Ex Parte Paladugu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 23, 2017

13352529 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/352,529 01/18/2012 Karthika Paladugu 111547 3924
23696 7590 01/25/2017
OTTAT mMM TNmRPORATFD
EXAMINER
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
AGA, SORI A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2017 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 KARTHIKA PALADUGU and YIH-HAO LIN
Appeal 2016-002283
Application 13/352,529
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 1 through 31, 65, 67, and 69. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-002283
Application 13/352,529
INVENTION
This invention is directed to system in which user equipment in a
dormant state transmits a request message to an access network which
indicates the type of communication session requested. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below.
1. A method of operating a user equipment (UE) in a
wireless communications system, comprising:
receiving a request to set-up a communication session of a
given type while the UE is in a dormant state of a radio resource
control (RRC) connected mode;
configuring, in response to the received request, a state
transition request message (i) to request that an access network
transition the UE from the dormant state to a target state and to
obtain a network-assigned serving cell-specific identifier for
exchanging data between the UE and the serving cell in
association with the communication session of the given type and
(ii) to indicate the given type of the communication session; and
transmitting the state transition request message to the
access network.
REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 31, 65, 67, and 69 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wang (US 2011/0269463), and
Famworth (US 2013/0189992). Final 3—14; Answer 6—17.1
1 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed March 31,
2015, the Reply Brief filed December 14, 2015, Final Action mailed
December 8, 2014, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 22, 2015.
2
Appeal 2016-002283
Application 13/352,529
ISSUES
Appellants argue, on pages 9 through 14 of the Appeal Brief and
pages 2 through 6 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 65, 67, and 69 is in error. These arguments present us
with the following issue: Did the Examiner find that the combination of
Wang and Farnsworth teach a message to indicate a given type of
communication session as recited in representative claim 1 ?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief and the
Reply Brief, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to
Appellants’ arguments. Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 or claims 2 through
31, 65, 67, and 69 which are not argued separately and thus grouped with
claim 1.
Appellants’ arguments are premised upon the assertion that
Farnsworth’s cell update message not providing a CS call type indication.
App. Br. 9-14.
The Examiner responds by finding that the term “indicate” is broad
and interprets the term to include “allude, imply, insinuate or suggest.”
Answer 17—18. Based upon this interpretation the Examiner finds that
Farnsworth teaches sending a Traffic Volume Indicator (TVI) causes a
transition to establish a CS call. Answer 17—18. We have reviewed the
Examiner’s findings and concur with the Examiner’s findings.
Initially we note that Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s claim
interpretation but rather assert that Farnsworth does not teach a message
3
Appeal 2016-002283
Application 13/352,529
which alludes to implies, insulates or suggests a type of communication
session. App. Br. 10. We disagree and find that Farnsworth teaches sending
a message indicating a CS communication. Specifically, Farnsworth teaches
in Figures 7 and 8 (and the paragraphs 98—114, which discuss Figures 7 and
8) that the TVI flag is not set unless a call indicator is set and then a message
is sent (para. 112). This message is indicative of (implies and suggests) a
CS communication, since the step of setting the TVI flag and sending the
message is not reached until after step 812 (or 712) a CS call is pending) (i.e.
if the CS call is not pending the step 840 (or 740) is not reached). Thus, we
consider the Examiner’s finding to be reasonable. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 or
claims 2 through 31, 65, 67, and 69 which are not argued separately and thus
grouped with claim 1.
We note that the Examiner has provided an alternative rationale
finding that the TVI message could also be interpreted as indicating a “larger
data” communication session. Answer 18—19. As we concur with the
Examiner that the TVI message of Farnsworth is indicative or a CS
communication type, we do not reach the alternative rationale and have not
considered Appellants’ arguments directed to this alternative rationale.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 31, 65, 67,
and 69 is affirmed.
4
Appeal 2016-002283
Application 13/352,529
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