Ex Parte ZOU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

12817501 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/817,501 06/17/2010 JIALINZOU
114592 7590 09/26/2016
Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc,
C/O Davidson Sheehan LLP
8834 North Capital of TX Hwy
Suite 100
Austin, TX 78759
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.
4100-807721-US 5690
EXAMINER
REDDIV ALAM, SRINIV ASAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 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):
docketing@ds-patent.com
kasey.larocca@ds-patent.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIALIN ZOU and SUDEEP P ALAT
Appeal2015-006976
Application 12/817,501
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-3, 7-12, and 14--21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-006976
Application 12/817,501
Claim 1 recites the following:
1. A method, comprising:
comparing, at a wireless communication device,
identifiers of a plurality of time intervals in a periodically
repeating access cycle to an identification number identifying the
wireless communication device;
selecting, at the wireless communication device, one of the
plurality of time intervals for transmission of an access signal,
the selection being performed based on the comparison; and
transmitting, from the wireless communication device, the
access signal over a random access channel in the selected one
of the plurality of time intervals.
App. Br. (Claims App'x) A-1.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 11, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Cho 1. Final Act. 2---6.
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 7-10, 14--18, 20, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cho and one or more of Plutov,2
Bala, 3 and Ryu4 . Id. at 6-17.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found Cho' s base station generates an
acknowledgement message including a unique packet identification ("PID")
field of a mobile station and an SI field representing a position of a reserved
access slot (of a plurality of access slots) for the corresponding mobile
1 Cho et al. (US 6,633,558 Bl; published Oct. 14, 2003) ("Cho").
2 Plutov et al. (US 2009/0003306 Al; published Jan. 1, 2009) ("Plutov").
3 Bala et al. (US 2010/0227569 Al; published Sept. 9, 2010) ("Bala").
4 Ryu et al. (US 2011/0201344 Al; published Aug. 18, 2011) ("Ryu").
2
Appeal 2015-006976
Application 12/817,501
station. See Final Act. 2 (citing Cho Figs. 6-8, col. 5, 11. 62---64); Ans. 18-19
(citing Cho col. 5, 11. 4--5). The Examiner also found Cho's mobile station
receives reserve "confirm information" as to whether any access slot is
reserved for the mobile station itself. See Final Act. 2-3; Cho Fig. 8, col. 6,
11. 30-32. The Examiner found that Cho's mobile station, having received
the reserve confirm information, then inherently compares the SI field with
the PID field when determining whether any access slot is reserved for the
mobile station. See Ans. 19; Final Act. 2; Cho col. 6, 11. 33-38. In view of
the foregoing, the Examiner found Cho discloses "comparing, at a wireless
communication device, identifiers of a plurality of time intervals in a
periodically repeating access cycle to an identification number identifying
the wireless communication device," as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 18-19;
Final Act. 2.
Appellants contend Cho does not disclose the "comparing" limitation
of claim 1. See App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants argue "[a]t no point
is the PID compared to the SI in the procedure described in Cho." App. Br.
6. To the contrary, Appellants assert Cho's PID and SI fields are
independently used for different purposes-the PID identifies the mobile
station and the SI identifies the reserved access slot. See id. Further,
Appellants assert that "each PID field disclosed by Cho is associated with
precisely one SI field that indicates the reserved slot for the mobile station
identified by the PID so that the mobile station can determine its reserved
slot by comparing its PID to the value in the PID field." Reply Br. 2
(emphasis omitted). Accordingly, Appellants argue there is no need to
compare Cho' s PID field to its SI field and, therefore, Cho does not
inherently disclose the "comparing" limitation of claim 1. See id.
3
Appeal 2015-006976
Application 12/817,501
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. The Examiner has not
shown that Cho discloses the "comparing" limitation as recited in claim 1.
See App. Br. 6. For instance, the Examiner has not pointed to any passage
of Cho that explicitly or implicitly discloses comparing the SI field to the
PID field in the manner claimed; nor has the Examiner provided adequate
support for the statement that Cho inherently compares the SI field with the
PID field. See Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 18-19.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection
of claim 1, nor do we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
independent claims 12 and 19, and dependent claim 11, each of which
recites a similar limitation. See App. Br. (Claims App'x) A-1, A-3-A-6.
For the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 3, 7-10, 14--18, 20, and 21, we
conclude the Examiner erred by failing to show that the cited references,
either singularly or in combination, teach or suggest "comparing" in the
claimed manner or providing an adequate rationale to combine or otherwise
modify the cited references to include this limitation. See Final Act. 6-17;
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-21 (2007).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-3, 7-12,
and 14--21.
REVERSED
4