Ex Parte Suzuki et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 201612818779 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/818,779 06/18/2010 124181 7590 03/30/2016 GOOGLE!fechnology Holdings LLC Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP 600 South Avenue West Westfield, NJ 07090 Takashi Suzuki 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. GOOGLE 3.0-1521 8531 EXAMINER NGUYEN, DINH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2016 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): eOfficeAction@ldlkm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TAKASHI SUZUKI, JAMES WOMACK, and GORDON YOUNG Appeal2014-005107 Application 12/818,779 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 22-25, which are all the claims pending in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Motorola Mobility LLC. Br. 2. 2 Claims 1-21 and 26-33 were previously canceled. Appeal2014-005107 Application 12/818, 779 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' present patent application relates to a mobile phone shortening the discontinuous reception (DRX) measurement cycle in response to cell signal quality falling below a threshold. Spec. i-f 11. Claim 22 is illustrative of the claimed invention and read as follows: 22. A method for improved measurement accuracy during discontinuous reception (DRX) on user equipment (UE), wherein the DRX has a measurement cycle for a DRX cycle comprising the steps of: checking whether a channel quality of a serving cell is lower than a first threshold for a predetermined time period; and if the channel quality of the serving cell is lower than a first threshold for the predetermined time period, shortening the measurement cycle to have a shorter measurement cycle than the DRX cycle for the DRX. The Examiner's Rejections Claims 22, 23, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ruohonen (US 6,377,803 Bl; Apr. 23, 2002) and Sammour (US 2008/0101268 Al; May 1, 2008). See Final Act. 2--4. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ruohonen, Sammour, Kuchibhotla (US 2007/0183355 Al; Aug. 9, 2007), and Dalsgaard (US 2007/0291729 Al; Dec. 20, 2007). See Final Act. 4-5. ANALYSIS Appellants argue the Examiner erred rejecting claim 22 because Ruohonen and Sammour do not teach or suggest: 2 Appeal2014-005107 Application 12/818, 779 checking whether a channel quality of a serving cell is lower than a first threshold for a predetermined time period; and if the channel quality of the serving cell is lower than a first threshold for the predetermined time period, shortening the measurement cycle to have a shorter measurement cycle than the DRX cycle forthe DRX. See Br. 5-8. In particular, Appellants argue the Examiner concedes Ruohonen does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations, instead relying on Sammour for these limitations. Br. 5. Appellants argue Sammour does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations because Sammour teaches shortening the measurement cycle of the DRX cycle in response to detecting that the user equipment is close to the cell edge (i.e., the edge of the base station's coverage area) instead of in response to detecting cell quality falling below a threshold. Br. 5-6 (citing Sammour i-f 65). We disagree. As found by the Examiner, Sammour teaches that as the user equipment moves to the cell edge, the user equipment shortens the DRX measurement cycle. Ans. 2 (citing Sammour if 65). As found by the Examiner (see Final Act. 3) and as conceded by Appellants (see Br. 7), an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that determining whether a mobile device is close to a cell edge may be done by measuring transmission quality. Moreover, Appellants' Specification supports this finding, disclosing detecting handover conditions (i.e., moving towards the edge of one base station's broadcast area while moving closer to another base station's broadcast area) by measuring signal quality from the serving cell and its neighboring cells. Spec. i-fi-178-83, Fig. 4a. Appellants also argue Sammour teaches away from shortening the DRX cycle in response to detecting that cell quality has fallen below a threshold because Sammour teaches disabling DRX mode in response to 3 Appeal2014-005107 Application 12/818, 779 detecting the quality has fallen below a threshold. Br. 6 (citing Sammour i-f 66). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. As noted above, Sammour teaches shortening the DRX measurement cycle in response to determining that user equipment is approaching the cell edge, which can be achieved by measuring cell quality. See Sammour i-f 65. Sammour further teaches disabling DRX when a neighboring cell's measurements are strong and the serving cell's measurements are weak. See Sammour i-f 66. The determinations described in Sammour may involve two separate thresholds---one for determining that the measurement cycle for the DRX cycle should be shortened and one for determining that DRX should be disabled-which the language of claim 22 does not preclude. Indeed, Appellants' Specification describes using two thresholds, disclosing the user equipment may use one threshold to determine shorter measurement cycles for the DRX cycle are needed (as recited in claim 22), and a separate, lower threshold for determining DRX should be disabled and handover should be initiated. Spec. i-fi-188-94. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred finding Sammour teaches the disputed limitations. CONCLUSIONS On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 22. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ruohonen and Sammour. We also sustain the rejection of claims 23 and 25, which were not argued separately. See Br. 8. Appellants argue the patentability of claim 24 based on the same reasons presented for claim 22. See Br. 8-9. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 24 4 Appeal2014-005107 Application 12/818, 779 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ruohonen, Sammour, Kuchibhotla, and Dalsgaard for the same reasons. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 22-25. 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 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation