12884453 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2016)

Ex Parte Vargantwar

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 8, 2016

12884453 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/884,453 09/17/2010 28005 7590 03/09/2016 SPRINT 6391 SPRINT PARKWAY KSOPHT0101-Z2100 OVERLAND PARK, KS 66251-2100 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sachin R. V argantwar 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. 7333 6761 EXAMINER YOUNG, STEVER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2477 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 03/09/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SACHIN R. V ARGANTW AR Appeal2014-004276 Application 12/884,453 Technology Center 2400 Before THU A. DANG, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-7, 9-18, and 20-22. Claims 8 and 19 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. Appeal2014-004276 Application 12/884,453 A. THE INVENTION According to Appellant, the claimed invention relates to "dynamic adjustment of reverse-link rate-control parameters" (Abstract). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. In an access terminal configured to operate in a wireless communication system that includes a base station, a method compnsmg: operating in a state in which at least: the access terminal responds to receiving reverse-noise messages from the base station by (i) transmitting data on a reverse-link traffic channel to the base station at a data transmission rate based at least on the received reverse-noise messages and on a level of a resource in reserve for consumption in data transmission, and (ii) when the received reverse-noise messages indicate that conditions for increasing the data transmission rate are satisfied, replenishing the resource by an allocation size specified by at least one parameter; while operating in the state, receiving a parameter- adjustment message from the base station, wherein the parameter-adjustment message includes an increased allocation size specified by at least one updated parameter; and in response to receiving the parameter-adjustment message and while still operating in the state, increasing the allocation size by replacing the at least one parameter with the at least one updated parameter in the parameter-adjustment message, thereby increasing how rapidly the data transmission rate increases. C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Rong et al. Kwon et al. US 2008/0004031 Al US 2005/0088988 Al 2 Jan.3,2008 Apr. 28, 2005 Appeal2014-004276 Application 12/884,453 Ahn et al. US 2005/0220116 Al Oct. 6, 2005 Claims 1---6 and 12-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rong and Kwon. Claims 7, 9, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rong, Kwon, and Ahn. Claims 10, 11, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rong, Ahn, and Kwon. II. ISSUES The issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Rong and Kwon teaches or suggests 1) transmitting data on a reverse-link traffic channel "at a data transmission rate based at least on the received reverse-noise messages and on a level of a resource in reserve for consumption in data transmission," and 2) when the received reverse-noise messages indicate that "conditions for increasing the data transmission rate are satisfied, replenishing the resource by an allocation size specified by at least one parameter" (claim 1 (emphasis added)). III. ANALYSIS Appellant contends that although the Examiner points to Rong's "loading of reverse link" in the Advisory Action as teaching or suggesting "a level of a resource in reserve for consumption in data transmission," "[t]he Examiner did not address 'replenishing the resource by an allocation size specified by at least one parameter,' or how 'loading of reverse link' might be related to this claim limitation" (App. Br. 6-7). According to Appellant, "even assuming ... , 'loading of reverse link' in Rong to be analogous to a 3 Appeal2014-004276 Application 12/884,453 level of the 'resource' recited," nothing taught or suggested by Rong or by Kwon "that in the act of 'replenishing the resource by an allocation size specified by at least one parameter' the access terminal would be replenishing a system resource that is monitored by the base station" (App. Br. 8). Appellant further contends "Kwon teaches that a base station specifies a reverse data rate, and transmits the specified rate to a mobile station" but such "specified reverse data rate" is "not an 'increased allocation size' for replenishing 'a resource in reserve for consumption in data transmission"' (id.). In particular, Appellant contends recognizing that 'loading of reverse link' will tend to increase with reverse data rate, the 'resource' ... that the Examiner interpreted as 'loading of reverse link' would be depleted, not replenished, as a result of the base station's instruction to the mobile station to increase its reverse data rate (App. Br. 9). After reviewing the record on appeal, we find the preponderance of evidence supports the Appellant's position. Even though we agree with the Examiner that "[t]he term 'resource' is broad and can encompasses many different means by which the device is allowed to transmit" (Ans. 24), we are not persuaded that the cited portions of Rong, even combined with Kwon, contain a teaching or suggestion of "a resource in reserve for consumption in data transmission," that is replenished "by an allocation size specified by at least one parameter" when the message indicates that conditions for increasing the data transmission rate are satisfied, as required by claim 1. 4 Appeal2014-004276 Application 12/884,453 Furthermore, we are not persuaded by the Examiner's finding that "Kwon further teaches ... that the allocation size can be 'specified by at least one parameter' via a 'limited-rate transition' (dynamically adjusting data rate by specifying either up, down or hold) or 'full-rate transition' (dynamically adjusting data rate by actually specifying the data rate)" (Ans. 25). We agree with Appellant that "the information transmitted by a base station as disclosed in Kwon is not an 'increased allocation size' for replenishing a resource as in claim 1" (Reply Br. 5). Therefore, on this record, we cannot affirm the Examiner's Â§ l 03 rejection of independent claim 1, claim 12 standing therewith (App. Br. 5), and claims 2---6 and 13-17 respectively depending therefrom, over Rong and Kwon. As for claims 7 and 18, Appellant contends "neither Rong nor Ahn teaches or suggests 'access terminals ... measuring a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) that exceeds a threshold SNR level" but rather, both references "disclose a base station measuring ROT, which characterizes what is observed by the base station on its reverse links" (App. Br. 10). Although the Examiner adds in the Answer that "detecting an access terminal 'measuring' a certain SNR can be interpreted to be simply the access terminal transmitting a signal that 'measures' (or has) an SNR of a certain level" (Ans. 26), we agree with Appellant that, even given the broadest reasonable interpretation, "'an access terminal measuring SNR' can only reasonably be interpreted as meaning that the access terminal carries out the measurement act" (Reply Br. 6). We also agree with Appellant that "a transmitted signal cannot itself measure SNR" (id.). Thus, we are not 5 Appeal2014-004276 Application 12/884,453 persuaded by the Examiner's finding that the combined teachings teach or suggest the limitations of claims 7 and 18 (Ans. 26-27). On this record, we also reverse the Examiner's Â§ 103 rejections of claims 7 and 18 over Rong, Kwon, and Ahn; claims 9 and 20 depending respectively therefrom over Rong, Kwon, and Ahn; and claims 10, 11, 21, and 22 respectively depending therefrom and standing therewith over Rong, Ahn, and Kwon. IV. CONCLUSION AND DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7, 9-18, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). REVERSED 6