Ex Parte Kaminski et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 27, 201612050571 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/050,571 03/18/2008 48116 7590 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 06/01/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Stephen KAMINSKI 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. LUTZ 200877US01 8928 EXAMINER HANIDU, GANIYU A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2016 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@faysharpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEPHEN KAMINSKI, UWE DOETSCH, OSMAN AYDIN, HAJO BAKKER, KLAUS KEIL, and MARCUS GRUBER Appeal2014-008218 Application 12/050,571 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--10-14, and 17-23. Claims 3, 15, and 16 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Alcatel Lucent. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-008218 Application 12/050,571 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is generally directed to scheduling of service data in downlinks using persistent scheduling with a reduced waste of radio resources. Spec. 3, 11. 16-18.2 Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A method for scheduling downlink service data, compnsmg: sending at least one control message from a base station to a user terminal for scheduling downlink service data to be sent from the base station to the user terminal over radio interfaces, wherein one or more of said at least one control message comprises at least one of an order when the user terminal shall perform reception of downlink data and an order when and under which circumstances the user terminal shall send HARQ feedback information in upcoming transmission time intervals; and detecting a silence period in a persistently scheduled downlink between the base station and the user terminal at the base station through recognition of a reduction of a data rate of the service data sent to the user terminal; wherein the sending of the at least one control message is initiated in conjunction with the detecting of the silence period. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 2, 4--14, and 17-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Novak (US 2013/0010729 Al; published Jan. 10, 2 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed Oct. 1, 2013 ("Final Act."), Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Apr. 1, 2014 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed May 28, 2014 ("Ans."), Appellants' Reply Brief filed July 22, 2014 ("Reply Br."), and the original Specification filed Mar. 18, 2008 ("Spec."). 2 Appeal2014-008218 Application 12/050,571 2003), Lee (WO 2005/078962 Al; published Aug. 25, 2005), and Li (US 2013/0039333; published Feb. 14, 2013). ANALYSIS The dispositive issue raised by Appellants' briefs is whether Li teaches or suggests the limitation "detecting a silence period in a persistently scheduled downlink between the base station and the user terminal at the base station through recognition of a reduction of a data rate of the service data sent to the user terminal," as recited in claim 1, and as similarly recited in claims 11, 13, and 14. The Examiner finds that Novak and Lee fail to teach the limitation at issue, but Li does so. See Final Act. 3---6; Ans. 13-15 (citing Li i-fi-155-57). In regard to Li, the Examiner finds, and we agree, paragraph 55 of Li teaches that a vocoder of a mobile device detects a period of silence using V AD technology. Ans. 14. The Examiner finds, and we agree, paragraph 56 of Li teaches that, in the uplink direction, the mobile device sends a special MAC message to the base station indicating that the voice data rate is being temporarily reduced, and upon receipt of such indication, the MAC scheduler can reduce the airlink resource allocated to the voice connection. Id. The Examiner also finds, and we agree, paragraph 57 of Li teaches that, in the downlink direction, if there is not a voice packet to be transmitted over a voice connection, the MAC scheduler allocates the resource to other voice connections. Id. The Examiner further finds, however, that Li teaches the disputed limitation because the MAC scheduler at the base station is using the indication of "no voice packet to be transmitted" as detection of "a silence 3 Appeal2014-008218 Application 12/050,571 period," whereupon the MAC scheduler allocates the resource to other voice connections. Id. 14--15. Appellants argue that it is a MAC message that informs the base station of a reduction in the voice data rate and that none of the cited paragraphs of Li disclose a base station that detects a silence period as claimed. Reply Br. 3. We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments the Examiner has erred. See App. Br. 6-12; Reply Br. 2-7. In particular, we agree with Appellants that Li does not teach or suggest the limitation at issue because "Li discloses detecting a silent period at the user terminal using a V AD and sending a message to the base station indicating that the voice data rate is being temporarily reduced." App. Br. 7 (emphasis added); cf (Spec. 6-7 (describing buffer management and packet-size variations as means by which the base station detects a silent period). Although we agree, as indicated above, with the Examiner's findings regarding the specific teachings of paragraphs 55-57 of Li, we do not agree with the Examiner's finding and interpretation that the indication to the MAC scheduler of "no voice packet" to be transmitted constitutes "detecting a silence period ... at the base station through recognition of a reduction of a data rate of the service data sent to the user terminal," as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 14--15. According! y, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 11, 13, and 14, as well as dependent claims 2, 4--10, 12, and 17-23. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--14, and 17-23. 4 Appeal2014-008218 Application 12/050,571 REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation