Ex Parte Venkatsuresh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2016

13151218 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/151,218 06/01/2011
23696 7590 11/23/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ajay K. Venkatsuresh
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.
102433 4510
EXAMINER
KU, SHIUH-HUEI P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2016 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 AJAY K. VENKATSURESH and SURE SH SANKA 1
Appeal 2015-007 518
Application 13/151,218
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITT A, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-3, 5-12, 14--21, 23-30, and 32-36, all pending claims of the
application. 2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm
Incorporated. See Appeal Brief 2.
2 Claims 1, 3, 10, 12, 19, 21, 28, and 30 are independent and claims 4, 13,
22, and 31 are cancelled.
Appeal 2015-007518
Application 13/151,218
The claimed invention relates to reducing lost data due to a parameter
mismatch condition in a ciphered data stream. Spec. i-fi-f l and 7. 3 Claim 1 is
reproduced below with disputed limitation emphasized:
1. A method for determining mismatch of ciphering
parameters in a wireless device, the method comprising:
examining a predefined ciphered field in one or more
received Radio Link Control (RLC) layers in Protocol Data Units
(PDU s) including examining if data in the predefined ciphered
field of the PDU points to invalid positions lying beyond an end
of the PDU to determine if the field is invalid;
determining when the predefined ciphered field is invalid
over a predetermined sample number of PDU s;
determining a parameter mismatch of ciphering
parameters when a predetermined number of samples of the
predefined ciphered field that are determined as invalid exceed a
predetermined threshold; and
buffering the one or more received RLC PDUs whenever
the field is determined to be invalid during sampling over the
predetermined sample number of PD Us.
REFERENCES
The art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Jiang et al. ("Jiang
'048")
US 2003/0091048 Al May 15, 2003
3 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellants' Specification filed
June 1, 2011 ("Spec."); (2) the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed
Aug. 27, 2014; (3) the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed Feb. 23, 2015; (4)
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed June 19, 2015; and (5) the Reply
Brief ("Reply Br.") filed Aug. 10, 2015.
2
Appeal 2015-007518
Application 13/151,218
Jiang et al. ("Jiang
'679")
Yi
Guo et al. ("Guo")
US 2006/0050679 Al
US 7,760,634 B2
US 2011/0028171 Al
REJECTIONS
Mar. 9, 2006
July 20, 2010
Feb. 3, 2011
Claims 1-3, 10-12, 19-21, and 28-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jiang '048 and Jiang '679. Final Act. 4
-14.
Claims 5-8, 14--17, 23-26, and 32-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jiang '048, Jiang '679, and Yi4 . Final
Act. 14--20.
Claims 9, 18, 27, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jiang '048, Jiang '679, and Guo. Final Act. 20
-21.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
issues raised by Appellants. We have not considered other possible issues
that have not been raised by Appellants and which are, therefore, not before
us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
ISSUES
1. Whether the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Jiang
'048 and Jiang '679 teaches or suggests "buffering the one or more received
RLC PDUs whenever the field is determined to be invalid during sampling
over the predetermined sample number of PD Us," as recited in claim 1?
4 The Examiner's rejection of claims 6 and 7 do not rely upon Yi as
indicated at page 14 of the Final Office Action but instead rely upon Jiang
'048 and Jiang '679. We find this to be harmless error.
3
Appeal 2015-007518
Application 13/151,218
2. Whether the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Jiang
'048 and Jiang '679 teaches or suggests "recovering the buffered one or
more PDUs after determining mismatch of the ciphering parameter," as
recited in claim 6?
3. Whether the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Jiang
'048 and Jiang '679 teaches or suggests "scanning Hyper-Frame numbers
(HFN s) over a window of HFN s for the buffered one or more received
PDUs when the parameter mismatch is determined," as recited in claim 7?
DISCUSSION
Claim 1
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own,
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in
the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
The Examiner relies on Jiang '679 to teach or suggest "buffering the
one or more received RLC PDUs," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 8-9
(citing Jiang '679 i-fi-158---63 and 73 and Fig. 8). In particular, the Examiner
finds that Jiang '679 implicitly describes buffering one or more received
RLC PDU s whenever the field is determined to be invalid because a PDU
that is being operated upon must be buffered as it must be resident in some
computer memory for a computer-implemented process to be able to
evaluate it. Ans. 4 (citing Jiang '679 i-fi-158-63 and 73 and Fig. 9).
4
Appeal 2015-007518
Application 13/151,218
Appellants contend the Examiner errs because Jiang '679 "is teaching
discarding PDU' s that have parameter mismatch, not a buffering or storage
of them." Appeal Br. 11.
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that Jiang '679 teaches the claimed buffering of PDUs.
Appellants in essence argue that the Examiner's interpretation of the term
"buffering" as recited in claim 1 is unreasonably broad. Appellants,
however, fail to establish the Examiner's interpretation is not the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants' Specification. See In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under
a broadest reasonable interpretation, the words of the claim must be given
their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the
specification. In re Zietz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Chef America,
Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The plain
meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the
term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re
Suitco Swface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The
presumption that a term is given its ordinary and customary meaning may be
rebutted by Appellants clearly setting forth a different definition of the term
in the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Here, Appellants fail to demonstrate that "buffering" has been explicitly
defined in Appellants' Specification in a way that is inconsistent with the
Examiner's interpretation.
Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner's interpretation of the
term "buffering" is not inconsistent with Appellants' Specification and is
therefore, not shown to be erroneous. In light of this interpretation, we agree
5
Appeal 2015-007518
Application 13/151,218
with the Examiner's finding that the claimed "buffering," given a reasonable
interpretation in light of the Specification, encompasses the storing of PDU s
for the purpose of recovering the PDUs, as discussed in Jiang '679. Ans. 4
-7 (citing Jiang '679 i-fi-126 and 41-73 and Figs. 8-9).
Appellants contend Jiang '679 cannot suggest "buffering the one or
more received RLC PDU s ... during sampling over the predetermined
sample number of PDUs," as claimed, because Jiang '679 looks at each
PDU individually for HFN adjustment. Appeal Br. 10-11. Appellants
disagree with the Examiner's finding that one or more PDU s can be
interpreted as a predetermined sample size of a single PDU. Reply Br. 5.
Specifically, Appellants state:
[It] appears that the Examiner is advancing an understanding of
claim construction that the meaning of "one or more" is either
"one" or "two or more," and that the Office is free to bifurcate
the term and choose what words to consider so as to simply and
expediently dismiss consideration of the totality of the words
"one or more." This is believed to be contradictoP; to the
established case law.
Reply Br. 7.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner's
interpretation of "one or more," as recited in claim 1, is consistent with the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the term. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 at 1364. We agree with the Examiner that use of the disjunctive in
the phrase, based on its plain meaning, means that "one or more" may be
alternatively interpreted as either "one" or "two or more." When a claim
covers alternatives, the claim may be unpatentable if any of the alternatives
within the scope of the claim are taught by the prior art. See Brown v. 3M,
265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Claim 1 is unpatentable, therefore, if
6
Appeal 2015-007518
Application 13/151,218
the prior art discloses sampling over the "one" PDU alternative or the "two
or more" PDU s alternative. Appellants provide no definition from the
Specification that would support Appellants' proffered interpretation of "one
or more" to mean exclusively "two or more." In re Morris, 127 at 1048.
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner's finding that Jiang '679 teaches or
suggests a sample size of at least a single PDU. Ans. 7.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 3, 10, 12, 19, 21, 28, and 30, which Appellants argue are
patentable for similarly unpersuasive reasons. Appeal Br. 13. Dependent
claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 35, and 36 are
not separately argued. See Appeal Br. 13-14. Therefore, we likewise
sustain the rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 6
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own,
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in
the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
Appellants contend that Jiang '679 does not teach or suggest
"recovering the buffered one or more PDU s after determining mismatch of
the ciphering parameter," as recited in claim 6. Appeal Br. 14. Specifically,
7
Appeal 2015-007518
Application 13/151,218
Appellants state "re-deciphering a PDU with an adjusted HFN value in Jiang
is not 'recovery' of buffered PDUs, but simply is a re-deciphering of a PDU
current when the HFN value is adjusted and then subsequently deciphering
all subsequently received PDUs with the adjusted HFN value." Appeal
Br. 14 (citing Jiang '679 i173).
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that after length indicators are used to detect HFN un-
synchronicity, the current HFN value is incremented by one and the last
PDU containing an illegal LI together with all subsequent PDU s are re-
deciphered using the adjusted HFN value and that Jiang '679's ability to re-
decipher the PDU suggests recovering the buffered PDU s. Final Act. 15-16
(citing Jiang '679 i173); Ans. 9-10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 6, and of claims 15, 24, and 33, which Appellants argue are
patentable for similarly unpersuasive reasons. Appeal Br. 14.
Claim 7
The Examiner relies upon Jiang '679 to teach or suggest "scanning
Hyper-Frame numbers (HFNs) over a window ofHFNs for the buffered one
or more received PDUs when the parameter mismatch is determined," as
recited in claim 7. Final Act. 16-17 (citing Jiang '679 i144). Appellants
contend that the cited paragraph from Jiang '679 "is simply looking at a
current PDU and detecting ifthe HFN in the current PDU shows un-
synchronization to determine if HFN adjustment is to proceed" and thus
"[t]here is no scanning ofHFNs over a window of buffered PDUs." Appeal
Br. 15.
8
Appeal 2015-007518
Application 13/151,218
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive because the Examiner fails
to indicate how Jiang '679's discussion of detecting HFN un-
synchronization symptoms from the received PDU teaches or suggests
scanning HFN s over a window of HFN s.
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 7, and of claims 16, 25, and 34, which each recite
commensurate limitations.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 8-12, 14,
17-21, 23, 26-30, 32, 35, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 6, 15, 24, and 33
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 7, 16, 25, and 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
9