Ex Parte Abraham et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2018

12885327 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/885,327 09/17/2010
15055 7590 03/26/2018
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Santosh Paul Abraham
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.
093170US 8479
EXAMINER
RIV AS, SALVADORE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2018 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):
qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com
P AIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANTOSH PAUL ABRAHAM,
SAMBER VERMANI,
MOHAMMAD HOSSEIN TAGHA VI NASRABADI, and
HEMANTH SAMP ATH
Appeal2017-002469
Application 12/885,327 1
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-23, and 25-55, which are all of the claims pending in
the application.
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to scheduling simultaneous communications of
multiple pairs of wireless nodes in a wireless network. Spec. Abstract.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is QUALCOMM
Incorporated. App. Br. 4.
Appeal2017-002469
Application 12/885,327
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A method for wireless communications, comprising:
transmitting an initial schedule indicating when each
apparatus, of a plurality of apparatuses, is to transmit a pilot and
when each apparatus is to transmit a report of results generated
based on multiple transmitted pilots;
receiving results reported from the plurality of
apparatuses;
selecting at least one pair of the apparatuses to be
scheduled for simultaneous communications, based at least on
the reported results; and
transmitting another schedule indicating the selected at
least one pair of apparatuses scheduled for simultaneous
communications,
wherein the results reported by each of the apparatuses
comprise information about inteiference caused by one or more
pilots received at that apparatus.
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, 18, 21, 22, 28, 31, and 32 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Fukui
(US 2008/0248824 Al; published Oct. 9, 2008), Laroia (US 2004/0166886
Al; published Aug. 26, 2004), and Nanda (US 2005/0124370 Al; published
June 9, 2005). Final Act. 3-19.
Claims 3, 13, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Fukui, Laroia, Nanda, and Prakash
(WO 2007 /050888 Al; published May 3, 2007). Final Act. 20-21.
2
Appeal2017-002469
Application 12/885,327
Claims 5-7, 15-17, and 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Fukui, Laroia, Nanda, and
Kim (US 2007 /0223423 Al; published Sept. 27, 2007). Final Act. 21-24.
Claims 9, 19, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Fukui, Laroia, Nanda, and
Papasakellariou (US 2007/0104151 Al; published May 10, 2007). Final
Act. 24--26.
Claims 10, 20, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Fukui, Laroia, Nanda, and Verikoukis
(US 2012/0082200 Al; published Apr. 5, 2012). Final Act. 26-27.
Claims 33, 40, 47, 54, and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Fukui, Prakash, and Laroia. Final
Act. 28--41.
Claims 34, 39, 41, 46, 48, and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Fukui, Prakash, Laroia,
and Kim. Final Act. 41--44.
Claims 35, 36, 42, 43, 49, and 50 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Fukui, Prakash,
Laroia, and Garmonov (US 2007/0189148 Al; published Aug. 16, 2007).
Final Act. 44--4 7.
Claims 37, 44, and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Fukui, Prakash, Laroia, and Nanda.
Final Act. 47--48.
Claims 38, 45, and 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Fukui, Prakash, Laroia, and Lindgren
(US 2011/0021163 Al; published Jan. 27, 2011). Final Act. 48-50.
3
Appeal2017-002469
Application 12/885,327
ANALYSIS 2
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, "results reported by each of the
apparatuses comprise information about interference caused by one or more
pilots received at that apparatus."
The Examiner finds Laroia discloses the argued limitation. Final Act.
5 (citing Laroia i-f 4); see also Final Act. 50-52, Response to Arguments
(citing Laroia i-fi-157, 65); and Ans. 4--5.
Appellants argue "Laroia teaches measuring interference by using
pilots, but does not teach or suggest measuring or reporting interference
caused by the pilots themselves (e.g., a pilot transmitted by one apparatus
causes interference to another apparatus's transmission)." App. Br. 13.
Appellants also argue "Laroia merely discloses a method for measuring
interference through the use of pilots transmitted by the base station, but
does not disclose measuring or reporting interference that is caused by these
pilots themselves." Id. at 14. See also Reply Br. 2-3.
Laroia discloses a wireless transmitter communicating results, to a
base station, of measured noise levels at two different pilot signal powers.
Laroia i-f 57. Thus, the wireless terminal transmits to the base station
information that enables the base station to determine the received SNR
(signal to noise ratio) of its communications to the wireless terminal. Id.
2 Appellants argue claims 1, 11, 21, 31, and 32 collectively based on
arguments presented for claim 1. Appellants argue the remaining claims
under separate headings but base those arguments on the claim 1 arguments,
adding that the additional references also do not teach the limitation missing
from claim 1. See App. Br. 11-22; Reply Br. 2--4. Accordingly, our
decision turns on Appellants' arguments with respect to claim 1 and, except
for our ultimate conclusion, we do not further address the remaining claims.
4
Appeal2017-002469
Application 12/885,327
The Examiner finds this meets the claimed "information about interference
caused by one or more pilots received at that apparatus." Ans. 4--5.
We see no error in the Examiner's findings.
Appellants' argument that Laroia does not disclose "a pilot
transmitted by one apparatus causes interference to another apparatus's
transmission" is unpersuasive of Examiner error because this argument is
not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Reply Br. 2. The claim
recites an apparatus reporting "information about interference caused by one
or more pilots received at that apparatus," which does not require the pilot to
originate from "another" apparatus. We also do not agree that Laroia "does
not disclose measuring or reporting interference that is caused by these pilots
themselves." Id. 3. According to Laroia, the results of measured noise level
information that is sent from a wireless terminal to a base station includes a
pilot signal component. See Laroia Fig. 3. Hence, the measurement is
caused at least in part by the pilot signal interfering with the data signal. See
id. ii 65.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-23, and 25-55.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5