Ex Parte KALHAN

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2019

12267365 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/267,365 11/07/2008
32968 7590 01/28/2019
KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
8611 Balboa Ave
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
AmitKALHAN
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.
TUTL 00180 5970
EXAMINER
SLOMS, NICHOLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2019 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):
KII-USPatents@kyocera.com
Kathleen.Connell@kyocera.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMIT KALHAN 1
Appeal 2018-001671
Application 12/267,365
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, 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 1-3, 5-10, and 16-39. Claims 4 and
11-15 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellant, Kyocera Corporation is the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-001671
Application 12/267,365
INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a wireless communication
device configured to receive a device beacon transmitted by another wireless
communication device at a time specified by a beacon transmission time
parameter and in accordance with wireless wide area network timing
information. See Abstract; Spec. ,r 30. Claims 1 and 29 are illustrative of
the subject matter on appeal and are reproduced below:
1. A wireless communication device comprising:
a wireless wide area network (WW AN) transceiver
configured to receive WW AN signals from a base station, at least
one of the WW AN signals comprising a beacon transmission
time parameter; and
a device beacon detector configured to apply the beacon
transmission time parameter and WW AN system timing
information derived from the WW AN signals to receive a device
beacon transmitted by another wireless communication device at
a time specified by the beacon transmission time parameter and
in accordance with the WW AN system timing information, the
device beacon detector comprising an uplink WW AN receiver
configured to receive the device beacon transmitted by the
another wireless communication device.
29. A mobile wireless communication device comprising:
a wireless wide area network (WW AN ) receiver
configured to receive WW AN downlink signals from a WWAN;
a device beacon generator configured to generate a device
beacon signal based on a WW AN system timing derived from
the WW AN downlink signals to generate the device beacon
signal;
a transmitter configured to transmit the device beacon
signal within a WW AN uplink channel; and
a searcher configured to search for femtocell signals
transmitted by a femtocell transceiver and responsive to a search
signal transmitted in response to detection of the device beacon
2
Appeal 2018-001671
Application 12/267,365
signal at the femtocell transceiver by adjusting a searching
scheme of searching for the femtocell signals by changing
searching parameters increasing the likelihood for detecting the
femtocell signals.
App. Br. 20, 24 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 5, 6, 8-10, 16-22, 24, 28, 30-33,
35, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Li (US 7,961,708 B2, June 14, 2011) and Corson (US 2007/0254596 Al,
Nov. 1, 2007). Final Act. 4---6.
The Examiner has rejected claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Li, Corson, and Jacobsen (US
7,260,361 B2, Aug. 21, 2007). Final Act. 6-7.
The Examiner has rejected claims 7, 23, 25-27, 34, and 36-38 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Li, Corson, and
Dalsgaard (US 2010/0183031 Al, July 22, 2010). Final Act. 7-8.
The Examiner has rejected claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Li, Corson, and Saksena (US
2008/0096553 Al, Apr. 24, 2008). Final Act. 8-9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments on pages 9 through 19 of
the Appeal Brief, and pages 2 through 6 of the Reply Brief, the Examiner's
rejections, and the Examiner's response to Appellant's arguments.
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed
April 6, 2017, Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed December 4, 2017, Final Office
Action (Final Act.) mailed August 29, 2016, and Examiner's Answer (Ans.)
mailed October 5, 2017.
3
Appeal 2018-001671
Application 12/267,365
Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, 16-28, and 30-39. Appellant's arguments
have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 29.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 16-28, and 30-39
Claim 1 recites a "beacon transmission time parameter" that is applied
to "receive a device beacon transmitted by another wireless communication
device at a time specified by the beacon transmission time parameter." App.
Br. 20 (Claims App.). 3 The Examiner finds the combination of Li and
Corson teaches this limitation. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 2-5. Specifically, the
Examiner finds Li's WW AN signals may be in the form of a beacon and
contain a common clock reference. Final Act. 4; Ans. 3--4, Li 6:56-61,
7:29-33, 8:4--20. The Examiner further finds Li's common clock reference
teaches the claimed timing beacon parameter because Li's wireless devices
utilize the common clock reference to determine the start and finish times of
peer (e.g., other wireless devices) discovery intervals. Final Act. 4; Ans. 3-
5; Li 7:29-33, 8:4--20. The Examiner additionally finds Corson teaches
peer-to-peer communications via beacons. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 2-5;
Corson ,r,r 7-11.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred, arguing there is no teaching
that Li's broadcast signals sent to the wireless terminals actually contain a
beacon transmission time parameter. App. Br. 1 O; Reply Br. 3--4. Appellant
3 With respect to independent claims 10, 20, and 30, Appellant's arguments
present the same issues as independent claim 1. App. Br. passim; Reply Br.
passim. No separate arguments are presented for the dependent claims 5, 6,
11-15, and 20-23, which fall with independent claims 1, 10, and 20. App.
Br. passim; Reply Br. passim; 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )(1 )(iv). Except for our
ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
4
Appeal 2018-001671
Application 12/267,365
further contends that Li's generic broadcast signals cannot be reasonably
interpreted to contain a beacon transmission time parameter because Li's
wireless terminals must determine the timing for various functional intervals
based on Li's broadcast signals. App. Br. 10-11; see Reply Br. 3--4; see
also Li 7:52-8:24. We are not persuaded of Examiner error.
The determination of timing intervals by Li's wireless terminals does
not preclude Li's broadcast signals comprising a beacon transmission time
parameter. Rather, as explained by the Examiner, Li's wireless terminals
utilize timing information (i.e., the common clock reference) contained in
Li's broadcast signals in order to determine timing intervals. See Ans. 3--4.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Li teaches a beacon
transmission time parameter, as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 4--5; see
also Ans. 2--4. Moreover, Li further supports the Examiner's finding, by
disclosing that "the wireless terminal may determine the transmission
time(s) ... to transmit based upon an identifier and/or a notion of time (e.g.,
derived from a received Beacon)." Li 10:6-11. Accordingly, a skilled
artisan would find Li teaches a beacon transmission time parameter, as
recited in claim 1.
Appellant additionally argues that the Examiner erred because Li and
Corson do not teach that the beacon transmission time parameter is received
from a base station. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 3--4. To the contrary, as
found by the Examiner, "Li explicitly states that timing information is
broadcast from a base station to a wireless device in order to synchronize
signals between the wireless device and another wireless device (i.e. peer-to-
peer signaling)." Ans. 3; Li 7:29-33, 8:4--12, 10: 13-15, 43--45. Thus, we
are not persuaded of Examiner error.
5
Appeal 2018-001671
Application 12/267,365
In addition, Appellant argues, for the first time in the Reply Brief, that
based on the principles of claim construction, the recited "system timing
information" and the recited "beacon transmission time parameter" are two
separate distinct claim features, and the Examiner erred because the
Examiner has not presented evidence of prior art that teaches or suggests
each of: ( 1) WW AN system timing information derived from the WW AN
signals and (2) a beacon transmission time parameter. Reply Br. 2-3. This
new argument could have been presented in the Apply Brief, was not
prompted by the Examiner's Answer, and is not based on any new
arguments or grounds of rejection in the Examiner's Answer. As a result,
Appellant has waived such untimely argument because Appellant has not
shown good cause for belatedly raising the new argument. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.4I(b)(2).
Nevertheless, Appellant's argument is not persuasive. Appellant's
argument does not address the Examiner's specific findings. The Examiner
finds "Li explicitly states that timing information is broadcast from a base
station to a wireless device in order to synchronize signals between the
wireless device and another wireless device (i.e. peer-to-peer signaling)."
Ans. 3. The Examiner also finds Li's "WW AN signals received from the
base station include a time parameter that specifies a time for peer-to-peer
discovery signaling." Id. Thus, the Examiner finds that Li's broadcast
timing information includes a timing parameter. See id. Accordingly, we
are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner has not
presented evidence teaching both WW AN system timing information
derived from the WWAN signals and a beacon transmission time parameter.
Reply Br. 2-3.
6
Appeal 2018-001671
Application 12/267,365
Claim 29
The Examiner finds claim 29 is rendered obvious in view of the
combination of Li, Corson, Jacobsen, and Saksena. Specifically the
Examiner finds that "Jacobsen teaches device search and alteration to search
as well as indication of beacon reception (e.g., col. 2, lines 1--49, col. 3, lines
16-27, col. 4, lines 25----67, col. 5, lines 1-7, and figures 1-2.)." Ans. 6-7.
The Examiner further explains that Jacobsen is relevant to the rejection of
claim 29 "because it demonstrates the responsive functionality; that is,
searching (or modifying search) in response to device detection." Ans. 6-7.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because Jacobsen fails to teach
performing any action in response to detecting a device beacon signal. App.
Br. 18; Reply Br. 4----6. Appellant's argument is persuasive.
Jacobsen is directed to detecting an interfering device in a wireless
network by comparing modulation adaptations in the uplink and downlink
directions of a communication channel between wireless terminals.
Jacobsen, Abstract. We agree with the Examiner that Jacobsen teaches
device searching and modifying search schemes. Ans. 6-7. The Examiner,
however, has not shown that the combination of Li, Corson, Jacobsen, and
Saksena teaches that a device search is conducted in response to detection of
a device beacon signal. See Final Act. 8-9; see also Ans. 6-7. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 29.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5-10, 16-28, and
30-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Appeal 2018-001671
Application 12/267,365
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 29 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(20I5).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8