Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2016

13077745 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/077,745 03/31/2011
57035 7590 03/25/2016
KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC
C/O CPA Global
P.O. BOX 52050
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yujian Zhang
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.
P36898 6092
EXAMINER
LAMONT, BENJAMIN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2016 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):
triddle@kdbfirm.com
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
docketing@kdbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUJIAN ZHANG, XIANGYING YANG, JING ZHU,
XUE YANG, EMILY QI, and CARLOS CORDEIRO
Appeal2014-007382
Application 13/077, 7 45
Technology Center 2400
Before DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Intel Corporation. (Br.
2.)
Appeal2014-007382
Application 13/077,745
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method for wireless communications, comprising:
determining setup information of a user equipment (UE),
wherein the setup information includes identification of a
plurality of radios;
detecting in-device coexistence interference by the UE,
wherein the UE is configured to communicate by a first radio
using a first wireless protocol and a second radio using a second
wireless protocol;
transmitting in-device coexistence interference
information to a receiver to suggest a first time-division
multiplexing (TDM) pattern, wherein the in-device coexistence
interference information indicates a subset of allowed hybrid
automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes; and
receiving, by the UE, a discontinuous reception (DRX)
configuration to monitor a physical downlink control channel
(PDCCH) discontinuously; wherein the DR_X configuration
comprises a second TDM pattern to operate the first radio
during a first duration and to provide an opportunity to operate
the second radio during a second duration.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dayal (US 2011/0243047 Al; published Oct. 6, 2011) and
Seok (US 2010/0031110 Al; published Feb. 4, 2010). (Final Act. 3-13.)
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dayal and Seok, in combination with an additional
reference. (Id. at 14.)
2
Appeal2014-007382
Application 13/077,745
ISSUES
The issues raised by Appellants' arguments are:
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Seok teaches or suggests "the
in-device coexistence interference information indicates a subset of allowed
hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes," as recited in claim 1,
and similarly recited in claims 10, 15, and 18?
2. Did the Examiner err by improperly combining Dayal and Seok
to conclude that claims 1, 10, 15, and 18 would have been obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Action (Final Act. 3-14) from which this appeal is
taken, the Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2 (mailed Aug. 12, 2013)), and the
findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 4--7). We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
"indicat[ing] a subset of allowed [HARQ] processes"
Appellants argue Seok does not teach or suggest "the in-device
coexistence interference information indicates a subset of allowed hybrid
automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes," as recited in claim 1, and
similarly recited in claims 10, 15, and 18. (Br. 14--15.) Specifically,
3
Appeal2014-007382
Application 13/077,745
Appellants argue Seok's HARQ acknowledgement does not "indicate[] that
any particular HARQ processes are allowed." (Id. at 15.)
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Seok
teaches transmission of a HARQ acknowledgement in response to a received
HARQ process block. (Ans. 5 (citing Seok i-f 138); Final Act. 5.) The
Examiner further finds, and we agree, that the HARQ acknowledgement
indicates subsets of allowed HARQ processes because the HARQ
acknowledgement verifies the successful transmission of a HARQ process
block. (Ans. 5; Seok i-f 133-34.)
Appellants' argument that Seok' s HARQ acknowledgement does not
"even pertain to the concept of the allowability of HARQ processes" (Br.
15) is not persuasive. Seok's HARQ acknowledgement "indicates" an
"allowed" HARQ process as recited by the claim because the HARQ
acknowledgement is transmitted in response to a successfully implemented
HARQ process. (Seok i-f 133-34.) That is, the HARQ acknowledgement
indicates the successful use, and therefore the allowability, of a HARQ
process because it is a response to a successful HARQ process.
Further, Appellants' arguments that Seok's HARQ acknowledgement
does not indicate "any particular HARQ processes" (Br. 15) are not
persuasive. We observe that the claim recites indication of "a subset" of
HARQ processes. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, a "subset"
encompasses the entire set (i.e., it can be the same or smaller than a given
set). Accordingly, Seok's HARQ acknowledgement necessarily indicates
some subset of HARQ processes within the given set of all HARQ processes
because a subset of HARQ processes can be any or all HARQ processes.
Moreover, the Examiner finds Seok's HARQ acknowledgement is
4
Appeal2014-007382
Application 13/077,745
implemented for particular type of HARQ, stop-and-wait HARQ. (See Ans.
7 (citing Seok i-f 59); see also Seok i-f 130-31.) Seok's HARQ
acknowledgement, therefore, indicates the successful use of stop-and-wait
HARQ.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's finding
that the combination of Dayal and Seok teaches or suggests "the in-device
coexistence interference information indicates a subset of allowed hybrid
automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes," as recited in claim 1, and
similarly claims 10, 15, and 18.
Motivation to Combine Dayal and Seok
Appellants argue "a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be
motivated to combine the downlink bitmap in Seok with the uplink message
in Dayal" for two reasons. (Br. 16-17.) First, Appellants argue there is no
"logical basis for including [Seok's] HARQ reporting" messages in Dayal's
transmitted request message. (Id. at 16.) Second, Appellants argue there is
no "logical basis for implementing the group response scheme" transmitted
from Seok's base station by Dayal's user equipment. (Id. at 16-17.)
We are not persuaded. In identifying a reason that would have
prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the prior
art teachings, the Examiner must provide articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner finds, and
we agree, Dayal teaches a multi-radio wireless communication system which
transmits coexistence information in a message from user equipment to a
base station (i.e., a receiver). (Final Act. 4 (citing Dayal i-fi-171, 72, 81).) As
5
Appeal2014-007382
Application 13/077,745
discussed supra, the Examiner also finds Seok teaches transmission of
HARQ acknowledgement messages. (Ans. 5 (citing Seok i-f 138); Final Act.
5.) The Examiner combines Dayal's transmission with Seok's HARQ
acknowledgements in one message, reasoning that the combination
"minimize[ s] the number of messages that must be sent to the receiver."
(Ans. 6; Final Act. 5.)
Appellants' first argument identifying differences in the type of
messages sent by Dayal and Seok does not persuasively explain why a
person of ordinary skill would not have found it obvious to combine
different types of data into a consolidated message. (See Br. 16.) The
Examiner's reason to combine Dayal and Seok, minimizing sent messages,
has a rational underpinning because minimizing sent messages can decrease
the processing overhead required to send multiple individual messages. (See
Ans. 6.) Whether or not Seok's and Dayal's messages contain different
types of data, consolidating messages with different data types still
minimizes the number of sent messages.
Appellants secondly argue that there is no logical basis for
implementing Seok's group response scheme by Dayal's user equipment
because Seok teaches a group of HARQ acknowledgements from a base
station rather than individual HARQ acknowledgements from user
equipment. (Id. at 16-17.) However, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that
user equipment can transmit HARQ acknowledgements (Ans. 7 (citing Seok
i-f 210)) and that user equipment can transmit multiple HARQ messages (id.
(citing Seok i-fi-1 57, 59) ). Because Seok teaches user equipment can send
HARQ acknowledgements and multiple HARQ messages, and the
Examiner's motivation to consolidate messages has a rational underpinning
6
Appeal2014-007382
Application 13/077,745
as discussed supra, we are also persuaded that the Examiner provided a
rational underpinning for the consolidated message sent by Seok's user
equipment to include group HARQ acknowledgements.
Accordingly, we find the Examiner has articulated sufficient
reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the combination of Dayal
and Seok.
Claims 2-9, 11-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20
Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 2-
9, 11-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20, which depend directly or indirectly from claims
1, 10, 15, or 18. (Br. 17.) For the reasons set forth above, therefore, we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. See In re Lovin,
652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We conclude that the Board has
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require applicants to articulate more
substantive arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated
separately."). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims
2-9, 11-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20
is 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
7