Ex Parte Lu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 18, 2013

11537209 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GUANG LU and CATHERINE M. LIVET
____________________

Appeal 2011-002175
Application 11/537,209
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-002175
Application 11/537,209

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1-22, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Appellants invented a method and apparatus for power
management in a converged wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) capable
of operating over multiple radio access technologies (RATs). Specification
¶ [0005].
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below:
1. A method for minimizing power consumption in a converged
wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) capable of transmitting
and receiving over a plurality of radio access technologies
(RATs), the WTRU having a RAT specific battery management
unit for each of the plurality of RATs, the method comprising:
monitoring a power configuration of a plurality of RAT
battery management units;
determining whether, a power state change is desired in
order to minimize power consumption of the
WTRU based on the monitoring; and
requesting a power state change of a RAT battery
management unit based on the determination.

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Jun. 4, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Aug. 31, 2010),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jul. 23, 2010), and Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Sep. 29, 2009).
Appeal 2011-002175
Application 11/537,209

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Yoshikawa
Park
Gupta
US 2002/0075876 A1
US 2005/0047382 A1
US 2005/0198257 A1
Jun. 20, 2002
Mar. 3, 2005
Sep. 8, 2005

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12-17, 19, and 21-22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by Gupta.
Claims 5, 7, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gupta and Yoshikawa.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gupta and Park.

ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-22 turns
on whether Gupta describes “monitoring a power configuration of a plurality
of RAT battery management units” and “determining whether, a power state
change is desired in order to minimize power consumption of the WTRU
based on the monitoring,” and whether the Examiner has improperly relied
on inherency.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the
Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with the Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
Appeal 2011-002175
Application 11/537,209

4
which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following arguments for emphasis.

Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12-17, 19, and 21-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e)
as being anticipated by Gupta
The Appellants first contend that Gupta does not teach “monitoring a
power configuration of a plurality of RAT battery management units” and
“determining whether, a power state change is desired in order to minimize
power consumption of the WTRU based on the monitoring,” as recited by
claim 1. App. Br. 6-9 and Reply Br. 2-4. We disagree with the Appellants.
As found by the Examiner, Gupta describes a wireless device that uses a
plurality of wireless networking standards/technologies to communicate with
a wireless network. Ans. 13-14 (citing Gupta ¶ [0017]). A policy manager
determines a preferred network and deactivates the remaining network
managers. Id. This is done in order to conserve power. Id., see Gupta
¶ [0020]. That is, a policy manager monitors the power configuration of the
network adapters and determines which network adapters to deactivate in
order to minimize power consumption.
The Appellants agree to these teachings of Gupta, but argue that the
claimed invention does not deactivate other network adapters. App. Br. 6-9.
We are unpersuaded by this argument. While Gupta describes features not
required by the claimed invention, Gupta indeed describes limitations recited
by the claims. As such, we agree with the Examiner that Gupta describes
claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12-17, 19, and 21-22.
Appeal 2011-002175
Application 11/537,209

5
We are also unpersuaded by the Appellants’ contention that the
Examiner has improperly found that Gupta inherently describes “the WTRU
having a RAT specific battery management unit for each of the plurality of
RATs” because Gupta describes the wireless device can be configured to a
plurality of RATs that have known standards. App. Br. 8-9 and Reply Br. 3-
4. While we agree with the Examiner’s findings and rationale (Ans. 14-15),
we further note that the Appellants describe this feature as being known at
the time of the invention. Specifically, the Specification describes that
“[d]ifferent radio access technologies (RATs) have their own battery saving
mechanism” and “[i]t should be noted that RAT protocols define the
required and optional power management modes for a given technology.”
Specification ¶¶ [0009] and [0011]. In other words, the Specification
illustrates that each radio access technology inherently uses defined
protocols for power management. As such, we are not persuaded by the
Appellants’ argument that the Examiners’ reliance on inherency is improper.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Gupta anticipates claims 1-4,
6, 8-10, 12-17, 19, and 21-22.

Claims 5, 7, 11, 18, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over the cited prior art
The Appellants contend that Yoshikawa and Park fail to cure the
deficiencies argued in support of claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12-17, 19, and 21-22
and therefore the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5, 7, 11, 18, and 20 for
the same reasons. We disagree with the Appellants. The Appellants’
arguments were not found to be persuasive supra and are not persuasive here
Appeal 2011-002175
Application 11/537,209

6
for the same reasons. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 5, 7, 11, 18, and 20.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-22.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-22 is sustained.

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) (2010).

AFFIRMED

msc