AT&T Intellectual Property I, L.P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 8, 2022

2020004568 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2022)

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. 14/802,508 07/17/2015 Bo Han 2015-0007 9360 55343 7590 03/08/2022 AT&T Legal Department - AT&W Attn: Patent Docketing Room 2A 212 One AT&T Way Bedminster, NJ 07921 EXAMINER ZHANG, RUIHUA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2416 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/08/2022 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): Hmckee@thepatentattorneys.com docketInternal@thepatentattorneys.com eOfficeActionDocs@att.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BO HAN, SHUAI HAO, LUSHENG JI, and FENG QIAN Appeal 2020-004568 Application 14/802,508 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-12, 17, 18, 21, 23-25, and 27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as AT&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-004568 Application 14/802,508 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to energy savings on multihomed mobile devices using a dynamically adjusted inactivity timer. Energy consumption of cellular interfaces on multihomed mobile devices, such as smartphones, tablets and laptops can be improved by adjusting the inactivity timer of the cellular interface of the mobile devices based on the on/off status of noncellular interface(s) on the mobile devices. Possible near-future data packets can be transmitted or received on the non-cellular interfaces that co- exist on the mobile devices and thus the inactivity timer of the cellular interface may be dynamically and more efficiently adjusted, based on the on/off status of non-cellular interface(s). If the non-cellular interface is available on the mobile device, then the inactivity timer can be set to be shorter than if only the cellular interface is available. See Spec., Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: a base station setting an inactivity timer for a mobile device having a cellular radio interface and a non-cellular radio interface based on a status of the non-cellular radio interface in the mobile device; the base station setting the inactivity timer to a first value responsive to the status of the non-cellular radio interface indicating the non-cellular radio interface is turned off; and the base station setting the inactivity timer to a second value, smaller than the first value, responsive to the status of the non-cellular radio interface indicating the noncellular radio interface is turned on; wherein the inactivity timer determines how long the mobile device remains in a connected state after a communication between the base station and the mobile device ends. Appeal 2020-004568 Application 14/802,508 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Taniguchi US 2007/0060126 Al Mar. 15, 2007 Watfa US 2014/0082697 Al Mar. 20, 2014 Mildh US 2015/0215225 Al July 30, 2015 Bergström US 2016/0050709 A1 Feb. 18, 2016 Fong US 9,270,347 B2 Feb. 23, 2016 Cai US 2016/0143085 A1 May 19, 2016 Schwarzbauer US 2016/0198364 Al July 7, 2016 Niu US 2017/0223698 Al Aug. 3, 2017 REJECTIONS Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1, 3-5, 10, 12 102(a)(2) Cai 8, 17 103 Cai, Bergström, Fong 6, 18 103 Cai, Mildh 7 103 Cai, Taniguchi, Schwarzbauer 11 103 Cai, Watfa 9, 21 103 Cai, Bergström 23, 24 103 Cai, Mildh, Bergström 25 103 Cai, Taniguchi, Schwarzbauer, Bergström 27 103 Cai, Niu OPINION 1. Does Cai disclose “an inactivity timer” as required by claim 1? The Examiner finds that Cai discloses a wireless communication system that provides power saving features as exampled in a LTE base station in conjunction with or tightly coupled to WLAN operations. Ans. 4 Appeal 2020-004568 Application 14/802,508 4 (citing Spec., Fig. 1). The Examiner finds that the power saving features are configured by the base station in a form of Discontinuous Reception (DRX) configuration, i.e., setting a DRX cycle for a UE with a DRX On duration and a DRX Off duration, wherein the DRX On duration defines a UE monitoring window for a RRC connected state, the UE may receive a downlink transmission, and the DRX Off duration defines a power saving time, the UE may turn off its radio in order to save battery power. Ans. 4 (citing Spec., para. 21). The Examiner finds, that as such, the setting of the DRX On duration would allow the UE to monitor (or determine) how long it can remain in a connected state between the base station and the UE. Id. The claim also requires the determination for how long the UE can remain in a connected state is from after a communication between the base station and the UE ends. Id. The Examiner further finds that the language “after a communication between the base station and the UE ends” is so broad that it does not align a time point with when a communication ends relative to or associated with an inactivity timer. Id. The Examiner finds that for example, in Cai, the UE is required to receive a DRX configuration first before the UE can operate the power saving in accordance with the received DRX configuration parameters. Id. The Examiner concludes that the DRX On duration in Cai is an inactivity timer function to determine how long the UE can remain in a connected state after a communication between the base station and the UE ends (e.g., after the UE received the DRX configuration from the base station). Id. The Examiner finds that the claim does not restrict if there is any communication between the base station and the UE during the period of the UE being in the connected state. Id. Appeal 2020-004568 Application 14/802,508 5 Appellant argues inter alia that claim 1 requires that “the inactivity timer determines how long the mobile device remains in a connected state after a communication between the base station and the mobile device ends.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant points us to the Specification stating that after a communication burst ends, the mobile device remains in the RRC CONNECTED state for a certain period of time controlled by the inactivity timer. Id. (citing Spec., para. 1003). “The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is . . . an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is consistent with the specification.” Reply Br. 2 (citing In re Smith Int'l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1832-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re Suitco Surface, 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“claims should always be read in light of the specification”)). Appellant further argues that the plain meaning of the claim is that the UE remains in a connected state after the communication ends and the length of time the UE remains in the connected state is determined by the inactivity timer. Reply Br. 2. Appellant further argues that the DRX On duration is not an inactivity timer that determines how long the mobile device “remains in a connected state after a communication between the base station and the mobile device ends.” Id. A timer determining the DRX On duration determines simply how long the DRX may receive and decode a Downlink (DL) transmission. Reply Br. 2 (citing Cai, para. 2). The fact that a communication may occur during the DRX On period and the DRX On period then ends does not teach a timer that determines how long the mobile device “remains in a connected state.” Id. That would mean that the end of a DRX On period, which Appeal 2020-004568 Application 14/802,508 6 occurs randomly with respect to the end of a communication during the DRX On period, teaches an inactivity timer. Id. That is contrary to a broadest reasonable interpretation of “the inactivity timer determines how long the mobile device remains in a connected state after a communication between the base station and the mobile device ends.” Id. We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation while reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Specification states that after a communication burst ends, the mobile device remains in the RRC CONNECTED state for a certain period of time controlled by the inactivity timer. Spec. 1003. Claim 1 recites “wherein the inactivity timer determines how long the mobile device remains in a connected state after a communication between the base station and the mobile device ends.” See claim 1 (emphasis added). If we follow along with the logic presented by the Examiner (Ans. 4) that the DRX On constitutes the inactivity timer, wherein the DRX On as part of the DRX cycle is preconfigured by the base station (see Cai, paras. 2, 37), and also that the communication is tantamount with the communication from the base station to the UE prior to the UE configuration, then it would follow that the DRX On does not determine how long the mobile device remains in a connected state because the DRX On was preconfigured and send to the UE by the base station. See Cai paras., 2, 37. Thus, the base station determines in its pre-configuration how long the mobile device remains connected and not the DRX On (i.e., Appeal 2020-004568 Application 14/802,508 7 not the inactivity timer). Therefore, the Examiner’s claim construction of the term “inactive timer” is broad but unreasonable and is not read in light of the Specification. Accordingly, Cai does not disclose “an inactivity timer” as required by claim 1. 2. Does Cai disclose “the base station setting the inactivity timer to a second value, smaller than the first value, responsive to the status of the non-cellular radio interface indicating the noncellular radio interface is turned on” as required by claim 1? The Examiner further finds that Cai discloses that the base station sets the inactivity timer to a second value smaller than the first value, responsive to the status of the non-cellular radio interface indicating the non-cellular radio interface is turned on, for example, in Figure 2, the DRX On duration 212 for LTE interface (wherein the duration 212 is smaller than the duration 214) and the TIM transmission period 222 for WLAN interface both are up to monitor both the LTE carrier and the WLAN carrier at the same time and turn off part of RF or baseband circuit components when the UE finishes monitoring on both carriers. Ans. 5-6 (citing Cai, para. 38). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s finding is contrary to the teachings of Cai because while the duration of LTE DRX 212 is shorter than LTE DRX 214, the different lengths have nothing to do with the status of the non-cellular radio interface. Reply Br. 3. Instead, Appellant explains, Cai explicitly teaches that the “[o]n duration 214 is extended a bit longer due to some events such as DL data reception or UL data transmission” and not because of the status of the WLAN. Id. (citing Cai, para. 38). We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument because Cai explicitly discloses that the DRX On is extended longer in response to DL data Appeal 2020-004568 Application 14/802,508 8 reception or UL data transmission, and is silent regarding being in response to the status of the WLAN. See Cai, para. 38. Thus, Cai does not disclose “the base station setting the inactivity timer to a second value, smaller than the first value, responsive to the status of the non-cellular radio interface indicating the noncellular radio interface is turned on” as required by claim 1. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the rejection of claims 3-12, 17-18, 21, 23-25, and 27. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3-12, 17-18, 21, 23-25, and 27 are REVERSED. Appeal 2020-004568 Application 14/802,508 9 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-5, 10, 12 102(a)(2) Cai 1, 3-5, 10, 12 8, 17 103 Cai, Bergström, Fong 8, 17 6, 18 103 Cai, Mildh 6, 18 7 103 Cai, Taniguchi, Schwarzbauer 7 11 103 Cai, Watfa 11 9, 21 103 Cai, Bergström 9, 21 23, 24 103 Cai, Mildh, Bergström 23, 24 25 103 Cai, Taniguchi, Schwarzbauer, Bergström 25 27 103 Cai, Niu 27 Overall Outcome 1, 3-12, 17- 18, 21, 23- 25, 27 REVERSED