Ex Parte Lindoff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2013

11286974 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/286,974 11/23/2005 Bengt Lindoff 4015-5358/ P21067-US2 1578
24112 7590 10/25/2013
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
HUANG, WEN WU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BENGT LINDOFF and JOHAN NILSSON
____________

Appeal 2011-002595
Application 11/286,974
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT and
KRISTEN L. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-002595
Application 11/286,974

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-26, 28-49 and 51-611. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
BACKGROUND
The Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to an adaptive method
implemented by a mobile station to improve the likelihood of detecting
control messages transmitted to the mobile station in band on a shared
downlink traffic channel. When the mobile station expects a control message
to be transmitted on the shared downlink traffic channel, the mobile station
may adapt the receiver configuration and/or receiver parameters to reduce a
likelihood of missed detection of control messages. In one embodiment, the
mobile station is configured to adjust a correlation threshold used for said
scheduled transmission detection to reduce the likelihood of a missed
detection. Abs.; see also Spec. ¶ 009-011.
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below (disputed limitations in
italics):
1. A method implemented by a mobile station of detecting
control messages transmitted in band on a shared downlink
traffic channel, said method comprising:
detecting scheduled transmissions on a shared downlink
traffic channel intended for the mobile station by
correlating a mobile specific sequence with a
control signal transmitted over a control channel in
advance of the scheduled transmission on the
shared downlink traffic channel; and

1 Claims 3, 27 and 50 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2011-002595
Application 11/286,974

3
decreasing a correlation threshold used for said scheduled
transmission detection to reduce the likelihood of a
missed detection responsive to a handover event.

Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15-18, 22-26, 31, 32, 36, 37, 39-41, 45-49,
54, 55, 59 and 602 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Datta (US 2004/0001428 A1, Jan. 1, 2004), Walton (US
2004/0156328 A1, Aug. 12, 2004) and Takano (US 2003/0153272 A1, Aug.
14, 2003).
Claims 9-11, 14, 33-35, 38, 56-58 and 61 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Datta, Walton, Takano and Seol
(US 2005/0152308 A1, Jul. 14, 2005).
Claims 4-6, 28-30 and 51-53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Datta, Walton, Takano and Petrovic (US
2005/0207374 A1, Sep. 22, 2005).
Claims 19, 21, 42 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Datta, Walton, Takano and Hackett (US
2006/0039330 A1, Feb. 23, 2006).
Claims 20 and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Datta, Walton, Takano and Suzuki (US 2006/0209883 A1,
Sep. 21, 2006).

2 Claims 36, 37, 59 and 60 are omitted from the statement of rejection (FOA
2; Ans. 3), but are substantively addressed with the remaining claims (FOA
10-11; Ans. 11, 13).
Appeal 2011-002595
Application 11/286,974

4
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combined teachings of
Datta, Walton and Takano render obvious the invention of independent
claims 1, 16 and 39?
Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combined teachings of
Datta, Walton, Takano and Seol render obvious the invention of dependent
claims 9-11, 14, 33-35, 38, 56-58 and 61?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final
Office Action (“FOA”) and the Reply Brief presented in response to the
Answer. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments as
follows.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 12, 13, 15-26, 28-32, 36, 37, 39-49, 51-55, 59 and 60
The Appellants argue that Takano’s teaching of adjusting a threshold
based on the number of handover cells a base station transmits to does not
constitute a “handover event” as understood by those skilled in the art and as
described in the Specification. App. Br. 5-6 (citing Figs. 13-14; ¶¶ 0115-19).
The Appellants’ Specification explicitly defines a handover event: “the term
handover event means any event resulting in a change in the radio link
between the mobile station 100 and the RAN 30.” Spec. ¶ 028. We agree
with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings that Takano’s teaching
of when handover cells are changed, a handover event occurs. Ans. 19
(citing ¶ 0118; Fig. 14: S61). The Examiner’s findings are consistent with
the Appellants’ definition of a handover event. Furthermore, the Appellants’
arguments that Takano teaches adjusting a threshold based on the number of
Appeal 2011-002595
Application 11/286,974

5
handover cells a base station transmits (Fig. 14: steps S63 through S65)
discounts that Takano teaches that there is an initial affirmative
determination that handover cells have been changed (i.e., a handover event)
(Fig. 14: S61).
The Appellants’ additional arguments that Takano’s reception quality
threshold is not a correlation threshold (App. Br. 6) are misplaced since the
Examiner relies on Datta for describing a correlation threshold, not Takano.
Ans. 4 (citing Datta ¶¶ 0037-38; Fig. 3), 19-20. For this same reason, we are
not persuaded by the Appellants’ assertion that the resulting combination of
Takano with Datta or Walton would simply provide means for adjusting a
threshold associated with mobile station scheduling as taught by Datta or
Walton while also providing means for adjusting reception quality threshold
associated with capacity control as taught by Takano. App. Br. 6.
The Appellants argue that there is no motivation to modify Datta in
view of Walton because it would render Datta ineffective for its intended
use. App. Br. 6. The Appellants assert that Datta teaches increasing a
threshold to reduce the likelihood of false detection and is solely concerned
with reducing false detection. App Br. 6; Reply Br. 3. The Appellants further
assert that reducing the threshold as taught by Walton would necessarily
increase the likelihood of false detection and exacerbate the false detection
problem of Datta. App Br. 6-7. The Appellants also argue that Walton and
Datta teach away from each other because each are concerned with solving
opposite aspects of a scheduling problem. Reply Br. 3-4. Appellants further
argue that while Walton and Datta arguably describe a tradeoff between the
probability of missed and false detection, it is a conflicting tradeoff as the
Appeal 2011-002595
Application 11/286,974

6
threshold can only be used to reduce the likelihood of false detection or
increase the likelihood of false detection. App. Br. 7.
We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ arguments. The teachings of
Datta are not as limited as the Appellants suggest. Rather, we agree with and
adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings that Datta describes a broader
adaptive threshold technique of scaling the threshold value that includes
scaling up (i.e., increasing) or scaling down (i.e., decreasing) and also
teaches that varying the threshold would have a proportional impact on
missed transmissions and an inverse impact on false alarms. Ans. 20-21
(citing ¶¶ 0019, 0020, 0038; Fig. 3: adaptive threshold calculation; Table 1;
Figs 4-5).
The Appellants also argue that there is no motivation to combine
Datta, Walton and Takano because each reference describes different
thresholds associated with different wireless operations executed by
different elements of a wireless system. App. Br. 7. The Appellants more
specifically argue that: 1) Takano is directed to CDMA (Code Division
Multiple Access) technology which is unrelated to and incompatible with the
HSDPA (High Speed Downlink Packet Access) specific technology of Datta
or Walton; 2) Takano’s solution solves a CDMA-specific problem that does
not exist for HSDPA; and 3) the characteristics and purpose of Takano’s
reception quality threshold differ from the characteristics and purpose of the
detection thresholds disclosed by Datta and Walton. Reply Br. 2.
The Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. First, the Appellants do
not direct us to persuasive authority that demonstrates that the teachings of
prior art references must address the same problems or have the same
purpose in order for the references to be combined. To the extent that the
Appeal 2011-002595
Application 11/286,974

7
Appellants argue that Takano is non-analogous art, the Appellants have not
sufficiently explained why Takano is not from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed, or why Takano is still not reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. See
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Moreover, and contrary to
the Appellants’ arguments, the following disclosure from the Appellants’
Specification indicates that CDMA and HSDPA technology are indeed
related: “High Speed Downlink Packet Access (HSDPA) is [a] packet data
service offered in Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA)
networks.” Spec. ¶ 003; see also Spec. ¶ 002 (“The present invention relates
generally to Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) systems, and more
particularly, to radio resource control signaling in CDMA systems.”).
The Appellants’ arguments addressing independent claims 16 and 39
are substantially the same as the arguments presented addressing claim 1.
Compare App. Br. 7-8 with App. Br. 5-6. For all these reasons we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 16 and 39 as unpatentable
over Datta, Walton and Takano.
The Appellants present arguments addressing dependent claims 2, 7,
8, 25, 26, 31, 32, 48, 49, 54 and 55. App. Br. 8-9. However, the Appellants’
arguments merely summarize the teachings of the references, and assert that
the references do not teach the limitations, but do not explain the supposed
errors in the Examiner’s findings that the references as combined teach or
suggest the limitations of the dependent claims. See FOA 4-5, 9, 11; Ans. 6,
10-12. The Appellants do not present separate arguments addressing the
limitations of dependent claims 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 22-24, 36, 37, 40, 41, 45-
47, 59 and 60. Accordingly, for the same reasons as claims 1, 16 and 39, we
Appeal 2011-002595
Application 11/286,974

8
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 22-26,
31, 32, 36, 37, 40, 41, 45-49, 54, 55, 59 and 60 as being unpatentable over
Datta, Walton and Takano.
The Appellants do not present arguments addressing the limitations of
dependent claims 4-6, 19-21, 28-30, 42-44 and 51-53 and the additional
cited prior art. Accordingly, for the same reasons as claims 1, 16 and 39, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of: claims 4-6, 28-30 and 51-53 as being
unpatentable over Datta, Walton, Takano and Petrovic; claims 19, 21, 42 and
44 as being unpatentable over Datta, Walton, Takano and Hackett; and
claims 20 and 43 as being unpatentable over Datta, Walton, Takano and
Suzuki.
Claims 9-11, 33-35 and 56-58
Dependent claim 9 recites: “decreasing the correlation threshold for a
predetermined time period.” The Examiner finds that Seol teaches setting the
threshold for a predetermined transmission data packet size, and therefore
teaches adjusting the threshold for a predetermined time period used for the
transmission of the size of the data packet. Ans. 24 (citing Seol ¶¶ 0054-
0056). The Examiner further finds that the duration of the transmission time
period required is based on the data rate (Rate Control Bit/RCB). Ans. 25
(citing Seol ¶¶ 0062, 0066, 0067).
We agree with the Appellants’ arguments that Seol’s teachings of
considering the length (i.e., size) of a transmission data packet when
determining a threshold, does not define or otherwise determine how long a
particular threshold is decreased. Reply Br. 4. The Examiner does not direct
us to a sufficient factual basis to show that Seol teaches adjusting the
threshold for the duration of the transmission time period required for
Appeal 2011-002595
Application 11/286,974

9
transmitting the data packet of a predetermined size, as found by the
Examiner. Rather, Seol teaches that a Rate Control Bit (RCB) is received
from a base station (Fig. 3: S31); the mobile station determines the state of
the RCB as ‘INCREASE’, ‘HOLD’ or ‘DECREASE’ by comparing the size
of the RCB signal to a first threshold (TH_) and comparing the phase of the
RCB signal to a second threshold (TH_) (Fig 3: S32); the data rate of the
packet data transmitted over the R-PDCH (Reverse Packet Data Channel) is
set based on the determined state of the RCB (Fig. 3: S33) and the mobile
station transmits packet data over the R-PDCH at the determined data rate
(Fig. 3: S34). ¶¶ 0050-54. Seol further teaches:
the method of the present invention considers the effect that
EP_SIZE [(size of encoder packet)] has on the sensitivity of the
system to an incorrect determination of the RCB state by a
mobile station. The first (TH_) and second (TH_) thresholds
are set such that each EP_SIZE has a corresponding “missing
probability” and “false alarm probability.” Specifically, a lower
“false alarm probability” is provided for greater EP_SIZE.

¶ 0055; see also ¶¶ 0027-0028; Table 1; ¶¶ 0056-0058.
For at least this reason we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 9-11, 33-35 and 56-58 as being unpatentable over Datta, Walton,
Takano and Seol.
Claims 14, 38 and 61
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that “the cited
references also fail to disclose changing the correlation threshold by an
amount based on the type of handover event, as required by claims 14 and
61.” App. Br. 9. The Appellants’ argument does not explain the supposed
errors in the Examiner’s findings that the references, as combined by the
Appeal 2011-002595
Application 11/286,974

10
Examiner, teach or suggest the limitations of dependent claims 14 and 61.
See FOA 13; Ans. 14-15. The Appellants do not present substantive
arguments addressing the limitations of dependent claim 38. Accordingly,
for the same reasons as claims 1, 16 and 39, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 14, 38 and 61 as being unpatentable over Datta, Walton,
Takano and Seol.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 12-26, 28-
32, 36-49, 51-55 and 59-61.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-11, 33-35 and
56-58.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tj