Ex Parte Hamzeh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2018

14510881 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/510,881 10/09/2014 Bela! Hamzeh
123125 7590 06/27/2018
Duft Bornsen & Fettig, LLP
1526 Spruce Street, Suite 302
Boulder, CO 80302
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.
CLI-0022-3 (60705NP3) 3505
EXAMINER
DAVENPORT, MON CHERI S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2018 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):
docketing@dbflaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BELAL HAMZEH, JENNIFER ANDREOLI-FANG,
ALIREZA BABAEI, and LUIS ALBERTO CAMPOS
Appeal2018-000977 1
Application 14/510,881
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-8. See Final Act. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest.
See App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-000977
Application 14/510,881
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosure relates to "altering communications of a LTE
wireless communication system operating in an RF band with a conflicting
WiFi system." Abstract. Claims 1 and 5 are independent. Claim 1 is
reproduced below for reference (with emphasis added):
1. A Long Term Evolution (L TE) wireless communication
system operating in a Radio Frequency (RF) band with a
conflicting WiFi system, the LTE system comprising:
a wireless base station operable to transmit downlink
communications to a user equipment (UE) in the RF band and
to receive uplink communications from the UE in the RF band;
and
a processor operable to detect the uplink
communications from the UE, to estimate a location of the UE
based on the detected uplink communications, to determine a
communication capability between the UE and the wireless
base station based on the location of the UE, and to downgrade
the downlink communications from the wireless base station to
the UE based on the determined communication capability to
avoid interference with the WiFi system.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bitran (US 2013/0272260 Al; Oct. 17, 2013) and Shaw
(US 2015/0163767 Al; June 11, 2015). Final Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants
could have made but chose not to make are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R.
2
Appeal2018-000977
Application 14/510,881
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded of Examiner error; we adopt the
Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own, and we add the following
for emphasis.
Appellants argue that "the Examiner is distilling the Appellant's
claims into a mere gist or thrust" (App. Br. 7) because "Appellant's
processor, which also detects uplink communications from the UE and
which the Examiner states that Bitran fails to disclose, is not located in the
UE" whereas "Bitran does disclose a processor and it is located in the UE."
App. Br. 6-7. Appellants contend "no one skilled in the art would be
motivated to combine Bitran with Shaw" and "the Examiner's asserted
combination of Bitran and Shaw could produce no reasonable expectation of
success." App. Br. 8.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner correctly
finds Bitran teaches "downgrading communications by reducing power and
using a lower modulation scheme" (Ans. 3, citing Bitran i-f 72), and Shaw
teaches "a network device that determines locations of user devices"
including "overlapping coverage for devices," such that "interference is
monitored and adjustments are made at these locations to mitigate
interference" (Ans. 3, citing Shaw Fig. 9, i-fi-119--20, 71). The Examiner
further finds, and we agree, the combined teachings of Bitran and Shaw
"provide[] a hybrid approach for passive user equipment localization for
wireless networks using various information and measurements that are
obtained passively from user equipment devices." Final Act. 4, quoting
Shaw i-f 18.
Appellants' argue the Examiner erred in finding one of ordinary skill
in the art would combine Bitran with Shaw, because "Bitran discloses two
3
Appeal2018-000977
Application 14/510,881
processors in the UE." App. Br. 7. The Examiner explains, however, that
both references "are directed to addressing interference in a wireless
communication network" (Ans. 3) and, in the Examiner's combination,
Shaw's system receives "passive" information from a mobile device. Final
Act. 4; see Shaw Fig. 9. Further, Shaw teaches the method is performed by
receiver component 106 (see Shaw i-f 83, describing Fig. 9) as part of system
100 that includes at least one processor 104. See Shaw i-fi-128, 30; see also
Spec. i-f 13 ("the L TE network processing element 110 is any system, device,
software, or combination thereof'). We, thus, agree with the Examiner that
one of ordinary skill would combine the teachings of Bitran and Shaw "to
mitigate interference .... include[ing] downgrading communications by
reducing power and using a lower modulation scheme." From the record
before us, we do not find that Appellants have presented evidence or
reasoning sufficient to show that combining Shaw with Bitran was "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an
unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Bitran and Shaw teaches or suggests the limitations of
claim 1. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and
claims 2-8 not separately argued. See App. Br. 5-9.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 is affirmed.
4
Appeal2018-000977
Application 14/510,881
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a)( 1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5