frame," as recited in claim 13?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Lei discloses "comprising
performing said transmitting and said simultaneously muting alternately on
both of said first and second VAMOS sub-channels," as recited in claim 18?
3
Appeal2015-005129
Application 13/202,989
DISCUSSION
35U.S.C.§102: Claims 13-15, 19, and 24
After review of Appellants' arguments and the Examiner's findings
and reasoning, we determine that Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner's rejection of claim 13. Accordingly, we affirm the
rejection for reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Non-Final Office
Action and the Answer. See Non-Final Act. 3--4, 13-14; Ans. 14--16. We
add the following for emphasis and completeness.
In rejecting claim 13, the Examiner finds Lei's Discontinuous
Transmission ("DTX") operations disclose the claimed muting. Non-Final
Act. 4 (citing Lei i-fi-1 46 and 50). Specifically, the Examiner relies upon
Lei's method of enhancing Slow Associated Control Channel ("SACCH")
performance. Id. Lei's method seeks to obtain gain when the Traffic
Channel ("TCH") is in the DTX state by changing the location of a SACCH
frame on a VAivIOS sub-channel to avoid simultaneous occurrence with the
SACCH frame on another VAMOS sub-channel. Non-Final Act. 4 (citing
Lei i-f 50).
Appellants contend that Lei's DTX does not disclose the claimed
simultaneous muting because the Examiner misconstrues the term "muting."
Appeal Br. 5. Appellants, relying on a dictionary definition of muting
("disabling of a given input or output"), contend "in the context of a SACCH
burst, one skilled in the art would construe the claimed muting as disabling
the SACCH input to the sub-channel. DTX, on the other hand, is simply not
transmitting because there is no data to transmit, i.e., there is no input." Id.
4
Appeal2015-005129
Application 13/202,989
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. Initially we note Appellants
have not explicitly defined the term "muting" in the Specification. Thus, we
determine that a reasonably broad interpretation, in light of the
Specification, of the claimed "muting," reads on Lei's changing of a location
of a SACCH frame on a V AMOS sub-channel. Moreover, Appellants do
not sufficiently distinguish the claimed muting from Lei's disabling of
transmission on a VAMOS sub-channel during a given time period to avoid
simultaneous occurrence with the SACCH burst on another VAMOS sub-
channel. See Lei i-fi-146 and 50.
Appellants argue that Lei does not disclose muting because Lei does
not transmit data "because there is no data to transmit, i.e., there is no input."
Appeal Br. 5.
However, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that "whether or not
there was data to be transmitted in a given period that is to be muted does
not matter with regards to 'muting,;;; so long as Lei;s method ensures no
transmission of SACCH data during that period. Ans. 14. Thus, even
construing "muting" as per Appellants' proffered dictionary definition
("disabling of a given input or output"), we determine the "muting the
SAA CH burst" is disclosed by Lei's changing of a location of an SACCH
frame on a VAMOS sub-channel because the claimed "muting" does not
specify how the disabling of a given input/output is accomplished.
Appellants argue that Appellants' Specification "distinguishes the
claimed muting from DTX." Appeal Br. 5. We agree with the Examiner's
finding that while Appellants' Specification may describe certain
advantages, "the claim language, in its current form, is still broad enough to
read on the ... prior art." Ans. 14--15.
5
Appeal2015-005129
Application 13/202,989
Appellants argue that Lei does not disclose a base station performing
the claimed muting. Appeal Br. 15. We agree with the Examiner's finding
that Lei discloses the base station performing the claimed muting because in
Lei "the alternating/muting transmissions are applicable to both the uplink
and downlink." Ans. 15 (citing Lei Fig. 12). Accordingly, we find
Appellants' argument unpersuasive.
Appellants argue for the first time in the Reply Brief, that "because
the Applicants' specification explicitly states DTX will not sufficiently
address the problem, and thus explicitly disavows the very interpretation the
Examiner is trying to apply, the Examiner's proffered interpretation is
unreasonable." Reply Br. 3. Appellants' argument that the Specification
"explicitly disavows" coverage of DTX (Reply Br. 3) is unpersuasive given
that Appellants fail to demonstrate an intent to deviate from the ordinary and
customary meaning of the claim terms by including in the Specification
expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear
disavowal of claim scope. See, e.g., In re American Academy of Science
Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed.Cir.2004).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection
of claim 13. Claim 24 recites an apparatus with requirements analogous to
those of claim 13 and stands rejected on the same basis and, thus, for the
reasons discussed supra, the rejection of claim 24 is also sustained. 3 See
Appeal Br. 8-9.
3 Appellants argue claim 24 is not disclosed by US 2011/0205947 by Xin
("Xin"). These arguments are not responsive to the rejection because claim
24, similar to claim 13, is rejected over Lei. Non-Final Act. 5-7.
6
Appeal2015-005129
Application 13/202,989
Appellants do not make any other substantive argument regarding the
rejection of dependent claims 14, 15, and 19. See App. Br. 9. Therefore, we
likewise sustain the rejections of these dependent claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e).
35 U.S. C. § 102: Claim 18
In rejecting claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the Examiner relies on
Lei to disclose "performing said transmitting and said simultaneously
muting alternately on both of said first and second VAMOS sub-channels,"
as recited in claim 18. Non-Final Act. 5. In particular, the Examiner finds
that Lei discloses "a base station instructing the user on a V AMOS sub-
channel to use a half-rate sub-channel 0 and a half-rate sub-channel 1
alternately." Non-Final Act. 5 (citing Lei i-fi-138, 46, and 50). See also
Ans. 17 (citing Lei Fig. 12).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Lei "simply teaches
that if a user using a half-rate TCH is contained in a paired group, a base
station may instruct that user on a VAMOS sub-channel to use half-rate sub-
channel 0 and half-rate sub-channel 1 alternately." Appeal Br. 9.
We agree with Appellants' arguments that the Examiner's findings do
not disclose all of the features of claim 18. Specifically, we find Lei's
instructing the user to alternately use a sub-channel 0 and a sub-channel 1
fails to disclose alternately performing transmitting and simultaneous muting
of the SACCH burst, as claimed. See Lei i138.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of claim 18.
7
Appeal2015-005129
Application 13/202,989
35 U.S. C. § 103: Claims 20--23
Claims 20-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We do not
find, however, that application of Kreuzer and Lee cures the deficiencies of
the rejection of claim 18. We also accordingly do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 20-23, which depend, directly or indirectly,
from claim 18. See Appeal Br. 13-14 (Claims App'x).
35 U.S.C. § 103: Claims 16 and 17
Appellants do not make any other substantive argument regarding the
rejection of dependent claims 16 and 17. See App. Br. 10. Therefore, we
likewise sustain the rejections of these dependent claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 13-17, 19, and
24. We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 18 and 20-23.
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-IN-PART
8