Ex Parte Naden et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 14, 201814254013 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/254,013 04/16/2014 81310 7590 08/16/2018 Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & G (Apple) P.O. BOX 398 Austin, TX 78767-0398 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR James M. Naden 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. 6888-20603 8513 EXAMINER COSME, NATASHA W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2465 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/16/2018 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): patent_docketing@intprop.com ptomhkkg@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAMES M. NADEN, CHRIS WARD, and ANDREW W. JEFFRIES 1 Appeal2018-002228 Application 14/254,013 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, AMBER L. HAGY, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 5-24, all the pending claims in the present application. Claims 1--4 are canceled (see Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. The present invention relates generally to mobile communications systems having improved spectral efficiency (see Spec., Abstract). 1 Appellants name Apple Inc. as the real party in interest (App. Br. 2). Appeal2018-002228 Application 14/254,013 Claim 5 is illustrative: 5. A method for operating a first mobile terminal of a group of mobile terminals, the method comprising: at a first mobile terminal: generating a first symbol sequence; receiving at least a second symbol sequence from a second mobile terminal of the group; generating a transmit signal based at least on the first symbol sequence and the second symbol sequence using code division multiplexing; transmitting the transmit signal to a communication station, wherein the communication station includes a plurality of antennas. Appellants appeal the following rejections: RI. Claims 5-8, 12-15, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Haartsen (US 6,574,266 Bl, published June 3, 2003) and Dent (US 5,844,894, issued Dec. 1, 1998); and R2. Claims 9-11, 16-18, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Haartsen and Dent in combination with various other prior art (see Final Act. 9-14). 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). 2 Appeal2018-002228 Application 14/254,013 ANALYSIS Rejection under§ 103(a) Claims 5 and 7-24 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Haartsen and Dent collectively teach or suggest receiving at least a second symbol sequence from a second mobile terminal, as set forth in claim 5? Appellants contend that "the Examiner appears to suggest that the 'page message' of Haartsen is equivalent to the 'at least a second symbol sequence"' (App. Br. 6), however, "the cited passages do not teach that the terminal 250 receives a 'symbol sequence from a second mobile terminal of the group' [i.e., mobile terminal 240] ... the terminal 250 receives only the page message from the base station 21 O" (id.). We disagree with Appellants. The Examiner finds that "Haartsen teaches in response to the request message from the terminal 240, the base station 210 determines the base station to which the terminal 250 is locked [and] [t]he base station 210 transmits a page message to the terminal 250" (Ans. 3). For example, Haartsen discloses that "terminal 250 transmits to base station 210 the timing and frequency hop sequence terminal 250 uses" (11: 18-20) and the "[b Jase station 210 may then convey to terminal 240 the timing and frequency hop sequence terminal 250 uses for its page scanning process" (Haartsen, 11 :30-33). In other words, Haartsen's base station receives from terminal 250 the timing and frequency hop sequence and then the base station conveys this sequence to terminal 240. Haartsen further discloses "[t]he base station 210 then either transmits a page message to the terminal 250 or causes another base station to transmit a page message to this terminal" (11 :46-48). As noted in Haartsen's title, Haartsen entails a base- station-assisted terminal-to-terminal connection setup procedure. Thus, 3 Appeal2018-002228 Application 14/254,013 Haartsen uses the base station to forward signals/messages from one terminal to another. Although Haartsen does not teach the second mobile terminal directly transmitting a symbol sequence to the first mobile terminal, Haartsen does at least teach using the base station to convey this sequence from the second terminal to the first terminal, i.e., from terminal 250 -to base station -then to terminal 240. Independent claims 5, 12, and 19 do not require that the symbol sequence be directly from the second mobile terminal, as we find that the claims read on Haartsen's base-station-assisted process, given that the symbol sequence originates from one terminal and ends up at another terminal. Appellants' additional argument regarding the "transmit signal" merely piggybacks on the aforementioned argument regarding the second symbol sequence, i.e., "at least because the terminal 250 has not received any such 'second symbol sequence"' (see App. Br. 7), which we found unpersuasive. Thus, we also find this argument unpersuasive. To the extent that Appellants present new arguments regarding the "transmit signal" in the Reply Brief (see Reply Br. 2), we point out that Appellants could have presented the new argument in support of the claims in the Appeal Brief, such that we would have had benefit of the Examiner's evaluation of the argument in the responsive Answer. Appellants do not explain what good cause there might be to consider the new arguments. Appellants' new arguments are thus untimely and have, accordingly, not been considered. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 14 73 (BP AI 2010) (informative). Appellants do not separately argue dependent claims 7-11, 13-18, and 20-24 but, instead, rely on the arguments presented with respect to 4 Appeal2018-002228 Application 14/254,013 claim 5 (see Appeal Br. 5-9). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5 and 7-24, for the reasons discussed supra. Claim 6 Appellants contend that "the cited references do not teach or suggest 'wherein the second mobile terminal is configured to transmit the second symbol data sequence directly to the first mobile terminal"' (App. Br. 8) ( emphasis added) and "neither this direct page message nor any other message transmitted over the direct connection 283 could possibly be considered to be equivalent to the 'second symbol data"' (id. at 9). We agree with Appellants. Unlike the other claims, claim 6 requires the second mobile terminal to be configured to transmit the second symbol data sequence "directly" to the first mobile terminal (see claim 6). Here, the Examiner highlights that "Haartsen teaches terminal 240 may ... request a direct connection with terminal 250" (Ans. 7). Although we agree with the Examiner that Haartsen eventually creates a direct link between terminal 240 and terminal 250, the Examiner fails to show that Haartsen uses this direct link to transmit the symbol data sequence. For example, Haartsen discloses "Finally as illustrated by FIG. 7C, the base station 210 sends a message to both terminals 240, 250, causing the terminals to establish a new, direct full duplex link 283 .... The terminals 240 and 250 can then continue communication sessions on the link 283" (Haartsen, 11 :51-56). However, it appears that Haartsen transmits the frequency hop sequence from the base station to terminal 240 prior to, and in order to, establishing the direct link from terminal 240 and 250 (see 5 Appeal2018-002228 Application 14/254,013 Haartsen, 11: 14--56). As such, the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that Haartsen's direct link is being used to transmit the symbol data sequence. Nor has the Examiner shown that any of the other cited art cures this deficiency. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the proposed combination of references set forth by the Examiner does not support the obviousness rejection of claim 6. We, accordingly, do not sustain the rejection of claim 6. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections of claims 5 and 7-24. We reverse the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claim 6. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation