Ex Parte Cheng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2018

14258982 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/258,982 04/22/2014
15142 7590 07/02/2018
Arent Fox, LLP and Qualcomm, Incorporated
1717 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-5344
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steven D. Cheng
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.
030284.08256/090897C 1 4119
EXAMINER
RIV AS, SALVADORE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2018 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
patentdocket@arentfox.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN D. CHENG, REMI J. GURSKI, KUO-CHUN LEE,
TOM CHIN, and GUANGMING SHI
Appeal2017-009898
Application 14/258,982 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 5, 7-15, 19, 21-23, 27, 28, and 32. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to concurrently scanning neighbor cells
using MIMO based antenna resources. Spec. ,r 4. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the invention and is reproduced below:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm Inc. App.
Br. 4.
2 Claims 2--4, 6, 16-18, 20, 24--26, 29-31 have been cancelled. App. Br. 19,
21-22, 24.
Appeal2017-009898
Application 14/258,982
1. A method, comprising:
communicating with a serving cell over at least a serving
frequency band using a plurality of multiple input multiple
output (MIMO) antenna resources of a device;
detecting, while in communication with the serving cell
over at least the serving frequency band, initiation of a scan
interval representing a break in communications with the serving
cell for a time period corresponding to a determinable scan
interval length;
during the scan interval:
performing first handoff-related measurements of first
wireless signals received, from a first neighbor cell, over a first
frequency band at a portion of the MIMO antenna resources,
wherein the first frequency band is the serving frequency band;
tuning a remaining portion of the plurality of MIMO
antenna resources from the serving frequency band to a second
frequency band of a second neighbor cell; and
performing second handoff-related measurements of
second wireless signals received, from the second neighbor cell.
over the second frequency band at the remaining portion of the
MIMO antenna resources, wherein the second wireless signals
are received at the remaining portion of the MIMO antenna
resources concurrently with the first wireless signals being
received at the portion of the MIMO antenna resources; and
determining whether to handoff from the serving cell to
the first neighbor cell or to the second neighbor cell based at least
in part on the first handoff-related measurements and the second
handoff-related measurements.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 5, 9--15, 19, 21-23, 27, 28, and 32 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Reinhold
(US 2010/0316155 Al; published Dec. 16, 2010), Riess (US 2011/0075630
Al; published Mar. 31, 2011), and Ji et al. (US 2009/0190500 Al; published
July 30, 2009) (hereinafter, "Ji"). Final Act. 6-31.
2
Appeal2017-009898
Application 14/258,982
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Reinhold, Riess, Ji, and Smith et al.
(US 2007 /0147317 Al; published June 28, 2007). Final Act. 31-33.
Claim 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Reinhold, Riess, Ji, and Koo et al. (US
2011/0269459 Al; published Nov. 3, 2011). Final Act. 33-34.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not
to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Reinhold teaches a scanning state, which the
Examiner maps to the limitation "determinable" as recited in claims 1, 15,
23, and 28. Ans. 3 (citing Reinhold ,r 31). Moreover, the Examiner finds
Reinhold teaches three antennas 102(1}-102(3) are used for dedicated
communications with service 2, while fourth antenna 102(4) is used to scan
for other available resources. Ans. 4 (citing Reinhold ,r 33, Fig. 4). The
Examiner also finds Reinhold teaches the three antennas switch to the
alternative service determined by antenna 102(4) to be available, which the
Examiner maps to the limitation "during the scan interval" both of
"performing first handoff-related measurements ... over a first frequency
band at a portion of the MIMO antenna resources, wherein the first
frequency band is the serving frequency band," and "performing second
handoff-related measurements ... over the second frequency band at the
remaining portion of the MIMO antenna resources," as recited in claim 1
(and similarly recited in claims 15, 23, and 28). Ans. 4 (citing Reinhold ,r
3
Appeal2017-009898
Application 14/258,982
33, Fig. 4). The Examiner concludes a person having ordinary skill in the art
would have combined Reinhold's system with Riess's system to enhance bi-
directional communication between the devices on the wireless network.
Final Act. 10.
Appellants argue that the Examiner stipulates Reinhold fails to teach
"a time period corresponding to a determinable scan interval length"; and
paragraph 31 of Reinhold fails to teach "determinable" because there is no
"defined" scan length. App. Br. 10-11 (citing Spec. ,r 9; Reply Br. 4--5
("there is no defined 'determinable scan interval length"'). And Appellants
argue Reinhold fails to teach "during the scan interval," performing both of
frequency band handoffs because Reinhold's paragraph 33 fails to
contemplate that the first handoff-related measurement is on the same
frequency band as the MIMO service. App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 7-8.
Also, Appellants argue a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention would not combine Reinhold and Riess because Riess teaches
away from a device measuring more than one frequency. App. Br. 15;
Reply Br. 7.
As an initial matter, although the Specification recites "determine"
numerous times ( e.g., Spec. ,r 9, Figs. 7-8), the Specification does not recite
"determinable." As a result, we tum to extrinsic sources to construe
"determinable." The definition of determinable is "capable of being
determined." MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 314 (10th ed.
1999) ( emphasis added). Thus, the claimed "scan interval length" is not
determined necessarily, but rather, capable of being determined. Stated
differently, there is no active step of determining; rather, as long as a "scan
4
Appeal2017-009898
Application 14/258,982
interval length" exists, the "scan interval length" is capable of being
determined.
As for Appellants' argument that there is no defined "determinable
scan interval length (App. Br. 10-11), the independent claim does not recite
"defined." Thus, Appellants' argument is not persuasive because it is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348
(CCPA 1982) ("[A]ppellant's arguments fail from the outset because ...
they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims."). And, the cited
portions of Reinhold relied upon by the Examiner teach a scanning state
exists, which teaches the limitation "determinable scan interval length," as
recited in claims 1, 15, 23, and 28. Ans. 3 (citing Reinhold ,r 31).
Additionally, as discussed above, the cited portions of Reinhold relied
upon by the Examiner teach three antennas 102(1}-102(3) are used for
dedicated communications with service 2, while fourth antenna 102(4) is
used to scan for other available resources (i.e., during the scan interval); the
three antennas switch to the alternative service determined by antenna
102(4) to be available (i.e., performing handoff-related measurements).
Ans. 4 (citing Reinhold ,r 33, Fig. 4). Because Reinhold's fourth antenna
102(4) communicates on a frequency that is determined to be available and
causes the other three antennas 102(1}-102(3) to switch to the frequency that
is determined to be available, Reinhold teaches the limitation "during the
scan interval" both of "performing first handoff-related measurements ...
over a first frequency band at a portion of the MIMO antenna resources,
wherein the first frequency band is the serving frequency band," as recited in
claim 1 (and similarly recited in claims 15, 23, and 28). Ans. 4 (citing
Reinhold ,r 33, Fig. 4). And, because Reinhold teaches a fourth antenna
5
Appeal2017-009898
Application 14/258,982
102(4) continuously scans for other available frequency for the antennas
102(1}-102(3) to switch to, Reinhold teaches "performing second handoff-
related measurements ... over the second frequency band at the remaining
portion of the MIMO antenna resources," as recited in claim 1 (and similarly
recited in claims 15, 23, and 28). Ans. 4 (citing Reinhold ,r 33, Fig. 4).
As for Appellants argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention would not combine Reinhold and Riess because
Riess teaches away from a device measuring more than one frequency (App.
Br. 15; Reply Br. 7), we disagree because Riess does not discourage,
expressly or implicitly, a person having ordinary skill in the art from
measuring more than one frequency. That is, the Federal Circuit has held
"[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill,
upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path
set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the
path that was taken by the applicant." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551,553 (Fed. Cir.1994)).
We agree with the Examiner's conclusion that a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Reinhold's
system with Riess's system to enhance bi-directional communication
between the devices on the wireless network. Final Act. 10. Thus, we find
the Examiner provides articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to
support the motivation to combine the teachings of Reinhold and Riess. In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Appellants argue the dependent claims are patentable for the same
reason as the independent claims. App. Br. 16-17. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection for: (1) independent claims 1, 15, 23, and 28; and
6
Appeal2017-009898
Application 14/258,982
(2) dependent claims 5, 7-14, 19, 21, 22, 27, and 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 5, 7-15, 19, 21-23, 27,
28, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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