Ex Parte Yoo et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 27, 201612949020 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/949,020 11/18/2010 23696 7590 06/29/2016 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 5775 MOREHOUSE DR. SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Taesang Yoo 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. 100376 5038 EXAMINER RUSSELL, WANDA Z ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2462 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/29/2016 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 TAESANG YOO, TAO LUO, XIAOXIA ZHANG, and KE LIU Appeal2014-005168 Application 12/949,020 Technology Center 2400 Before CATHERINE SHIANG, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10, 22-31, 43, and 45, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The present invention relates to communication systems. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary: Appeal2014-005168 Application 12/949,020 1. A method of wireless communication by a user equipment (UE), compnsmg: estimating system timing, wherein the estimated system timing is derived from the timing of one or more cells; determining timing offsets, relative to the estimated system timing, for a plurality of cells; and processing signals received from the plurality of cells with channel tap truncation windows set based on the timing offsets. References and Rejections Claims 1-5, 22-26, 43, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lindoff (US 2009/0116473 Al, May 7, 2009) and Chillariga (US 7,801,091 B2, Sept. 21, 2010). Claims 6-10 and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lindoff, Chillariga, and Gorokhov (US 2011/0098054 Al, Apr. 28, 2011). The Obviousness Rejections We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our analysis below. 1 We provide the following points for emphasis. On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1. 1 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.4l(b)(2). 2 Appeal2014-005168 Application 12/949,020 Appellants contend Lindoff and Chillariga do not collectively teach "[a] method of wireless communication by a user equipment (UE) ... processing signals received from the plurality of cells with channel tap truncation windows set based on the timing offsets," as recited in claim 1 (emphases added). See App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 2--4. In particular, Appellants argue the cited Chillariga portions discuss base station transceivers and therefore, not a UE processing based on the timing offsets. See App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants contend Lindoff does not teach "tap truncation windows set based on the timing offsets" (emphasis added). See App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3--4.2 Appellants have not persuaded us of error. Because the Examiner relies on the combination of Lindoff and Chillariga to teach the disputed claim limitations, Appellants cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner finds-and Appellants do not dispute-Lindo ff teaches "[a] method of wireless communication by a user equipment (UE)" (emphasis added). See Ans. 2. Therefore, Chillariga does not need to separately teach "a user equipment (UE)." Further, the Examiner finds-and Appellants do not dispute-Lindoff teaches "determining timing offsets" and "processing signals received from the plurality of cells with channel tap truncation windows set based on the [timing]." See Ans. 2-3. The Examiner correctly finds Chillariga teaches 2 The Examiner finds-and Appellants do not dispute-the claimed "tap truncation windows set" is taught by or obvious in light of Lindoff' s teachings. See Ans. 3. 3 Appeal2014-005168 Application 12/949,020 "the processing is based on the timing offsets." See Ans. 7 (citing Chillariga). Chillariga states: [R]eceivers must be able to shift their receive windows depending on the effective receipt time of burst transmitted by MSs. Hence, the receivers of FIG. 5 must support variable uplink timing offsets .... [T]ransmitters must be able to shift their transmit windows depending on the effective receipt time of bursts received by MSs. The effective receipt time is determined by the time difference of arrival ... Hence, the transmitters of FIG. 5 support variable downlink timing offsets .... Chillariga 14:7-17. Therefore, the Examiner reasonably finds Lindoff and Chillariga collectively teach "[a] method of wireless communication by a user equipment (UE) ... processing signals received from the plurality of cells with channel tap truncation windows set based on the timing offsets," as required by claim 1. Using Chillariga' s technique in the Lindo ff method would have predictably used prior art elements according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and corresponding dependent claims Appellants do not separately argue. For similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 22, 43, and 45, and corresponding dependent claims Appellants do not separately argue. 4 Appeal2014-005168 Application 12/949,020 Separately Argued Dependent Claims Regarding claims 4 and 25, Appellants argue the cited art fails to teach "wherein the particular cell comprises a cell with a strongest received signal strength for one or more reference signals." See App. Br. 10. We disagree. Because in association with claims 1 and 3, the Examiner finds-and Appellants do not dispute-Lindo ff teaches "a plurality of cells" and "a particular cell" (Ans. 2--4), "wherein the particular cell comprises a cell" is taught by or obvious in light of Lindoff' s teachings. Further, the Examiner finds that in the situation described in Lindoff's paragraph 5, "only the strongest signal for one or more reference signals can be received." Ans. 8. Therefore, the Examiner determines "wherein the particular cell comprises a cell with a strongest received signal strength for one or more reference signals" is taught by or obvious in light of the collective teaching of Lindoff and Chillariga. See Ans. 7-8. Appellants fail to squarely respond to such findings and, therefore, fail to show error in the Examiner's findings. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art."). Finally, Appellants' general assertion that Lindoff fails to teach the disputed claim limitation (App. Br. 10-11) is unpersuasive of error. Regarding claims 7 and 28, similar to the discussions above with respect to claim 1, because the Examiner relies on the combination of Lindoff and Chillariga to teach the disputed claim limitations, Appellants cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking the references individually. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. Further, Appellants' general assertion that the 5 Appeal2014-005168 Application 12/949,020 references do not teach the disputed claim limitation (App. Br. 12) is unpersuasive of error. Regarding (i) claims 8 and 29, (ii) claims 9 and 30, and (iii) claims 10 and 31, in response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner presents further findings showing Lindoff, Chillariga, and Gorokhov collectively teach the disputed claim limitations. See Ans. 9-10. Appellants fail to squarely respond to such findings, and fail to analyze all of the Gorokhov portions cited by the Examiner for the associated claims. Therefore, Appellants fail to show error in the Examiner's findings. See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F .2d at 3 91. Further, because the Examiner relies on the combination of Lindoff, Chillariga, and Gorokhov to teach the disputed claim limitations, Appellants cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking the references individually. See Merck, 800 F .2d at 1097. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Chillariga teaches timing offsets. Therefore, Gorokhov does not need to separately teach that claim element. In addition, Appellants' general assertion that the cited Gorokhov portions do not teach the disputed claim limitations is unpersuasive of error. Finally, with respect to claims 10 and 31, Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 15) are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 4, 7-10, 25, and 28-31. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10, 22-31, 43, and 45. 6 Appeal2014-005168 Application 12/949,020 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation