Ex Parte Yamada et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

13132632 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/132,632 06/03/2011
127226 7590 09/21/2016
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP
P.O. Box 747
Falls Church, VA 22040-0747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shohei Yamada
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.
1609-071SPUS1 6742
EXAMINER
MOORE JR, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHOHEI YAMADA and KATSUNARI UEMURA
Appeal2015-006058
Application 13/132,632
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 7, 9, and 13-16. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Claims 7, 9, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Gauvreau (US 8,514,793 B2; iss. Aug. 20, 2013), and Bala
(US 8,705,461 B2; iss. Apr. 22, 2014). Final Act. 3-5.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "a communication system having a
plurality of component carriers present therein and a mobile station
Appeal2015-006058
Application 13/132,632
apparatus used in the communication system." Spec. if 1. Claim 7 is
illustrative and reproduced below:
7. A mobile station apparatus provided in a communication
system including a base station apparatus and the mobile station
apparatus, the mobile station apparatus comprising:
a circuitry configured to configure parameters regarding
a plurality of cells, and
in a case where an addition of a cell is notified by the
base station apparatus, the circuitry is further configured to
apply said parameters regarding a cell currently configured to
the mobile station apparatus, to the added cell, wherein
the parameters applied to the added cell are commonly
used for all of the cells that configured to the mobile station
apparatus.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Gauvreau and Bala teach all limitations of claim
7. Final Act. 3-5. The Examiner relies on Gauvreau for all limitations,
except for the recited (claim 7) "the circuitry is further configured to apply
said parameters regarding a cell currently configured to the mobile station
apparatus, to the added cell, wherein the parameters applied to the added cell
are commonly used for all of the cells that configured to the mobile station
apparatus," for which the Examiner relies on Bala. Final Act. 4--5.
As a preliminary matter, we note that Appellants have filed the
English language translation of Appellants' foreign priority application,
together with the statement as to its accuracy. See Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellants' foreign priority application has a filing date of December 4,
2008.
2
Appeal2015-006058
Application 13/132,632
Gauvreau has a filing date of October 14, 2009, and claims priority to
Provisional application No. 61/110,209 filed on October 31, 2008. Thus,
Gauvreau is prior art to the extent supported by Provisional Application No.
61/110,209.
Bala has a filing date of October 20, 2009, and claims priority to
Provisional application Nos. (1) 61/106,810 filed on October 20, 2008, (2)
61/111,573 filed on November 5, 2008, (3) 61/142,429 filed on January 5,
2009, and (4) 61/157,758 filed on March 5, 2009. Thus, Bala is prior art to
the extent supported by Provisional Application Nos. 61/106,810 and
61/111,573.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/106,810, merely discloses
that the information (e.g., the parameters) is commonly used for
all of the cells (e.g., the component carriers). However, 'the
parameters being commonly used for all of the cells' in U.S.
Provisional Application No. 61/106,810 is not a disclosure
equivalent to the claimed applying of said parameters regarding
a cell currently configured to the mobile station apparatus, to
the added cell. More specifically, U.S. Provisional Application
No. 61/106,810 makes no mention of an added cell, nor the
applying of said parameters regarding a cell currently
configured to the mobile station apparatus, to the added cell.
App. Br. 7.
We do not see any error in the Examiner's findings. Nor do we see
any error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner finds:
While Gauvreau also teaches utilizing one RRC connection
reconfiguration message to setup more than one component
carrier by including information (parameters) for all pre-
configured additional (added) component carriers cells) as
spoken of on column 3, lines 4-7, Gauvreau does not explicitly
3
Appeal2015-006058
Application 13/132,632
teach "the circuitry is further configured to apply said
parameters regarding a cell currently configured to the mobile
station apparatus to the added cell, wherein the parameters
applied to the added cell are commonly used for all of the cells
that configured to the mobile station apparatus".
Ans. 3--4; see also Ans. 3 (citing 61/110,209, iii! 16-17).
The Examiner finds:
Bala teaches a method of control channel signaling for carrier
aggregation where RRC signaling is used for a group of
multiple downlink component carriers (cells) that contains
information (parameters) common to some or all other
component carriers (commonly used) as spoken of on column
4, lines 21-23, lines 3 7-41, and lines 5 8-61; column 6, lines 4-
10, lines 15-16, and lines 38-42; and column 9, lines 22-27 and
60-67.
Ans. 4; see also Ans. 3--4 (citing 61/106,810, iii! 17, 26-28; 61/111,573, iii!
21, 24). We agree with and adopt these Examiner's findings as our own.
The Examiner reasons:
it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the
art, given these references, to apply the aggregation of signaling
using common information as described in Bala to the system
of Gauvreau in order to save resources in the system by
reducing signaling overhead as spoken of on column 9, lines
24-27 of Bala.
Ans. 4. We agree with and adopt this Examiner's reasoning as our own.
Regarding Appellants' argument, this argument does not show any
error in the Examiner's findings and reasons. Gauvreau teaches adding a
cell (see Gauvreau, col. 3, 11. 4-7; 61/110,209, iii! 16-17), Bala teaches
commonly used parameters for all of the cells (see Bala, col. 4, 11. 21-23,
37--41, 58---61; col. 6, 11. 4--10, 15-16, 38--42; col. 9, 11. 22-27, 60---67;
61/106,810, irir 17' 26-28; 61/111,573, irir 21, 24).
4
Appeal2015-006058
Application 13/132,632
Bala teaches a commonly used parameter for all of the cells need only
be sent once (see Bala, col. 9, 11. 24--27 and 61/111,573 i-f 21 ("common
information (including UE ID) may be shared among UL grant components
in the aggregated UL grant (signaled only once) to save signaling
overhead.").
Thus, Bala suggest to a skilled artisan that a commonly used
parameter for all of the cells need only be sent once. When this teaching of
Bala is combined with Gauvreau's teaching of adding a cell, a parameter
regarding a cell currently configured being applied to an added cell to save
signaling overhead would have been a predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions - an obvious improvement. As the
U.S. Supreme Court has explained:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [ v. Ag
Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson's-Black Rock [,
Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are
illustrative-a court must ask whether the improvement is more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 7, as well as
claims 9 and 13-16, which are not separately argued with particularity.
5
Appeal2015-006058
Application 13/132,632
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 7, 9, and 13-16 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 ).
AFFIRMED
6