Ex Parte Smadi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2016

13362280 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/362,280 0113112012
95866 7590 03/09/2016
Fleit Gibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco P,L,
551 NW 77th street
Suite 111
Boca Raton, FL 33487
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mohammed Nawaf Smadi
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.
1400-128U 6298
EXAMINER
KARIKARI, KW AS!
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2016 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):
ptoboca@fggbb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MOHAMMED NA W AF SMADI, LIZHONG ZHU, XIN JIN,
PEI HE, and QINGMAI ZHOU
Appeal2014-001344
Application 13/362,280
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHN A. EV ANS, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 1-25, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Claims 26-37 have been withdrawn. App. Br.
2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Research In Motion Limited, as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-001344
Application 13/362,280
We AFFIRM. 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a wireless local area network (WLAN)
transceiver configured to schedule WLAN communications based upon
timing information and a power level of a cellular transceiver. See Abstract.
Claims 1, 12, and 18 are independent. The claims have not been
argued separately and therefore stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some
formatting added:
1. A mobile wireless communications device comprising:
a housing;
a cellular transceiver carried by said housing and configured
to operate based upon a plurality of power levels; and
a wireless local area network (WLAN) transceiver carried by
said housing;
said cellular transceiver configured to send timing
information to said WLAN transceiver;
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 10, 2013, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief
(filed October 24, 2013, Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed
September 5, 2013, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed January 7, 2013,
"Final Act."), and the Specification (filed January 31, 2012, "Spec.") for the
respective details.
2
Appeal2014-001344
Application 13/362,280
said WLAN transceiver configured to schedule WLAN
communications based upon the timing information and a
selected power level of said cellular transceiver.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Fu et al. US 2011/0312288 Al Dec. 22, 2011
("Fu")
N arasimha et al. US 2012/0164948 Al June 28, 2012
("N arasimha")
The claims stand rejected as follows: 3
2. Claims 1--4, 6-8, 12-14, 16, 18-21, and 23-25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Fu. Final Act. 3-7.
3. Claims 5, 9-11, 15, 17, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Fu and Narasimha. Final Act. 8-11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-25 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this
3 Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the
appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37( c )(1 )(vii).
3
Appeal2014-001344
Application 13/362,280
decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We
are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Upon
consideration of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply
Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the pending claims are
unpatentable over the cited references. We adopt as our own the findings
and reasons set forth in the rejection from which this appeal is taken and in
the Examiner's Answer. We provide the following explanation to highlight
and address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis.
CLAIMS 1--4, 6-8, 12-14, 16, 18-21, AND 23-25 ANTICIPATION BY FU.
Appellants argue Claims 1--4, 6-8, 12-14, 16, 18-21, and 23-25 as a
group. Appellants contend Fu fails to disclose: (1) sending timing
information from a cellular transceiver to a WLAN transceiver; (2)
scheduling communications by a WLAN transceiver based upon the timing
information; or (3) that WLAN transceiver operation is based upon a power
level of a cellular transceiver. App. Br. 8.
The Examiner finds that independent Claims 1, 12, and 18 recite a
wireless communications device having both a cellular and a WLAN
transceiver. The claims are not limited to where the transceivers include
separate controllers. Therefore, the Examiner interprets the claims to
comprise a single controller/CPU to control both transceivers. Ans. 3--4.
4
Appeal2014-001344
Application 13/362,280
The Examiner finds Fu discloses a device 41 comprising cellular/L TE
transceiver 45 and WLAN/Bluetooth transceiver 48. Device 41 further
comprises a central control entity (CCE 44) comprising processor 43 that
controls the cellular and WLAN transceivers. Fu discloses CCE 44 receives
signal/traffic scheduling information from the LTE/cellular transceiver and
sends corresponding control information to the WLAN/Bluetooth
transceiver. The Examiner associates the scheduling information of Fu with
claimed "timing information." Ans. 4.
The Examiner further finds that Fu discloses the CCE may estimate
the maximum permissible cellular transmit power level that may be afforded
by the WLAN transceiver to achieve a minimum received signal quality.
The CCE may also instruct the WLAN transceiver to adjust its transmit
power level where the received signal quality for the cellular signal is poor.
Ans. 4--5.
In view of the foregoing findings, the Examiner finds Fu discloses the
claimed "cellular transceiver configured to send timing information to said
WLAN transceiver" and "said WLAN transceiver configured to schedule
WLAN communications based upon the timing information and a selected
power level of said cellular transceiver." Ans. 6.
Appellants reply that instructions to adjust a transmit power level is
not the same as scheduling a communications based on the power level.
Reply Br. 4.
5
Appeal2014-001344
Application 13/362,280
We adopt as our own the Examiner's finding that Fu's central control
entity 44/processor 43 (CCE) controls and coordinates the functionalities of
both the cellular and WLAN transceivers. The CCE also receives
signal/traffic/scheduling information from the transceivers, and the
transceivers perform various actions under CCE control based on the
information provided to the CCE. The actions may include adjustments to
the transmit power commanded by the CCE. See Ans. 4. We are not
persuaded the Examiner errs in finding Claims 1--4, 6-8, 12-14, 16, 18-21,
and 23-25 anticipated by Fu.
CLAIMS 5, 9-11, 15, 17, AND 22 OBVIOUSNESS OVER FU AND NARASIMHA
Appellants contend that Narasimha fails to complete the teachings
allegedly missmg from Fu. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 5. In view of our
foregoing discussion, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in determining
that Claims 5, 9-11, 15, 17, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Fu and
Narasimha.
DECISION
The rejections of Claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a)
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)(l )(iv).
6
Appeal2014-001344
Application 13/362,280
AFFIRMED
7