Ex Parte Kuo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2018

14500075 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/500,075 09/29/2014
106622 7590 01/03/2019
Blue Capital Law Firm, P.C.
650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1530
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard Lee-Chee Kuo
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.
1291-259.103 7921
EXAMINER
ELMEJJARMI, ABDELILLAH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2019 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):
docketing@bluecapitallaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD LEE-CHEE KUO and YU-HSUAN GUO
Appeal2018-002570
Application 14/500,075
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 11-22. App. Br. 4---6; Reply Br. 3.2 Claims 1-10 are
withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Innovative Sonic
Corporation. App. Br. 2.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection ("Final Act.")
mailed February 24, 2017; the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed July 21, 2017;
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed November 16, 2017; and the Reply
Brief ("Reply Br.") filed January 9, 2018.
Appeal2018-002570
Application 14/500,075
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention supports device-to-device (D2D) discovery in a
wireless communication system. Abstract.
Claims 11 and 17 are independent. Claim 11 is reproduced below:
11. A method for supporting device to device (D2D) discovery,
wherein a D2D discovery function is activated in a User
Equipment (UE), the method comprising:
the UE monitors paging message( s) and does not monitor
D2D discovery signal(s) in a paging occasion (PO) of the UE if
the PO of the UE collides with a D2D discovery subframe; and
the UE receives a system information block (SIB) and
does not monitor D2D discovery signal(s) if a subframe for
receiving the SIB collides with a D2D discovery subframe.
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Park
Pelletier et al.
US 2011/0270984 Al
US 2013/0322413 Al
THE REJECTION
Nov. 3, 2011
Dec. 5, 2013
Claims 11-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Pelletier and Park. Final Act. 3-5.
THE EXAMINER'S FINDINGS
Regarding representative3 claim 11, the Examiner finds that Pelletier
teaches monitoring paging information as recited, but does not expressly
teach that the UE receives an SIB and does not monitor D2D discovery
3 Appellants argue claims 11-22 as a group. See App. Br. 4--6; Reply Br. 4--
5. We select independent claim 11 as representative of claims 11-22. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
2
Appeal2018-002570
Application 14/500,075
signals if a subframe for receiving the SIB collides with a D2D discovery
subframe. Final Act. 3--4. In concluding that the subject matter of claim 11
would have been obvious, the Examiner finds that Park teaches that "a
paging message may be used to inform a wireless communication device
about the presence of emergency information in SIB 10/11/12." Id. at 4
( citing Park ,r 48).
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
Appellants argue that Park's paging message 332 does not include an
SIB. App. Br. 5. According to Appellants, Park's paging message 332 only
includes an indicator for the presence of the SIB (id.), and the new system
information data is received at a different time (Reply Br. 4). Likewise,
Appellants argue that Pelletier is silent regarding a collision between a
subframe for receiving the SIB and a D2D-discovery subframe. App. Br. 5-
6.
ISSUE
Appellants' arguments for representative claim 11 (see App. Br. 4---6;
Reply Br. 4--5) present us with the following issue:
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Park and Pelletier
collectively would have taught or suggested "the UE receives a system
information block (SIB) and does not monitor D2D discovery signal(s) if a
subframe for receiving the SIB collides with a D2D discovery subframe," as
recited in claim 11?
3
Appeal2018-002570
Application 14/500,075
ANALYSIS
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because they do not take into
account the combined teachings of Pelletier and Park. App. Br. 4---6;
Reply Br. 4--5. To properly review the Examiner's proposed combination,
we must consider Park's teachings in view of Pelletier's prioritization
scheme. See Final Act. 3--4.
In particular, Pelletier teaches that a wireless transmit-receive unit
(WTRU) can receive a transmission on a D2D link. Pelletier ,r 229. But in a
subframe in which Pelletier's WTRU is expected to monitor the paging
channel, the WTRU prioritizes decoding of the P-RNTI. Id. In this
situation, Pelletier' s WTRU attempts to receive a paging assignment in its
paging occasion over the reception on a D2D link in a D2D subframe that
collides with the paging occasion. Id. The Examiner, however, finds that
Pelletier does not expressly teach a subframe for receiving an SIB that
collides with a D2D discovery subframe. Final Act. 3--4.
As for the recited SIB, Park uses paging message 332 to inform a
wireless communication device about the presence of emergency
information in SIBI0/11/12 and the associated scheduling information 328
in SIBI. Park ,r 48. Appellants argue that Park's paging message 332 only
includes an SIB-presence indicator (App. Br. 5), and the new SI data occurs
at a different time (Reply Br. 4). Also, Appellants argue that "a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not be able to derive the observation of 'a
subframe for receiving the SIB may collide with a D2D discovery subframe'
from the teaching of Pelletier." See App. Br. 5. In Appellants' view,
"[ w ]ithout knowing this observation, it would be unlikely for a person of
4
Appeal2018-002570
Application 14/500,075
ordinary skill in the art to arrive at" the limitation at issue. Id. at 5-6. We
disagree.
Under the Examiner's proposed modification, Pelletier prioritizes
Park's subframes that are used to communicate important messages.
Final Act. 3--4. Specifically, Park's SIBlO and SIBl 1 include Earthquake
and Tsunami Warning System (ETWS) message data. Park ,r 45. These
ETWS messages can occur at any time. Id. ,r 48. Park expressly discusses
the importance of receiving ETWS messages. See, e.g., id. ,r 31. And
Pelletier teaches a prioritization scheme consistent with Park's objectives,
which only bolsters the Examiner's obviousness rationale.
See Pelletier ,r 229.
Contrary to Appellants' argument, Park's paging-message subframe is
"used for receiving the SIB" because Park's device uses the subframe's
indicator to receive the SIB containing the important message. See
Park ,r,r 45, 48. For instance, Park explains that"[ w ]hen a wireless
communication device 106 receives a paging message 332 that includes the
emergency indicator 336 ewts/cmas-Indication, the wireless communication
device 106 will attempt to receive the next scheduling information 328 in
SIBI." Id. ,r 48. Park uses the next scheduling information 328 in SIBl to
receive new scheduling information 328 for SIBl0/11/12. Id. Park's
wireless communication device then uses scheduling information 328 to
receive emergency information in the ETWS message carried by
SIBl0/11/12. Id. In this way, Park's subframe for receiving the indication
is at least "used for receiving" SIB 10/11/12. See id.
Even if Park's indicator message is received during a different time
than the emergency message itself (Reply Br. 4), considering Pelletier and
5
Appeal2018-002570
Application 14/500,075
Park together, one of ordinary skill in the art would have prioritized
reception of the subframes used for receiving the ETWS message. For
instance, Park teaches that it is important to receive the ETWS messages.
See, e.g., Park ,r 31. On this record, we agree with the Examiner that it
would have been obvious to combine Park and Pelletier to arrive at the
limitation at issue-i.e., a UE that receives a subframe for receiving the SIB
and does not monitor D2D discovery signal if a subframe for receiving the
SIB collides with a D2D discovery subframe, as recited in claim 11.
Final Act. 3--4.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of representative
claim 11 and claims 12-22, which are not separately argued.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 11-22.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6