Ex Parte YANG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

15139154 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/139, 154 04/26/2016
15055 7590 09/26/2018
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yue YANG
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.
161325US 8449
EXAMINER
DEAN, RAYMOND S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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):
qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com
P AIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUE YANG, AZIZ GHOLMIEH,
ARVIND VARDARAJAN SANTHANAM,
SRINIVASAN BALASUBRAMANIAN, FRANK XIAOYU HU,
HUILIN XU, XU HAN, and RANJAN MOHANTY
Appeal2018-002056
Application 15/139,154
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-26, which constitute all the pending claims in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify QUALCOMM Incorporated as the real party in interest
(App. Br. 3).
Appeal2018-002056
Application 15/139,154
THE INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to "enhanced procedures for
search, measurement, and positioning with aid of motion detection
information" of wireless communication systems (Spec. ,r 1 ).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for wireless communications by a user
equipment (UE), comprising:
determining one or more parameters of the UE;
dynamically adjusting a periodicity of at least one of cell
search and measurements or global positioning system (GPS)
signal acquisition based, at least in part, on the one or more
parameters, wherein the one or more parameters comprise at
least an amount of battery life associated with the UE and a
mobility state of the UE; and
performing at least one of the cell search and
measurements or GPS signal acquisition according to the
adjusted periodicity.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is the following:
Sih
Kupfer
Harju
Damji
US 6,608,858 B 1
US 2010/0328154 Al
US 2012/0258755 Al
US 2013/0258876 Al
2
Aug. 19, 2003
Dec. 30, 2010
Oct. 11, 2012
Oct. 3, 2013
Appeal2018-002056
Application 15/139,154
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 13, 14, 19, 22, 25, and 26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Damji. Final Act. 3.
Claims 3 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Damji, in view of Kupfer. Final Act. 6.
Claims 4--6, 8, 9, 16-18, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Damji, in view of Harju. Final Act. 7.
Claims 11, 12, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Damji, in view of Sih. Final Act. 10.
ISSUES
The issues are whether the Examiner erred:
1. in finding Damji discloses "the one or more parameters comprise at least
an amount of battery life associated with the UE and a mobility state of
the UE," as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims
13, 25, and 26;
2. in finding Damji discloses "reducing the periodicity of cell search and
measurements when the amount of battery life associated with the UE
fails to satisfy a threshold," as recited in claim 7, and similarly recited in
claim 19;
3. in finding the combination of Damji and Kupfer teaches or suggests "the
adjusting comprises disabling GPS signal acquisition when the mobility
state indicates that the UE is in a stationary state for a duration," as
recited in claim 3, and similarly recited in claim 15;
3
Appeal2018-002056
Application 15/139,154
4. in finding the combination of Damji and Harju teaches or suggests
"wherein for longer durations of the stationary state, lower periodicities
are selected for the cell search and measurements," as recited in claim 9,
and similarly recited in claim 21 ; and
5. in finding the combination of Damji and Harju teaches or suggests (a)
"the mobility state of the UE is determined further based on the measured
filtered frequency error," as recited in claim 11, and similarly recited in
claim 23, and (b) "determining the UE is in a stationary state when the
filtered frequency error satisfies a threshold value," as recited in claim
12, and similarly recited in claim 24.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants argue that "Damji is silent regarding dynamically
adjusting the periodicity2 of cell search and measurements or GPS signal
acquisition based on the mobility state of the UE and an amount of battery
life associated with the UE" (App. Br. 9 (footnote added)). Appellants
contend that "[a]lthough the determinations in Damji may result in the
battery life of the UE being conserved, this still does not correspond to
dynamically adjusting the periodicity based on the amount of battery life
associated with the UE" (App. Br. 10).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that "Sections 0046 and 0059 of Damji show that the
periodicity is based on battery life or battery power" (Adv. Act. 2).
2 Appellants appear to define "periodicity" to be synonymous with
"frequency" (see Spec. ,r 60), and our decision follows their definition.
4
Appeal2018-002056
Application 15/139,154
Specifically, the cited portions of Damji state that "[p ]erforming the required
measurements for neighbor cell searching may consume non-trivial amounts
of power, thereby impacting the battery life ofUE 106" and the period for
neighbor cell searching "may change in [response] to changes to the
environment in which UE 106 is operating" (Damji ,r 46). Further,
"neighbor cell searching may be performed less frequently to conserve
battery life" (Damji ,r 59, emphasis added). Taken together, the portions
establish a change in period for neighbor cell searching based on the battery
life, which itself is part of the environment in which the UE is operating.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and
independent claims 13, 25, and 26 commensurate in scope, as well claims 2,
10, 14, and 22 not separately argued. See App. Br. 10-16. 3
Claim 7
Appellants argue that "Damji neither expressly nor inherently
describes reducing the periodicity when the battery life fails to satisfy a
threshold" (App. Br. 11-12).
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner finds that "periodicity is
determined based on battery life thus rendering a scenario wherein there is a
determination if the battery life satisfies some kind of threshold" (Final Act.
5 (citing Damji ,r 46); see also Ans. 12-13). Although Damji discloses
3 Should there be further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider an
indefiniteness rejection of claim 1, as the claim requires "the one or more
parameters comprise at least an amount of battery life associated with the
UE and a mobility state of the UE" which appears self-contradictory as it
does not appear one parameter could comprise both an amount of battery life
and a mobility state.
5
Appeal2018-002056
Application 15/139,154
adjustment of periodicity based on battery life, the cited portion of Damji
does not establish a threshold is used. A periodicity calculation could be a
function of battery life that does not involve a threshold, as in an example in
which the periodicity equals a constant multiplied by the percentage of
remaining battery life.
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
anticipation rejection of claim 7, and claim 19 commensurate in scope. 4
Claim 3
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 3
because Kupfer fails "to overcome the deficiencies of Damji with respect to
the independent claims 1 and 13" and "claims 3 and 15 are believed
allowable at least due to their dependency from an allowable base claim"
(App. Br. 12).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that "Kupfer teaches the substituted step of disabling GPS
signal acquisition when the mobility state indicates that the UE is in a
stationary state for a duration" which "is known in the art as means for
prolonging the battery life" (Final Act. 6). Appellants do not address and
challenge the Examiner's findings. Accordingly, we affirm the obviousness
rejection of claim 3, and claim 15 commensurate in scope.
4 Should there be further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider a
rejection of claim 7 based on obviousness.
6
Appeal2018-002056
Application 15/139,154
Claim 9
Appellants argue that "Harju fails to disclose or suggest 'for longer
duration of the stationary state, lower periodicities are selected for the cell
search and measurements"' because "the determining in Harju is based on
[ finding] new cells for a number of searches-not based on the duration of
the stationary state" (App. Br. 14 (citing Harju ,r 34)).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that "Harju teaches in Section 0034 and Figure 3 that if no
new cells are found due to the UE being stationary for a duration such as a
long duration then no new cell search will be conducted as frequently, which
is an adjustment or reduction in periodicity" (Ans. 13). Harju teaches that a
new search takes place when a recent previous search found a new cell,
whereas otherwise the new search may be delayed, thus lowering the
frequency (or selecting a lower frequency) of new searches when the UE is
stationary and thus no new cells have been recently found.
Appellants' argument regarding the "determining in Harju" is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim, which requires that lower
periodicities "are selected," which is the natural outcome in Harju's method
when no new cells have been recently found because the UE has been
stationary for the last N searches. See Harju Fig. 3.
Accordingly, we affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 9, and
claim 21 commensurate in scope, as well as claims 4--6, 8, 16-18, and 20 not
separately argued. See App. Br. 13-14.
7
Appeal2018-002056
Application 15/139,154
Claims 11 and 12
Appellants argue that "[ a ]lthough Sih merely describes frequency
error due to Doppler, Sih is silent regarding 'the mobility state of the UE is
determined further based on the measured filtered frequency error' as
recited in dependent claim 11 and dependent claim 23" (App. Br. 15
(underline omitted)), and "Sih fails to disclose or suggest determining the
UE is in a stationary state based on the filtered frequency error, much less if
the filtered frequency error satisfies a threshold" (App. Br. 15-16).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that the "mobility state of the UE" can be determined by "the
Doppler effects due to the movement of the UE" (Final Act. 11 ( citing Sih
2:46-57, 4:50-53, 5: 14--16)). As indicated in the final cited portion, Sih
teaches using "the independent frequency error for each finger directly by
filtering it" (Sih 5: 14--15) in which the "frequency errors, now doppler
adjusted, are then weighted and averaged, the result of which is filtered"
(Sih 5: 18-20).
Thus, Sih teaches a combination of filtered frequency measurements
subject to Doppler effects, in which deviations from the carrier frequency
indicate "a relative velocity between the transmitter and receiver" (Sih 2:50-
51 ). One skilled in the art at the time of Appellants' invention would
recognize that as no Doppler error occurs when the transmitter and receiver
are stationary, larger filtered frequency error values, such as those over a
threshold, would indicate the UE is not stationary.
Accordingly, we affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 11 and 12,
and claims 23 and 24 commensurate in scope.
8
Appeal2018-002056
Application 15/139,154
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner:
1. did not err in finding Damji discloses "the one or more parameters
comprise at least an amount of battery life associated with the UE and a
mobility state of the UE," as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in
independent claims 13, 25, and 26;
2. erred in finding Damji discloses "reducing the periodicity of cell search
and measurements when the amount of battery life associated with the
UE fails to satisfy a threshold," as recited in claim 7, and similarly
recited in claim 19;
3. did not err in finding the combination of Damji and Kupfer teaches or
suggests "the adjusting comprises disabling GPS signal acquisition when
the mobility state indicates that the UE is in a stationary state for a
duration," as recited in claim 3, and similarly recited in claim 15;
4. did not err in finding the combination of Damji and Harju teaches or
suggests "wherein for longer durations of the stationary state, lower
periodicities are selected for the cell search and measurements," as
recited in claim 9, and similarly recited in claim 21; and
5. did not err in finding the combination of Damji and Harju teaches or
suggests (a) "the mobility state of the UE is determined further based on
the measured filtered frequency error," as recited in claim 11, and
similarly recited in claim 23, and (b) "determining the UE is in a
stationary state when the filtered frequency error satisfies a threshold
value," as recited in claim 12, and similarly recited in claim 24.
9
Appeal2018-002056
Application 15/139,154
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 10, 13, 14, 22, 25, and
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 7 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(l) is reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 3-6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15-18, 20,
21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10