Ex Parte Balasubramanian

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2018

13397532 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/397,532 02/15/2012
81310 7590 03/30/2018
Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & G (Apple)
P.O. BOX 398
Austin, TX 78767-0398
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sanjeevi Balasubramanian
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.
7888-21100 1292
EXAMINER
KASSIM, KHALED M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2018 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
ptomhkkg@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANJEEVI BALASUBRAMANIAN
Appeal2017-007149
Application 13/397,532 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JAMES R. HUGHES, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-17, which constitute all of the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellant identifies Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-007149
Application 13/397,532
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
Appellant's invention relates to managing, within mobile
communications user equipment, a packet service (PS) call (e.g., a web page
download) so as to improve the likelihood that a call setup phase of a circuit
service (CS) call (e.g., a live spoken conversation) will be completed. Spec.
i-f 2. According to the Specification, when mobile communications user
equipment is in an area of poor radio frequency (RF) coverage, there is a
relatively high probability that a CS call will be dropped by the network,
particularly if a PS call is requested by a background task (such as an
application) running on the user equipment while a CS call is in its setup
phase. Id. i-f 1. Accordingly, Appellant's invention involves the "timely
blocking" of PS calls under certain conditions as recited in the claims. Id. i-fi-1
1-2.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows:
1. A method for managing, within a mobile
communications user equipment, a packet service, PS, call, the
method comprising:
while a circuit service, CS, call is in its call setup phase,
receiving a request to establish a PS call, from a background
task running in the mobile communications user equipment;
and
during the call setup phase, and in response to receiving
the request from the background task, starting a count down
timer and blocking the PS call until the count down timer has
expired.
App. Br. 14 (emphasis added).
2
Appeal2017-007149
Application 13/397,532
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims:
Jang et al.
Hori et al.
Okada
US 2003/0232629 Al
US 2005/0208948 Al
US 2005/0215241 Al
The Rejections on Appeal
Dec. 18, 2003
Sept. 22, 2005
Sept. 29, 2005
Claims 13, 14, and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Jang and Hori. Final Act. 3--4.
Claims 1-12, 15, and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Jang, Hori, and Okada. Id. at 4--9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments presented in this appeal. Any other arguments Appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). With respect to the obviousness rejections of
claims 1, 4--8, 10-15, and 17, we agree with the Examiner's findings and
conclusions and adopt them as our own. With respect to the rejection of
claims 2, 3, 9, and 16, however, we are persuaded by Appellant's arguments
that the Examiner erred. We provide the following discussion to highlight
and address specific arguments.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-15, and 17
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests "during the call setup phase [of a CS call] ... starting a count
3
Appeal2017-007149
Application 13/397,532
down timer and blocking the PS call until the count down timer has
expired," as recited in claim 1. 2 App. Br. 7-11 (emphasis added); Reply Br.
2-3. Appellant argues that Jang teaches an ongoing PS call made
"dormant," not a requested PS call that is blocked, as in claim 1. App. Br.
6-7 (emphasis added). Appellant further argues that Hori teaches
"reserving" a PS call resource to prevent "resource seizure" from occurring
during a CS call, not "blocking" a PS call as recited in claim 1. Id. at 7-8.
Accordingly, Appellant argues the references fail to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation. On the record before us, however, we are not persuaded
of error.
As the Examiner finds, Jang teaches that in response to a request to
admit a CS (voice) call while engaged in a PS (data) call, a message will be
sent to block the mobile station from initiating any PS call for a
predetermined period of time. Ans. 3--4 (citing Jang i-fi-15, 10). Jang states
that the "communication channel to be used for the voice call" is
"release[d]," i.e., the data call is ended, or disconnected. Jang i15. The data
call is blocked during the voice call, and after the voice call is completed,
the "data call is reconnected." Id. As the Examiner further finds, Jang
teaches a "time duration" (countdown timer) during which no PS call may
be originated. Id. i-f 10.
Appellant contends that Jang does not teach the PS call request
occurring during a CS call setup (i.e., does not teach that the CS call occurs
first). App. Br. 7-8. The Examiner, however, finds this element taught in
2 Appellant argues independent claims 1, 7, and 13 as a group, and we
choose claim 1 as representative of the group. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(iv).
4
Appeal2017-007149
Application 13/397,532
Hori. Ans. 4--5. As the Examiner finds, Hori teaches preventing resource
seizure by a PS call during a voice (CS) call, including during CS call setup
phase. Hori, Abstract, i-fi-f 13, 33-37, 45. Appellant's argument regarding
Jang's failure to teach this element is, therefore, not persuasive of error in
the combination. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references."). For the same reason, Appellant's argument
(App. Br. 9) that Jang and Hori fail to teach that the claimed steps (including
PS call request from a background task) occur "within a mobile
communications user equipment" also is unpersuasive of error, because the
Examiner relies on the combination of those references with Okada as
teaching that limitation. See id.; see also Ans. 4--5.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 7, and 13. Other than dependent claims 2, 3, 9, and 16
(discussed below), Appellant does not argue any of the remaining claims
separately. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 1,
4--8, 10-15, and 17.
Dependent Claims 2, 3, 9, and 16
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests the "background task has a lower priority for establishing a PS call
than that of one other background task which is also running in the user
5
Appeal2017-007149
Application 13/397,532
equipment," as recited in dependent claim 2. 3 App. Br. 12 (emphasis
added); Reply Br. 3. Specifically, Appellant contends the language of claim
2 expressly requires comparing the relative priority of two background tasks
running in the user equipment, and that the prior art only teaches (generally)
a background service. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 3. We agree.
In the Answer, the Examiner does not address Appellant's argument,
but instead asserts the rejection of the dependent claims should be sustained
"[a]t least forthe same reasons [as] the independent claim[s]." Ans. 7. The
independent claims, however, do not include the priority comparison as
recited in dependent claim 2. In the Final Action, the Examiner cites Jang
paragraphs 5 and 10, and Okada paragraph 79, as teaching the limitations of
claim 2. Final Act. 6. Okada paragraph 79, however, only refers to
"background service" (in the singular form), not comparing relative priority
of background tasks. Jang's paragraphs 5 and 10, in tum, relate to priority
of PS and CS calls (as discussed in the preceding section). On this record,
the Examiner has not explained how Jang, alone or in combination with
Okada (and/or Hori), teaches the claimed priority comparison of background
tasks.
Accordingly, we are persuaded of error. We do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 9, and 16.
3 Appellant groups dependent claim 2 with claims 9 and 16, which include
limitations commensurate in scope with claim 2. Claim 3 depends from
claim 2 and, therefore, also includes the disputed limitation. Accordingly,
we choose claim 2 as representative of the group of the foregoing claims. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
6
Appeal2017-007149
Application 13/397,532
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4--8, 10-15,
and 17, but reverse the decision rejecting claims 2, 3, 9, and 16.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7