Ex Parte Prakash et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2016

12953356 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/953,356 11/23/2010
23696 7590 08/26/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rajat Prakash
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.
100517 3337
EXAMINER
VU, HOANG-CHUONG Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2016 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 RAJAT PRAKASH, JELENA M.DAMNJANOVIC,
PETER GAAL, P ARG ARUN AGASHE,
VALENTIN ALEXANDRU GHEORGHIU, MASATO KITAZOE, and
RA VI P ALANKI
Appeal2014-007025
Application 12/953,356
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, 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 1-52. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2014-007025
Application 12/953,356
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a wireless communications and
"configuring multiple carriers for one or more devices" (Spec. i-f 2).
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below and is exemplary of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of wireless communication, comprising:
determining modification of an activation state of one or
more earners;
selecting a portion of one or more time slots for
performing bandwidth switching based at least in part on the
determining of the modification and on one or more types and/ or
purposes of the one or more time slots; and
performing bandwidth switching during the portion of the
one or more time slots.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS 1
The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 7-9, 11-14, 16-22, 24--26, 28-34,
36-38, 40--47, and 49-51under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cave (US
2010/0130219 Al; pub. May 27, 2010) and Lin (US 2002/0093975 Al; pub.
July 18, 2002).
The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Cave, Lin, and Pelletier (US 2010/0296467 Al; pub. Nov. 25, 2010).
The Examiner rejected claims 10, 23, 35, and 48 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Cave, Lin, and Blankenship (US 2011/0080962 Al; pub.
April 7, 2011).
The Examiner rejected claims 15, 27, 39 and 52 under 35 U.S.C.
1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1-52 under 35 U.S.C.
§ l 12(a) (Ans. 18; Advisory Act. 2).
2
Appeal2014-007025
Application 12/953,356
§ 103(a) over Cave, Lin, and Chun (US 2012/0099464 Al; pub. April 26,
2012).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, 16--22, 24-26, 28-34, 36--38, 40--47, and 49-51
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Cave and Lin teach
or suggest Appellants' claim limitations as recited in independent claims 1,
16, 28, 40, and 41, particularly the "selecting a portion" step (App. Br. 12-
13). Further, Appellants contend Lin does not teach or suggest "how the
timeslots are chosen for allocation" as Lin does not disclose a relationship
between allocation of time slots and "'types and/or purposes' of the time
slots" (App. Br. 13). We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and reasoning with
respect to the cited art and the Examiner's reasoning (Ans. 20-21). At the
outset, we note there is no specific definition of "bandwidth switching" in
Appellants' Specification. Rather, paragraph 6 states the "device can then
perform bandwidth switching over the resources, which can include
changing a sampling rate, filtering frequencies, modifying a local oscillator
of the device, and/or the like." Under a broadest reasonable interpretation
the term "bandwidth switching" can include switching data from one
bandwidth to another. Further, Appellants appear to overlook the portion of
Lin's paragraph 26, cited by the Examiner, which states: "The access device
110 allocates a portion of bandwidth for the interactive purpose of the
dynamic timeslot allocation of channels." Lin therefore discloses a
relationship, as claimed, between allocating time slots and/or purposes of
3
Appeal2014-007025
Application 12/953,356
time slots, contrary to Appellants' contentions that Lin "has no relationship
whatsoever to 'bandwidth switching'" (App. Br. 13).
Further, Appellants appear to be arguing the references separately and
not the combination of Cave and Lin. The Examiner states Cave does not
"explicitly" suggest bandwidth switching as claimed (Ans. 3). We also
agree with the Examiner, contrary to Appellants' assertions (App. Br. 13-
14), Cave also discloses selecting a portion of one or more time slots based
on a type or purpose of the time slot(s) (Ans. 3, 20-21; Cave i-fi-191-93 and
95).
With respect to claims 11, 12, 24, 36, and 49 we agree with and adopt
the Examiner's findings as our own (Ans. 22-23). Claim 11 merely recites
selecting a portion of one or more subframes is partly determined based on
one or more types of signals not being transmitted in the subframes. As the
Examiner finds, paragraph 95 of Cave, at a minimum, suggests this
limitation in that "data" (a type of signal) is not transmitted, rather "control
channels" (not data) are being transmitted (Ans. 23). Appellants' assertion
that Cave selects a time for carrier activation is based on a fixed delay, not
any particular types of signals transmitted in the subframe, is also not correct
(App. Br. 15). Paragraph 95 of Cave states the "activation may take place a
certain number of sub-frames after activation of the secondary uplink
carrier" (emphasis added), thus, it is not a requirement. Further, as the
Examiner points out, Cave's paragraphs 91 and 92 disclose the feature of
selecting portions of time slots based on modification of an activation state
and selecting a portion of one or more subframes (Ans. 22-23).
With respect to claims 13, 25, 37, and 50, Appellants assert Cave's
paragraph 98 does not disclose selecting a portion of the subframes by
4
Appeal2014-007025
Application 12/953,356
determining not to transmit control data in the subframes. Appellants are
again relying on the Examiner being incorrect in finding the combination of
Cave and Lin does not teach or suggest the independent claims on which
these claims depend (App. Br. 15-18). Contrary to Appellants' assertions,
paragraph 98 states "the WTRU [wireless transmit receive unit] 110 may
stop transmission of any associated control channels." Thus, the
combination of Cave and Lin suggests the recited limitation of claims 13,
25, 37, and 50.
Claims 5 and 6
With respect to claims 5 and 6, the Examiner finds Cave discloses
initializing a trigger, based on a timer, indicating a modification to an
activation state (Final Act. 14--16; Ans. 13-15; Cave i-f 80; Fig 10; Pelletier
,-r 82).
Appellants contend Cave suggests monitoring an inactivity timer can
be used to trigger carrier deactivation, which is contrary to the claim
language (App. Br. 19). That is, Cave discloses the modification "of the
carrier is performed in response to the trigger," and does not teach or suggest
a timer initialized based on an event (modification of a carrier) that has not
yet occurred (Reply Br. 10). We agree with Appellants. Neither Cave, nor
the combination of Cave and Pelletier discloses "initializing a timer upon the
[sic] determining modification of the activation state" as claimed.
Claims 10, 23, 35, and 48
With respect to claims 10, 23, 35, and 48, Appellants contend
Blankenship does not disclose anything about "whether or not such sub-
frames are selected for bandwidth switching or for any other use
5
Appeal2014-007025
Application 12/953,356
whatsoever" and does not cure the deficiencies of Cave or Linn (App. Br.
21).
We agree with the Examiner that Blankenship discloses "an indication
in [a] frame which contains MBSFN subframes [within] one period may be
selected" (emphasis omitted) (Ans. 16). We additionally note Appellants are
arguing limitations not found in the claims (selected for bandwidth switching).
Further we find no deficiencies in Cave or Linn.
Claims 15, 27, 39, and 52
Appellants contend Chun fails to cure the deficiencies of Cave and
Linn (App. Br. 22). As noted above, we find no deficiencies in Cave or
Linn.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4 and 7-52 is affirmed.2
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 5 and 6 is reversed.
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
2 Upon any further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to separately
consider the patentability of claim 28 (Appellants have not clearly stated in
the Specification what the various means correspond to (App. Br. 7; Spec.
i-f 9), thus the device could conceivably be a single means) and claim 41 (the
claim recites and Appellants assert (App. Br. 7-8) claim 41 merely
comprises code).
6