Ex Parte Maheshwari et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

12539977 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/539,977 08/12/2009
23696 7590 10/04/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shailesh Maheshwari
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.
082281 1357
EXAMINER
BEDNASH, JOSEPH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAILESH MAHESHW ARI,
SRIVIDHYA KRISHNAMOORTHY, and ARNAUD MEYLAN
Appeal2015-000286
Application 12/539,977
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5, 8-11, 14, 17-20, 23, 26-29, 32, and 35--44. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-000286
Application 12/539,977
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "methods and apparatus for
mitigation of procedures in a wireless communication system" (Spec. i-f 2).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A wireless communication apparatus, comprising:
a controller configured to:
receive data on a logical channel;
determine that first resources allocated by a first grant are not
available during a first time transmission interval for transmitting the
received data;
determine whether to generate at least one of a buff er status
report, a scheduling request, and a random access channel procedure
based on an amount of the received data;
determine that second resources allocated by a second grant are
available during a second time transmission interval for transmitting
the received data;
transmit the received data during the second time transmission
interval without generating the buffer status report, the scheduling
request, and the random access channel procedure \'l1hen the amount of
the received data is less than or equal to the size of the second
resources;
trigger the buffer status report when the amount of the received
data is greater than the size of the first resources and second
resources;
determine whether to transmit the scheduling request to a base
station based on whether the base station is configured to receive the
scheduling request; and
transmit the buffer status report to the base station without
triggering the scheduling request and the random access channel
procedure during the second time transmission interval when the base
station is not configured to receive the scheduling request.
2
Appeal2015-000286
Application 12/539,977
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 8-11, 14, 17, 18, and 37--40
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of LG (LG Electronics
Inc., "BSRforPersistent Scheduling," 3GPP TSG-RANWG2 #61bis, R2-
081598, Shenzhen, China, March 31-April 4, 2008) and Nokia (Nokia
Siemens Networks, "Stage 3 Aspects of Persistent Scheduling," 3GPP TSG-
RAN WG2 Meeting #60, R2-074678, R2-073912, Jeju, South Korea,
November 5-9, 2007).
The Examiner rejected claims 19, 20, 23, 26-29, 32, 35, 36, and 41-
44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of LG, Nokia, and Cai
(US 2009/0238165 Al).
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants' contentions, we find the preponderance of evidence supports the
Examiner's conclusions that Appellants' claims 1, 2, 5, 8-11, 14, 17, 18, and
37--40 are obvious over the combination of LG and Nokia. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejections of each of these claims for the reasons set
forth in the Final Action (2-8), the Advisory Action (2-7), and the Answer
(2-15). For emphasis only, we provide the following.
Appellants' claims 1 and 10 recite the limitations of determining "first
resources allocated by a first grant are not available during a first time
transmission interval for transmitting the received data" and transmitting the
"received data during the second time transmission interval without
generating the buff er status report, the scheduling request, and the random
3
Appeal2015-000286
Application 12/539,977
access channel procedure when the amount of the received data is less than
or equal to the size of the second resources."
The Examiner finds the first paragraph of Section 2 and step 5 of LG
disclose if a VoIP packet fits into persistent resources, a buffer status report
(BSR) is not generated (cancelled) when the VoIP packets are included in
the persistent resources (Final Act. 4; Advisory Act. 4; Ans. 5---6). In
addition, the scheduling request (SR) or the random access channel (RACH)
are also not generated (Advisory Act. 4, explaining that when a persistent
resource is available SR is not initiated, and if no SR is generated RACH is
also not generated; see also steps 1-6 of LG; Ans. 5-8). We also agree with
the Examiner that LG does not "expressly disclose the second resources are
'allocated by a second grant'" (emphasis added), but that Nokia's use of
semi-persistent resources where the resources may be persistent, may be
allocated by a second grant (Final Act. 5---6), findings Appellants do not
persuasively rebut except to assert Nokia does not cure the deficiencies of
LG (App. Br. 11).
Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner's
reading of the claims on the cited combination of references is overly broad,
unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 10, and dependent claims
2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 14, 17, 18, and 37--40 (App. Br. 14).
With respect to claims 19, 20, 23, 26-29, 32, 35, 36, and 41--44,
Appellants recite the same arguments as those asserted against independent
claims 1 and 10, additionally asserting Cai does not cure the deficiencies of
LG and Nokia, without providing any additional substantive arguments
(App. Br. 13). Thus, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of
4
Appeal2015-000286
Application 12/539,977
independent claims 19 and 28, and dependent claims 20, 23, 26, 27, 29, 32,
35, 36, and 41--44.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 8-11, 14, 17-20, 23,
26-29, 32, and 35--44 is affirmed.
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
5