Ex Parte Rao

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

11973025 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111973,025 10/06/2007
48116 7590
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
06/30/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
AnilM.Rao
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.
LUTZ 200557US01 Rao 28 9584
EXAMINER
LEVITAN, DMITRY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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):
docketing@faysharpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANIL M. RAO
Appeal2013-007775
Application 11/973,025
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1--4, 11-13, and 17-24. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Claims 5-10 and 14--16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected
base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form
including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Appeal2013-007775
Application 11/973,025
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a method and
apparatus for a coordinated scheduling method to avoid multiplexing of
control and data for power limited users in the LTE reverse link (Abstract).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of coordinated scheduling for a
telecommunication device comprising:
scheduling uplink data transmissions, uplink data
retransmissions and uplink control transmissions for subframe
time positions by a first scheduling mode; and
scheduling downlink data transmissions for subframe time
positions by a second scheduling mode;
where the uplink data transmissions, the uplink data
retransmissions, and the uplink control transmissions are offset
to take place in different subframe time positions.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Li US 8,014,264 B2 Sept. 6, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 18 and 20-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Li (Final Act. 2-3).
Claims 1, 4, 11, 13, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li (Final Act. 3-5).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
2
Appeal2013-007775
Application 11/973,025
ISSUE 1
35 U.S. C. § 102(e): Claims 18 and 20--24
Appellant argues its invention is not anticipated by Li (App. Br. 5---6).
The issue presented by the arguments is:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Li discloses
a scheduler configured to control uplink transmissions for
a first transmitter and downlink transmissions for a second
transmitter; ... wherein the scheduler is configured to coordinate
scheduling of the uplink data transmissions and uplink control
transmission for said first transmitter and scheduling of the
downlink data transmissions for the second transmitter such that
uplink data transmissions and uplink control transmissions are
communicated by the first transmitter during different
subframes[,]
as recited in claim 18?
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues Li does not disclose the disputed limitation
wherein the scheduler is configured to coordinate
scheduling of the uplink data transmissions and uplink control
transmission for said first transmitter and scheduling of the
downlink data transmissions for the second transmitter such that
uplink data transmissions and uplink control transmissions are
communicated by the first transmitter during different
subframes.
(App. Br. 5---6). Instead, according to Appellant, using Li's uplink period of
a subframe (that also includes a downlink period) for channel feedback does
not describe "scheduling uplink data transmissions and uplink control
transmissions for different subframes as claimed" (id. at 6 (emphasis added).
Appellant further argues "the Examiner's response ... constitute[s] new
3
Appeal2013-007775
Application 11/973,025
grounds for rejection," but still does not disclose "the scheduling" recited in
claim 18 (Reply Br. 2).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. We agree with the
Examiner that one skilled in the art would have understood Li's base station
and mobile stations include transmitters, and the base station transmission
schedules symmetric and asymmetric uplink and downlink transmissions
(Final Act. 2; Ans. 2 (citing Li 1:25--40, Fig. 1)). We further agree the
asymmetric configuration is capable of scheduling uplink data transmissions
for different subframes (Final Act. 3; Ans. 2 (citing Li 2:59----67, Fig. 1)).
In addition, we agree with the Examiner's finding that, in Li, the
uplink data and the uplink control are sent during different subframes and
the downlink data is transmitted with the uplink control information (Final
Act. 3 (citing Li, 4:50----60, 5:4--8); Ans. 2). We are not persuaded the
Examiner's response constitutes new grounds of rejection (Reply Br. 2);
rather, we find the Examiner's response merely points to the background of
the invention and figures corresponding to previously cited portions of Li
relied upon in the Final Action (Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 2; see Li 1 :25--40; see
also Li Fig. 3 described in 4:50----60 and 5:4--8, 27-32). Nonetheless,
Appellant has waived any argument that the Examiner's Answer contains a
new ground of rejection because Appellant did not file a petition under 37
C.F.R. § 1.181(a) within two months from the mailing of the Examiner's
Answer.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Li
discloses the invention as recited in independent claim 18 and dependent
claims 20-24, not separately argued. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 18 and 20-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for anticipation by Li.
4
Appeal2013-007775
Application 11/973,025
ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 4, 11, 13, 17, and 19
Appellant asserts its invention is not obvious over Li (App. Br. 7-10).
The issue presented by the arguments is:
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding Li teaches or suggests
"scheduling ... where the uplink data transmissions, the uplink data
retransmissions, and the uplink control transmissions are offset to take place
in different subframe time positions," as recited in claim 1, and similarly in
claim 11?
ANALYSIS
Initially, Appellant argues Li does not disclose the disputed limitation
for the same reasons argued in connection with claim 18 (App. Br. 7-9)
which we find unpersuasive for the above reasons. Appellant additionally
argues Li merely discloses retransmitting uplink data transmissions in
response to receiving a negative acknowledgement (NAK) and further, Li
does not teach or suggest the recited "offset" limitation associated with the
three transmissions (id. at 7-8). According to Appellant, the Examiner
mischaracterizes the "offset" limitation" and argues an "offset" would not be
an obvious design choice because "the claim actually schedules three
different types of uplink transmission that are offset in different subframe
time positions" (id. at 8).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. With respect to the
limitations similarly recited as in claim 18, we agree with the Examiner's
findings as set forth above. With respect to the offset limitation, the
Examiner finds scheduling uplink voice data and downlink broadcasting are
first and second modes with different subframes (Ans. 3). We agree with the
5
Appeal2013-007775
Application 11/973,025
Examiner's finding that Li discloses a first and second transmission mode
for voice and broadcast data (id.). Thus, we find Li teaches using different
subframe time positions for the recited transmissions. The Examiner further
finds, and we agree, an ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious
to utilize three modes, although Li discloses two modes, because Li's uplink
transmissions occur in different slots, which are located at different time
positions of the uplink frame, thus using different offsets/ delays in the
uplink frame, i.e., different subframe time positions (id.). Appellant has not
presented sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us that adding a third
mode would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary
skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step" over Li's teachings. See
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citations omitted).
With respect to claim 11, Appellant's arguments are essentially the
same as argued in connection with claim 1 and, for similar reasons, are not
supported by sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the
Examiner's findings (see App. Br. 9-10).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Li
teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in claims 1 and 11 and claims 4,
13, 17, and 19, not separately argued. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 4, 11, 13, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Li.
6
Appeal2013-007775
Application 11/973,025
DECISION2
The Examiner's rejection of claims 18 and 20-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Li is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 11, 13, 17, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
2 Should there be further prosecution with respect to claims 1-10, the
Examiner's attention is directed to Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l,
134 S. Ct. 2347, 2356 (2014), 2014 Interim Guidance on Subject Matter
Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74,618 (Dec. 16, 2014) ("2014 IEG"), and July
2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility, 80 Fed. Reg. 45,429 (July 30,
2015).
7