Ex Parte Sampath et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2016

13494057 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/494,057 06/12/2012
23696 7590 11/30/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hemanth Sampath
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.
112480 1739
EXAMINER
ADHAMI, MOHAMMAD SAJID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2471
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HEMANTH SAMP ATH,
VINCENT KNOWLES JONES IV,
A VNEESH AGRAWAL, and
SANTOSHPAULABRAHAM
Appeal2015-005640
Application 13/494,057 1
Technology Center 2400
Before TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1--41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is QUALCOMM
Incorporated. App. Br. 4.
Appeal2015-005640
Application 13/494,057
fNVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to enhanced discovery in peer-to-peer
networks by synchronized discovery wake up. Abstract. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reads as follows:
1. (Original) An apparatus for wireless communications,
compnsmg:
a first circuit configured to obtain one or more time instants;
a second circuit configured to wake up the apparatus to discover
one or more other apparatuses for communication, wherein the
wake up occurs at the one or more time instants synchronized
between the apparatus and the one or more other apparatuses;
and
a third circuit configured to update the one or more time instants
according to location information of the apparatus.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11-18, 20, 21, 24--31, 33, 34, and 37--41 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Wu et al. (US 2010/0172275 Al; published July 8, 2010) ("Wu") and Evans
et al. (US 2006/0248197 Al; published Nov. 2, 2006) ("Evans"). Final Act.
2-8.
Claims 6, 19, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Wu, Evans, and Lee et al. (US
2010/0315986 Al; published Dec. 16, 2010) ("Lee"). Final Act. 8-9.
Claims 9, 10, 22, 23, 35, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Wu, Evans, and Chakra et
al. (US 2012/0173908 Al; published July 5, 2012). Final Act. 9-15.
2
Appeal2015-005640
Application 13/494,057
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11-18, 20, 21, 24--31, 33, 34, and 37--41 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Wu and Ji et al. (US 2010/0220597 Al; published Sept. 2, 2010) ("Ji").
Final Act. 10-15.
Claims 6, 19, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Wu, Ji, and Lee. Final Act. 15-16.
Claims 9, 10, 22, 23, 35, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Wu, Ji, and Chakra. Final
Act. 16-19.
ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not find them
persuasive of error. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's
findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action
from which this appeal was taken. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
Claims 1, 3-14, 16-27, 29-41- Wu, Evans, and Lee/Chakra
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Wu teaches or suggests
all of the recited limitations, except "a third circuit configured to update the
one or more time instants according to location information of the
apparatus," for which the Examiner relied on Evans. Final Act. 2-3 (citing
Wu i-fi-17, 28; Evans i-fi-125, 26, 28).
Appellants contend the cited portions of Evans do not disclose "a third
circuit configured to update the one or more time instants according to
location information of the apparatus," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9-10.
3
Appeal2015-005640
Application 13/494,057
Appellants argue that that neither of the cited references teaches or suggests
updating a time instant based on location information. Id. at 9.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner found that Evans teaches that predetermined global schedules for
scheduled receive on-times may be determined by each node based on
parameters such as GPS positioning. Ans. 18 (citing Evans i-f 26). The
Examiner further found that Evans teaches a scheduled receiver start time
based on location identifiers such as GPS position. Id. (citing Evans i-f 28)
The Examiner also found that scheduling (i.e., "time instants") in Evans is
adaptive and is updated when there is a change, including a change in
topology (i.e., "location information"). Id. (citing Evans i-f 25). Appellants
argue that Evans does not teach updating a time instant based on location
information (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 6), but present no persuasive explanation
or evidence to rebut the Examiner's findings. Rule 41.37 "require[s] more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art." In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Appellants argue for the first time in the Reply Brief, without a
showing of good cause, that the Examiner erred in finding Evans' s teaching
of predetermined global scheduling that "automatically adapts to load and
topology changes" teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Reply Br. 2
(citing Evans i-f 25). Appellants, however, did not raise this issue in the
Appeal Brief despite the Examiner having made the finding in the Final
Action. See Final Act. 3; App. Br. 9. Thus, Appellants waived this
argument. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012).
4
Appeal2015-005640
Application 13/494,057
Appellants further contend that "one of ordinary skill in the art would
not think to combine the teachings of Wu with the teachings of Evans, as
asserted by the Examiner." App. Br. 9. In particular, Appellants argue that
paragraph 21 of Wu teaches away from the Examiner's proposed
combination because, in Wu, there is no need to adjust the times that devices
wake up because discovery by each mobile device occurs at a time that is
guaranteed to overlap with another device's discovery time, even when the
two time clocks are not exactly synchronized. Id. at 9--10; Reply 2.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. A teaching away requires a
reference to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed
solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We find
that paragraph 21 of Wu does not actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage from adjusting the times that devices wake up.
Appellants next contend an artisan of ordinary skill would not have
combined the teachings of Wu and Evans in the manner proposed by the
Examiner because "the time slots of Evans are used for transmitting and
receiving unicast and multicast transmissions and not discovery of other
devices, as in Wu." App. Br. 10.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner
that Evans teaches that information is sent/received in time slots, and that the
type of information sent/received does not teach away from updating the
pattern for sending/receiving, or otherwise preclude combining the teachings
of Wu and Evans. See Ans. 21.
Appellants further contend that the Examiner "is merely selectively
picking and choosing a variety of features from disparate references in an
attempt to provide the features recited in the pending claims," and "has
5
Appeal2015-005640
Application 13/494,057
failed to provide an 'articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness."' App. Br. 10. We disagree.
The Examiner has articulated (Final Act. 3 (citing Evans i-fi-133, 46), Ans. 22)
how the claimed features are met by the reference teachings with some
rational underpinning to combine Wu's teachings with Evans. KSR, 550
U.S. at 418.
Appellants argue for the first time in the Reply Brief, without a
showing of good cause, that the Examiner's proffered rationale for
combining the references-"to implement a reuse scheme and to reduce
collisions" (Final Act. 3)-is "inapplicable in the context of a wakeup
pattern as taught by Wu." Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants did not raise this issue
in the Appeal Brief. Thus, Appellants waived that argument. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2) (2012).
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
combining the cited teachings of Wu and Evans, or in finding that the
combination of Wu and Evans teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of
claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1 over Wu and Evans, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 14, 27, 40, and 41, which Appellants argue
are patentable for similar reasons. App. Br. 11. We also sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 3-5, 7, 8, 11-13, 16-18, 20, 21,
24--26, 29-31, 33, 34 and 37-39 over Wu and Evans, not argued separately.
Id. We also sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 6, 9, 10,
19, 22, 23, 32, 35, and 36 over Wu, Evans, and other prior art, for which
6
Appeal2015-005640
Application 13/494,057
Appellants make no persuasive arguments directed to the Examiner's
findings. See id. at 11-12.
Claims 2, 15, and 28 - Wu and Evans
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Wu and Evans teaches or suggests "receiving information
about the one or more time instances (e.g., duration of the instants) from a
GPS based time source," as claims, 2, 15, and 28 require. App. Br. 11.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner found that
Wu teaches that the time received from the GPS system is used for the
wakeup pattern and therefore teaches or suggests the recited limitation
"receive information about the one or more time instants." Ans. 23.
Appellants present no persuasive explanation or evidence that the
Examiner's interpretation of the disputed limitation is overly broad or
inconsistent with Appellants' Specification. See Reply Br. 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2,
15, and 28 over Wu and Evans.
Rejections of Claims 1, 3-14, 16-27, 29-41- Wu, Ji, and Lee/Chakra
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Wu teaches or suggests
all of the recited limitations, except "a third circuit configured to update the
one or more time instants according to location information of the
apparatus," for which the Examiner relied on Ji. Final Act. 10-11 (citing
Wu iii! 7, 28; Ji iii! 69, 70).
Appellants contend the cited portions of Ji do not disclose "a third
circuit configured to update the one or more time instants according to
location information of the apparatus," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 14.
7
Appeal2015-005640
Application 13/494,057
Appellants argue that that neither of the cited references teaches or suggests
updating a time instant based on location information. Id.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner made specific findings that Ji in combination with Wu teaches the
disputed limitation. See Final Act. 11; Ans. 23-24. Appellants present no
persuasive explanation or evidence to rebut the Examiner's findings. Rule
41.3 7 "require[ s] more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art." In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants for the first time present substantive
arguments directed to the Examiner's findings based on paragraphs 69-70 of
Ji (Final Act. 11 ), without a showing of good cause. Reply Br. 7.
Appellants did not present those arguments in the Appeal Brief. See App.
Br. 14. Thus, Appellants waived those arguments. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2) (2012).
Appellants further contend the Examiner erred in combining the
teachings of Wu and Ji. App. Br. 14--15. Appellants again argue that
paragraph 21 of Wu teaches away from the Examiner's proposed
combination. Id. at 15. For the reasons discussed above with regard to the
combination of Wu and Evans, we disagree. Moreover, contrary to
Appellants' assertions (App. Br. 15), we find the Examiner has articulated
(Final Act. 11 (citing Ji i-f 3; Ans. 27)) how the claimed features are met by
the reference teachings with some rational underpinning to combine Wu's
teachings with Ji. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Moreover, Appellants argue for the first time in the Reply Brief,
without a showing of good cause, that the Examiner's proffered rationale for
8
Appeal2015-005640
Application 13/494,057
combining the cited teachings of Wu and Ji-"to establish synchronization
and mitigate interference" (Final Act. 11 }-is insufficient. See Reply Br. 8.
Appellants also argue for the first time that Ji teaches away from "the
combination the Examiner advances." See id. Appellants did not raise those
issues in the Appeal Brief. See Final Act. 11. Thus, Appellants waived
those arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012).
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1 over Wu and Ji, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 14, 27, 40, and 41, which Appellants argue
are patentable for similar reasons. App. Br. 11. We also sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 3-5, 7, 8, 11-13, 16-18, 20, 21,
24--26, 29-31, 33, 34 and 37-39 over Wu and Ji, not argued separately. Id.
We also sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 6, 9, 10, 19,
22, 23, 32, 35, and 36 over Wu, Ji, and other prior art, for which Appellants
make no persuasive arguments directed to the Examiner's findings. See id.
at 11-12.
Claims 2, 15, and 28 - Wu and Ji
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding erred in finding the
combination of Wu and Ji teaches or suggests "receiving information about
the one or more time instances (e.g., duration of the instants) from a GPS
based time source," as claims, 2, 15, and 28 require. App. Br. 11. For the
reasons discussed above with regard to the combination of Wu and Evans,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2,
15, and 28.
9
Appeal2015-005640
Application 13/494,057
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1--41.
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
10