Ex Parte Marinier et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 201612817479 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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. 12/817,479 06/17/2010 Paul Marinier IDC-10123US02 5627 24374 7590 12/21/2016 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. DEPT. ICC UNITED PLAZA 30 SOUTH 17TH STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 EXAMINER REDDIVALAM, SRINIVASA R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2477 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/21/2016 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): eoffice @ volpe-koenig. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL MARINIER, STEPHEN E. TERRY, and JEAN-LOUIS GAUVREAU Appeal 2016-002346 Application 12/817,479 Technology Center 2400 JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-002346 Application 12/817,479 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 34—50. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Exemplary claim 34 under appeal reads as follows: 34. A wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising: an antenna; and a processor configured to monitor a plurality of downlink component carriers for control information and implement discontinuous reception (DRX) for the plurality of downlink component carriers, wherein a single DRX inactivity timer is used for all of the plurality of downlink component carriers. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 34, 35, 37—41, 43—47, 49, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fujitsu (3GPP TSG-RAN1 #56bis Rl- 091503: Anchor component carrier and preferred control signal structure, (Jan 2009)), in view of Du et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0267957 Al; published Nov. 3,2011). Claims 36, 42, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fujitsu, Du, and further in view of Khandekar et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0296389 Al; published Nov. 25, 2010). 2 Appeal 2016-002346 Application 12/817,479 ANALYSIS1 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments (Appeal Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We note that the Examiner has identified the relevant portions of Fujitsu and Du and has provided sufficient explanation with corresponding citations to various parts of the references for teaching the feature disputed in Appellants’ contentions (Final Act. 2—9; Ans. 5—7). We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. Appellants contend that the combination of Fujitsu and Du does not teach or suggest a “single” DRX inactivity timer. Br. 10-14. In particular, Appellants contend that in certain embodiments of Du, multiple timers may be suggested. The Examiner finds, an embodiment of Du that discloses “the inactivity timer” at various places, e.g., paragraphs 75, 76, 87, 109 — Ans. 10—12. Examiner equates “the inactivity timer” of Du to the claimed “single timer.” We agree. We observe no Reply Brief is of record to rebut the Examiner’s findings and responses to Appellants’ arguments about the disputed features. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive rebuttal evidence or argument to persuade us otherwise, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying 1 Appellants focus their contentions on claim 34. Br. 10—14. Separate patentability is not argued for claims 35—50. 3 Appeal 2016-002346 Application 12/817,479 reasoning, which are incorporated herein by reference. Consequently, we sustain the rejections of claims 34—50. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 34—50 are 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). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation