Ex Parte Ji et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2016

10858870 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/858,870 06/01/2004
23696 7590 03/17/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tingfang Ji
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.
040058 7836
EXAMINER
TORRES, MARCOS L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/17/2016 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 TINGF ANG JI, A VNEESH AGRAWAL,
GA VIN HORN, and EDWARD HARRISON TEAGUE
Appeal2014-002819
Application 10/858,870
Technology Center 2600
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN R. KENNY, and STACY
B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-002819
Application 10/858,870
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1
and 3--45. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to reduce inter-sector interference
for "weak" users and combat a large variation in interference levels observed
by "strong" and weak users, by partitioning system resources (i.e., frequency
subbands) available for data transmission in a system into multiple (i.e.,
three) disjoint sets. Each sector in the system is assigned one sub band set.
Neighboring sectors are assigned different subband sets such that the
subband set assigned to each sector is orthogonal to the subband sets
assigned to neighboring sectors. Each sector has an assigned subband set
and an unassigned subband set, which contains all subbands not in the
assigned set. Weak users in each sector (which are typically strong
interferers to neighboring sectors) are allocated sub bands in the assigned set.
Strong users in each sector are allocated subbands in the unassigned set.
The weak users in each sector are then orthogonal to strong interferers in
neighboring sectors. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of allocating system resources in a communication
system, comprising:
ranking a plurality of terminals in communication with a
current base station based, at least in part, on signal quality
metrics achieved by the terminals for the current base station,
wherein the current base station has at least one neighboring base
station; and
2
Appeal2014-002819
Application 10/858,870
allocating available system resources to the plurality of
terminals based on ranking of the terminals, wherein the
available system resources associated with the current base
station comprises an assigned set of system resources that is
orthogonal to at least one set of assigned system resources
associated with the at least one neighboring base station and
additional system resources not in the set assigned to the current
base station, wherein the additional system resources not in the
set assigned to the current base station overlaps with at least one
neighboring base station assigned set and at least a portion of the
additional system resources that is not orthogonal to the available
system resources is allocated to at least one of the plurality of
terminals in communication with the current base station.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Dent
Palenius
Benson
Chun
Liu
Xu
US 6, 112,094 Aug. 29, 2000
US 2003/0096618 Al May 22, 2003
US 2005/0041605 Al Feb. 24, 2005
US 2005/0048979 Al Mar. 3, 2005
us 6,870,808
US 7,062,276 B2
REJECTIONS
Mar. 22, 2005
June 13, 2006
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 5-8, 11-29, 31-38, 42, 43, and 44 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Dent in view of Xu and further in
view of Liu.
3
Appeal2014-002819
Application 10/858,870
Claim 41 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dent in view Xu, further in view of Liu and further in
view of Chun.
Claim 45 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dent in view Xu, further in view of Liu and further in
view of Palenius.
Claims 30, 39, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dent in view of Xu, further in view of Liu and
further in view of Benson.
Claims 9 and 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dent in view of Xu as applied to claim 6 above, and
further in view of Liu and Benson.
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Dent in view of Xu and further in view of Liu teaches the
limitation of "ranking a plurality of terminals ... on signal quality metrics
achieved by the terminals," as recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions in the Answer and
Final Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue that Liu's ranking of terminals does not explicitly
describe that a terminal is ranked against another terminal (Reply Br. 3; App.
Br. 16). Appellants further argue that Liu fails to inherently describe ranking
a plurality of terminals at least because Liu's ranking of traffic channels
does not necessarily rank terminals (App. Br. 17). Specifically, Appellants
4
Appeal2014-002819
Application 10/858,870
argue that Liu's ranking of traffic channels does not necessarily rank
terminals because (1) different terminals can be served with the same ranked
channel and (2) a single terminal can be served by more than one ranked
channel (App. Br. 17).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because they are not
commensurate with the recited language of claim 1. Claim 1 recites
"ranking a plurality of terminals" (claim 1 }-not ranking a terminal against
another terminal (see Ans. 4). We agree with the Examiner's findings that
claim 1 requires "ranking a plurality of terminals" based on "signal quality
metrics" such as "signal quality metrics" (i.e., SINR) (see claims 1 and 3;
Ans. 21). We agree with the Examiner that Liu teaches (col. 8, 11. 31-52),
that the terminal's ranking is tantamount to the ranking of SINR of the
channel used by the subscriber or terminal. Since Liu discloses ranking a
SINR of the channel used by the subscriber or terminal, which can be
equated to ranking the subscriber's or terminal's channel (Ans. 3), and since
a lot of terminals can be served under the same channel, then it follows that
the SINR is being used to rank a "plurality of terminals" (see Ans. 5). In
other words, since the SINR of a channel that serves a plurality of terminals
is ranked, then the plurality of terminals served by that channel are ranked.
The claim does not require ranking of each terminal against another terminal
as argued by Appellants.
Appellants further argue that it is Liu's achievable rate or SINR that is
used to actually rank the channels and therefore, Liu does not disclose
ranking the channels based on the claimed signal quality metrics achieved by
the terminals (App. Br. 17).
1 The Examiner refers to claim 2, but we consider this an inadvertent error as
claim 2 was cancelled and claim 3 refers to SINR (see Ans. 2).
5
Appeal2014-002819
Application 10/858,870
We do not agree with Appellants' argument. There is no requirement
in an obviousness analysis for the prior art to "contain a description of the
subject matter of the appealed claim in ipsissimis verbis." In re May, 574
F.2d 1082, 1090 (CCPA 1978). We agree with the Examiner's findings
(Ans. 5) that Liu discloses calculating the SINR for the requesting subscriber
(see col. 8, 11. 22-25) and for the on-going subscriber (see col. 8, 11. 35-51 ),
thereby evaluating the SINR achieved. We further agree with the Examiner
(Ans. 5) that determining whether a channel is "unusable" or usable from a
plurality of channels can also be equated to a form of ranking.
Appellants further argue that Dent is not directed towards allocating
available system resources to the plurality of terminals based on ranking of
terminals, as claimed, but instead discusses division of orthogonal frequency
hopping sequences among cells based on demand for communications (App.
Br. 18).
We do not agree with Appellants' argument. "[O]ne cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually where ... the
rejections are based on combinations of references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner relied on Liu, not Dent, for the
teaching of "ranking" (Ans. 5---6).
Appellants further argue that the alleged combination of Dent, Xu,
and Liu fails to enable one skilled in the art to make and use the claimed
invention (App. Br. 18).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because it is not necessary
that the inventions of the references be physically combinable, without
change, to render obvious the claimed invention. In re Sneed, 710 F .2d
1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. The test is what the
6
Appeal2014-002819
Application 10/858,870
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art. Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the Examiner's rejections of claims 3--45 for the same
reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Dent in
view of Xu and further in view of Liu teaches the limitation of "ranking a
plurality of terminals ... on signal quality metrics achieved by the
terminals," as recited in claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3--45
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) (2009).
AFFIRMED
7