Ex Parte Mohammed et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 18, 2016

13707230 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131707,230 12/06/2012
23696 7590 11/22/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Galib Asadullah Mohiuddin Mohammed
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.
123977 1095
EXAMINER
CHEN, JUNPENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/22/2016 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 GALIB ASADULLAH MOHIUDDIN
MOHAMMED, RASHID AHMED AKBAR ATTAR,
BRIAN MICHAEL GEORGE, and AMEER DABBAGH
Appeal2016-008643 1
Application 13/707,230
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 5-8, 11-18, 22-27, and 29-31, which are all of
the pending claims. (Final Act. 1.) We have jurisdiction over these claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Qualcomm Incorporated as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2016-008643
Application 13/707,230
Introduction
According to Appellants, "[ e ]mbodiments of the present invention ...
relate generally to wireless communication, and more specifically to devices,
systems, and methods for enabling power conservation in communication
devices." (Spec. i-f 1.)
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations italicized, is
exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. An access terminal, comprising:
a communications interface including a receiver circuit;
a low noise amplifier within the communications
interface; and
a processing circuit coupled to the communications
interface, the processing circuit being operable to make a
determination that a preamble is not received during a slot
when operating in a connected ;node and to
power down the low noise amplifier (LNA) for at
least a portion of the slot in response to the determination.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Agnor
Ruijter
us 4,417 ,246
US 2013/0065546 Al
2
Nov. 22, 1983
Mar. 14, 2013
Appeal2016-008643
Application 13/707,230
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15-18, 22, 23, 26, 27, and 31 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Ruijter. 2 (Final Act. 3-8.)
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 24, 25, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ruijter and Agnor. (Final Act. 9-14.)
ISSUE
Based on Appellants' arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether Ruijter discloses
a processing circuit coupled to the communications
interface, the processing circuit being operable to make a
determination that a preamble is not received during a slot
when operating in a connected mode and to
power down the low noise amplifier (LNA) for at least a
portion of the slot in response to the determination[,]
as recited in independent claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions and we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-
14) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer
in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. (Ans. 2-16.) We concur with the
2 Although claim 12 is not identified with the other claims in the Examiner's
listing of claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Ruijter (Final Act.
3), claim 12 is discussed by the Examiner in the Final Rejection at page 5 as
rejected on those grounds.
3
Appeal2016-008643
Application 13/707,230
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we highlight the following for
emphasis. 3
The Examiner finds Ruijter discloses all of the limitations of the
independent claims (claims 1, 8, 15, 18, and 26). (Final Act. 3-8.) With
regard to the term "connected mode," which is recited in all of the
independent claims, the Examiner finds:
When given its broadest reasonable interpretation, one with
ordinary skill in the art would read "a connected mode" as, for
example, a mode [in] which power is connected to [necessary]
circuit elements to enable the radio/receiver. Since Ruijter
discloses powering up the receiver temporarily and the radio is
configured to periodically be enabled, Ruijter reasonably
disclose[ s] "a connected mode[."]
(Final Act. 2-3.) The Examiner further finds, with regard to the disputed
limitations argued by Appellants on appeal, that Ruijter discloses "if there is
no preamble detected, the receiver 100 (LNA 120, mixer 125, filter 140/150,
etc.) is powered off and won't be on during the remaining portion of the
longer time period for receiving the full packet .... " (Final Act. 4 (citing
Ruijter, Figs. 1 and 3, and i-fi-f 13-16, 30).)
Appellants argue the Examiner's findings are in error because they are
premised on an overly broad construction of the term "connected mode."
(App. Br. 6-10.) In particular, Appellants argue: "The term 'connected
mode' is a term of art, as is the term 'idle mode' that is also described in the
specification." (App. Br. 8 (citing 3GPP TS 25.03 "Interlayer Procedures in
Connected Mode," 3GPP TS 25.331, 3GPP TS 23.372 v 9.0.0 at 6.4 &
3 Only those arguments made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments Appellants did not make in the briefs have not been
considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal2016-008643
Application 13/707,230
B.2.2a).) Appellants additionally argue that their Specification distinguishes
between a described "connected state" (which they equate to the claimed
"connected mode") and a described "dormant (or idle) state." (App. Br. 8-9
(citing Specification i-f 25).) Appellants further argue Ruijter does not
disclose powering down the receiver while in a "connected mode" because
Ruijter "specifically states that the receiver is powered up temporarily, and
is configured to periodically be enabled to detect whether any packets are
received. These disclosures in [Ruijter] indicate that the receiver is
operating in a conventional dormant mode with discontinuous reception
(DRX)." (App. Br. 10.)
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Turning first to Appellants'
arguments regarding the construction of "connected mode," we disagree the
Examiner's findings are premised on an unreasonably broad construction. It
is well settled that, during prosecution, the terms of a claim must be given
the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with Appellants'
Specification, as they would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this
art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054--55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). We find the Examiner's construction of
"connected mode," as encompassing Ruijter's disclosure, is reasonable in
light of the Specification. Although the Specification does not use the term
"connected mode," it describes a "connected state" as one in which "the
access terminal 104 and the base station 102 may send data to any other
device." (Spec. i-f 25 and Fig. 1.) And as the Examiner finds, and we agree,
Ruijter discloses the receiver will periodically be enabled to detect whether a
packet is received:
5
Appeal2016-008643
Application 13/707,230
[A] receiver may be powered up temporarily to determine
whether any RF signals are directed to the receiver. If not, the
receiver can be placed back into a low power mode and disabled.
For example, the radio can be configured to periodically be
enabled to detect whether any packets are received. If there is
no preamble detected, the receiver can be rapidly disabled.
Instead, upon a valid preamble detection, the receiver can remain
on to obtain a full packet or at least a portion thereof to determine
whether the packet is directed to the receiver. If so, the radio can
remain on for a longer time period to receive the full packet.
Otherwise, it can be powered off.
(Ruijter i-f 30 (emphasis added); Ans. 15.) That is, the receiver of Ruijter's is
"on" while detecting packets, and will then "remain on" to receive the data.
Id. Thus, as the Examiner further finds, and we agree, when Ruijter' s
receiver checks for reception of a preamble, it is in a "connected mode,"
giving that term its broadest reasonable interpretation. (Ans. 15.)
Appellants argue that the ordinarily skilled artisan would, in light of
Appellants' Specification, understand "connected mode" as recited in their
claims to exclude a DRX mode, which they assert is disclosed by Ruijter.
(App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 3--4, 6.) We disagree. Ruijter's disclosure of the
receiver periodically checking for a preamble, and powering down if no
preamble is received, closely tracks Appellants' own disclosure:
According to at least one example, the access terminal 200 (e.g.,
the power regulation operations 212) may be adapted to monitor
a slot for an indicator (e.g., preamble, DCI message), and to
power down the low noise amplifier (LNA) 304 when an
indicator is detected (e.g., when no preamble is detected, or when
a DCI message indicates the access terminal is not scheduled for
reception during the following subframes).
***
For example, the processing circuit 202 (e.g., the power
regulation module 310) can detect for a preamble 5 04 during a
6
Appeal2016-008643
Application 13/707,230
length of time when a preamble 504 would be present if received.
During this detection period, the low noise amplifier (LNA) 304
and other components of the receiver circuit 210 remain in the
active state (e.g., powered ON), as indicated on the LNA power
level diagram at 506.
***
In response to determining at 510 that no preamble was detected,
the processing circuit 202 (e.g., the power regulation module
310) can save the current power settings for the low noise
amplifier (LNA) 304 (e.g., the current gain state) and can set the
low noise amplifier (LNA) 3 04 and other components of the
receiver circuit 210 to the passive state (e.g., powered down,
placed in reduced powered state from full/normal power
operation, or OFF) at 512, and as illustrated by the LNA power
level diagram at 514.
(Spec. i-fi-139--41 (emphases added) and Fig. 5; see also App. Br. 2-3 (citing
Figs. 2, 3, 5, 6, and i-fi-124, 30-31, 38, 39, and 45 as corresponding to claim
1).) Thus, contrary to Appellants' arguments, Appellants' Specification
does not require construing "connected mode" as excluding Ruijter's
disclosure.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent claim 1, or claims 5,
8, 11, 12, 15-18, 22, 23, 26, 27, and 31 not argued separately. We,
therefore, sustain that rejection.
With regard to the Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 23, 25,
29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ruijter and Agnor, Appellants do
not present additional substantive arguments. Rather, Appellants argue these
claims are patentable for the reasons argued with regard to independent
claim 1, and further assert Agnor "fails to remedy the deficiencies of
[Ruijter] with respect to independent claim 1." (App. Br. 13-14.) As noted
7
Appeal2016-008643
Application 13/707,230
above, however, we do not agree Ruijter is deficient with regard to its
disclosure of the subject matter of claim 1. We, therefore, also sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 23, 25, 29,
and 30.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 5-8, 11-
18, 22-27, and 29-31 are 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
8