Ex Parte Zhang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 201814290471 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2018) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/290,471 05/29/2014 Wanping ZHANG 30134/09901 (P20287US1) 7988 114746 7590 02/02/2018 Ar>r>le Tno — FKM EXAMINER 150 Broadway Suite 702 HUYNH, KHOA B New York, NY 10038 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2462 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2018 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): mmarcin @ fkmiplaw .com cchen@fkmiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WANPING ZHANG, ZHU JI, QIANG MIAO, JOHNSON O. SEBENI, and JOSHUA ZHANG1 Appeal 2017-007285 Application 14/290,4712 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JAMES R. HUGHES, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-20, which are all the claims pending in this application. Claim 4 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 The Applicant is APPLE INC. 2 Appellants identify Apple Inc., the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-007285 Application 14/290,471 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ application relates to performing measurements during a wireless communication discontinuous reception cycle. Spec. 11. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A method, comprising: at a wireless station: receiving information during a first reception segment of a discontinuous reception cycle, wherein the discontinuous reception cycle includes the first reception segment and a first idle segment; performing a first measurement that begins during the first reception segment; and performing a second measurement, wherein the second measurement begins after the first measurement begins and prior to an end of the first measurement; wherein the first and second measurements extend beyond the first reception segment of the discontinuous reception cycle into the first idle segment and are completed prior to a start of a second reception segment of a second discontinuous reception cycle. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1-3 and 5-20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2-3. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 14-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Xi et al. (US 2011/0170420 Al; July 14, 2011) and Aoyama et al. (US 2012/0033595 Al; Feb. 9, 2012). Final Act. 3-9. 2 Appeal 2017-007285 Application 14/290,471 Claims 12, 13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Xi, Aoyama, and Uemura et al. (US 2009/0135787 Al; May 28, 2009). Final Act. 9-12. ANALYSIS Written Description Claims 1-3 and 5-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2-3. In particular, the Examiner finds the Specification does not support the claim 1 limitation “wherein the first and second measurements extend beyond the first reception segment of the discontinuous reception cycle into the first idle segment.” Id. 3. The Examiner finds the Specification describes the first measurement extends beyond the first reception segment of the discontinuous reception cycle into the first idle segment, but the Specification does not disclosure such extension for the second and third measurements. Id. 3. Appellants argue the Specification discloses that the first, second, and third measurements may commence at different times, have different durations, and may requirement different amounts of time to complete. App. Br. 5. According to Appellants, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that any combination of the first, second, and third measurements may commence during the first reception segment and extend into the first idle segment. Id. Appellants have persuaded us of Examiner error. Claim 1 recites “performing a first measurement that begins during the first reception segment.” Claim 1 further recites “performing a second measurement, wherein the second measurement begins after the first measurement begins 3 Appeal 2017-007285 Application 14/290,471 and prior to an end of the first measurement.” Finally, claim 1 recites “wherein the first and second measurements extend beyond the first reception segment of the discontinuous reception cycle into the first idle segment and are completed prior to a start of a second reception segment of a second discontinuous reception cycle.” The Examiner finds the Specification does not disclose second and third measurements that begin during the reception segment and extend into the idle segment. Final Act. 2- 3; Ans. 3—4. However, claim 1 does not recite the second measurement beginning during the reception segment. Instead, claim 1 recites the second measurement “begins after the first measurement begins and prior to an end of the first measurement.” Claim 1 further recites “wherein the first and second measurements extend beyond the first reception segment of the discontinuous reception cycle into the first idle segment.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 does not require that the second measurement begin during the reception segment. Rather, the second measurement must begin after the first measurement begins and before it ends. Because the first measurement must extend into the idle segment, the second measurement may begin during the idle segment and end before the second reception segment, which is explicitly disclosed as an example in Figure 3 A of the disclosure. Moreover, even if the claims required that the second measurement begin during the first reception segment as suggested by the Examiner, we agree with Appellants that the Specification demonstrates that Appellants were in possession of this. As Appellants argue, the Specification discloses the amount of time it takes to complete sample processing 325c is typically longer than the combination of 325a and 325b. Reply Br. 3 (citing Spec. 4 Appeal 2017-007285 Application 14/290,471 138). Figure 3 A shows an example embodiment wherein segments 305a and 305b are the same length in time. Figure 3B shows an example embodiment wherein measurement segments 325a and 325b both occur during segment 305a. 325c is the same duration as the combination of 325a and 325b and 325c occurs entirely during 305b. If 325c were longer in duration than the combination of 325a and 325b, as suggested by the passage cited by Appellants above, measurement 325c would necessarily need to begin during segment 305a to enable it to complete before segment 305c as shown in Figure 3A. In such an embodiment, measurements 330a and 330b would begin in parallel with 325c, demonstrating that the second measurement would begin during reception segment 305a and extend into idle segment 305b. We agree with Appellants that while the Figures do not explicitly show this example embodiment, the Specification discloses such an embodiment sufficiently that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand Appellants were in possession of the full claim scope under this interpretation. Accordingly, for these reasons, we do not sustain the written description rejection of independent claim 1, independent claims 14 and 20, which recite commensurate limitations, or dependent claims 2, 3, 5-13, and 15-19. Obviousness We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in consideration of Appellants’ contentions and the evidence of record. Appellants persuade us that the Examiner fails to establish that the claims are unpatentable over the cited prior art. 5 Appeal 2017-007285 Application 14/290,471 The Examiner finds the combination of Xi and Aoyama teaches or suggests “wherein the first and second measurements extend beyond the first reception segment of the discontinuous reception cycle into the first idle segment and are completed prior to a start of a second reception segment of a second discontinuous reception cycle.” Specifically, the Examiner finds Xi teaches first and second measurements that begin and end during the reception segment. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds Aoyama, however, teaches first and second measurements extend beyond the reception segment into the idle segment. Id. The Examiner finds Aoyama teaches two processes, “UE-oriented GP start offset” and “actual measurement during the gap length” that, taken together, are a “measurement” as claimed. Ans. 4-5 (citing Aoyama Fig. 16). The Examiner relies on Appellants’ Specification, which discloses that the claimed “measurement” contains multiple processes, including “RF + Analogy Tuning,” “AGC + Sample Capture,” and “Sample Process,” where only one of these processes is “actual measuring.” Ans. 4 (citing Spec. Fig. 3B). Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Aoyama does not teach or suggest measurements extending beyond the reception segment into the idle segment. App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 5-6. According to Appellants, Aoyama instead teaches measurements that occur entirely within the idle segment. App. Br. 6. Appellants dispute the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “measurement” to include Aoyama’s “UE-oriented GP start offset,” arguing that this offset is not a measurement process, but is a time delay before the measurement begins. Reply Br. 5. According to Appellants, Aoyama teaches the UE-oriented GP start offset is calculated specifically to 6 Appeal 2017-007285 Application 14/290,471 ensure that the measurement does not occur within the DRX active period. Id. (citing Aoyama 155). Appellants have persuaded us of Examiner error. Aoyama teaches the UE-oriented GP start offset is a time delay used to ensure that the measurement process begins during DRX Sleep instead of DRX Active. Aoyama Fig. 16,1 55. Indeed, Aoyama specifically teaches that the UE- oriented GP start offset is calculated to ensure the measurement does not “overlap[] with the DRX active period.” Aoyama 155. We agree with Appellants that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not consider such a time delay before the beginning of a measurement to be part of the “measurement” recited in claim 1. Thus, Aoyama does not teach a measurement that begins during a reception segment and extends into the idle segment. The Examiner’s reliance on the three processes that comprise Appellants’ measurement is misplaced because each of these processes is part of an active measurement process, not merely a delay before the beginning of such a measurement. Accordingly, on this record we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Xi and Aoyama. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 14 and 20, which recite commensurate limitations, or dependent claims 2, 3, 5-11, and 15-18. Claims 12, 13, and 19 stand rejected as unpatentable over Xi, Aoyama, and Uemura. The Examiner has not found that Uemura cures the deficiency identified above. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 12, 13, and 19 as unpatentable over Xi, Aoyama, and Uemura. 7 Appeal 2017-007285 Application 14/290,471 DECISION We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-3 and 5- 20. REVERSED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation