Ex Parte Cai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2016

12052893 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/052,893 03/21/2008
82313 7590 03/23/2016
Conley Rose - BlackBerry Files
Attn: J. Robert Brown
5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Zhijun Cai
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.
33398-US-PAT
4214-07000
CONFIRMATION NO.
3239
EXAMINER
ESMAEILIAN, MAJID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2016 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):
ConleyRoseReporting@dfw.conleyrose.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZHIJUN CAI, JAMES EARL WOMACK, and YI YU
Appeal2014-004137
Application 12/052,893
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1 and 3-21. Claim 2 has been canceled.
Br. 5. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to user equipment including a
processor configured to promote scheduling a transmission of a series of
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Research In Motion
Limited. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-004137
Application 12/052,893
scheduling requests offset with a transmission of a series of sounding
reference symbols. Spec., Abstract. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as
follows:
1. A user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication
network, comprising:
a processor configured to transmit uplink scheduling
requests, wherein the processor is further configured to
schedule transmission of a series of uplink scheduling requests
offset in time with respect to transmission of a series of uplink
sounding reference symbols,
wherein the processor is further configured to apply a
time offset between the series of uplink scheduling requests
periodically transmitted by the UE and the series of uplink
sounding reference symbols periodically transmitted by the UE.
Rejection
Claims 1and3-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bertrand et al. (US 2009/0109908 Al, published Apr. 30,
2009) (hereinafter "Bertrand(!)") and Bertrand et al. (US 2008/0080472 Al,
published Apr. 3, 2008) (hereinafter "Bertrand(2)"). Final Act. 7-26.
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 Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the
reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2-26; Ans. 4--10. We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
2
Appeal2014-004137
Application 12/052,893
Claims 1, 3-11, 20, and 21
Appellants do not separately argue claims 1, 3-11, 20, and 21. See
Br. 10-12. We select claim 1 as representative. Accordingly, claims 3-11,
20, and 21 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Bertrand( 1) and
Bertrand(2) teaches or suggests "wherein the processor is further configured
to schedule transmission of a series of uplink scheduling requests offset in
time with respect to transmission of a series of uplink sounding reference
symbols," as recited in claim 1?
Appellants contend the combination of Bertrand(!) and Bertrand(2)
fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Br. 10-12. In particular,
Appellants contend Bertrand(!) does not teach that the user equipment (UE)
actually schedules the scheduling request indicator (SRI) and sounding
reference symbol (SRS) but, instead, teaches that they are transmitted based
on allocations that are configured semi-statically by the eNB. Br. 10 (citing
Bertrand(!) i-f 22).
We do not find Appellants' contentions persuasive. As Appellants
correctly note, Bertrand(!) teaches that the evolved NodeB ( eNB) allocates
resources to the user equipment for transmitting the scheduling request
indicator and the sounding reference symbol. See Bertrand i-f 22.
Bertrand(!) also teaches that "[b ]uffer logic 921 is controlled by processor
903 and is operable to store a pending scheduling request." Bertrand( 1)
i-f 73. Bertrand( 1) further teaches, in a second mode of operation, the
transmitter transmits both the scheduling request indicator and the sounding
3
Appeal2014-004137
Application 12/052,893
reference symbol in the same transmission instance when the buffer logic
indicates a pending scheduling request. Bertrand(!) i-f 74. Bertrand(!),
therefore, teaches that a pending scheduling request is stored until it can be
transmitted via the allocated resource - e.g., that the pending scheduling
request is scheduled for transmission. Further, as correctly found by the
Examiner (Ans. 5), Bertrand(!) teaches "each transmission instance consists
of two slots, where SRS is transmitted in one slot 502 and SRI is transmitted
in the other slot 503." Bertrand(!) i-f 38. We agree with the Examiner that:
Fig. 5 shows two separate slots, representing half of a subframe,
each having multiple resources, and located at two different
frequencies, and separated from one another on the Time axis
(i.e., offset in time). One slot is shown with its first resource
assigned for SRS transmissions and the other one is shown
having its resources assigned to SRI(SR).
Ans. 5 (citing Bertrand( 1) Fig. 5; i-f 3 8). As such, Bertrand( 1) teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation.
\Ve also do not find Appellants' contention (Br. 11-12) regarding the
rejection contravening legal precedence persuasive. Appellants rely on
Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782 (Fed. Cir. 1983), but that case
involved a much different situation. See Br. 12. In Schenck, "those skilled
in the art believed that damping was required in hard-bearing [wheel]
balancers," whereas the claimed invention eliminated that need for damping.
Id. at 785 (emphasis added). The court found that because the plaintiff's
removal of the "art-perceived need" for damping was "contrary to the
understanding and expectations of the art, the structure effectuating it would
not have been obvious to those skilled in the art." Id. By contrast,
Appellants provide no persuasive evidence that the prior art recognized a
need or requirement to concurrently transmit SRS and SRI transmissions,
4
Appeal2014-004137
Application 12/052,893
which their invention obviated. Rather, Appellants simply point to various
advantages related to avoiding concurrent SRS and SRI transmissions
altogether as compared to Bertrand( 1)' s teaching of avoiding the concurrent
transmission of SRS and SRI transmissions in various circumstances.
Schenck therefore does not provide significant support for Appellants'
position.
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Bertrand( 1) and
Bertrand(2) teaches or suggests "wherein the processor is further configured
to apply a time offset between the series of uplink scheduling requests
periodically transmitted by the UE and the series of uplink sounding
reference symbols periodically transmitted by the UE," as recited in claim 1?
Appellants contend the combination of Bertrand(!) and Bertrand(2)
fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Br. 12-13. Appellants
contend the applied references:
[F]ail to provide any evidence that would lead one of ordinary
skill in the art to arrive at a UE configured to apply a time offset
between a series of uplink scheduling requests periodically
transmitted by the UE and a series of uplink sounding reference
symbols periodically transmitted by the UE.
Br. 13.
We do not find Appellants' contention persuasive. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Bertrand( 1) teaches that the UE transmits the sounding
reference symbols and the scheduling requests in the same allocated
transmission instance when a scheduling request is pending and when the
UE is operating in the second mode of operation. Ans. 8 (citing Bertrand(!),
Fig. 7). As discussed supra, Bertrand(!) teaches that the second mode of
5
Appeal2014-004137
Application 12/052,893
operation includes the transmission of uplink scheduling requests offset in
time with respect to transmission of uplink sounding reference symbols. See
Bertrand(!), Fig. 5. As such, Bertrand(!) teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation.
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in combining the teachings of Bertrand( 1) and
Bertrand(2)?
Appellants contend the combination of Bertrand(!) and Bertrand(2) is
improper. Br. 14--15. Appellants contend the combination is improper
because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine
the teachings of Bertrand(!) and Bertrand(2) as proposed by the Examiner;
the combination is based on impermissible hindsight; and combining the
teachings of the applied references would render Bertrand( 1) unsatisfactory
for its intended purpose. Br. 14--15.
We do not find Appellants' contentions persuasive. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Bertrand( 1) teaches or suggests all of the limitations of
claim 1. Because Bertrand(!) does not use the words "time offset" or "offset
in time" to describe the period of time occurring between transmission of the
sounding reference signals and the scheduling requests, the Examiner relies
on Bertrand(2) for expressly teaching applying a delay (e.g., a time offset)
between a series of uplink transmissions. Ans. 7-8. Based on these
findings, the Examiner finds it would be obvious to apply Bertrand(2)'s
delay or time offset to implement Bertrand( 1)' s period of time occurring
between transmission of the sounding reference signals and the scheduling
requests. Id. Using Bertrand(2)'s delay or time offset to implement
Bertrand( 1)' s period of time is a predictable use of known elements
6
Appeal2014-004137
Application 12/052,893
according to their established functions - an obvious improvement. See
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 and claims 3-11, 20, and 21 which fall with claim 1.
Claims 12-19
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 12 and 18 for substantially the same reasons as those discussed supra
with respect to claim 1. Br. 13-14. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed
above, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12 and
18; and claims 13-17 and 19, which depend from claims 12 and 18 and are
not argued separately with particularity. See Br. 10-15.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3-21.
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