13282648 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2018)

Ex Parte Chui et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 17, 2018

13282648 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/282,648 10/27/2011 15142 7590 12/19/2018 Arent Fox, LLP and Qualcomm, Incorporated 1717 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-5344 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jimmy C. Chui 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. 103338 6035 EXAMINER PREV AL, LIONEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2416 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/19/2018 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 JIMMY C. CHUI, RA VI GOP ALAN, FENG LU, and GUANGXIE Appeal2018-004398 Application 13/2 82, 648 1 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, HUNG H. BUI, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 4--10, 12, 14--17, 20-26, 30, and 31, which are all the claims pending in the application. Claims 2-3, 11, 13, 18- 19, 27, and 29 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm Incorporated. App. Br. 4. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed January 2, 2018; Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed March 22, 2018; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed February 2, 2018; Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed May 30, 2017; and original Specification ("Spec.") filed October 27, 2011. Appeal2018-004398 Application 13/282,648 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 'Invention Appellants' invention relates to "a power optimized demodulator front end ( demfront) receiver subsystem" for use in a cellular communication system, shown in Figure 2, to "reduce power utilization by optimizing the operation of the demfront receiver subsystem." Spec. ,r 6. Appellants' Figure 2 is reproduced below: APPARATUS (USER EQUIPMENT) ,.W2 GOMPlJrn-lG F'LA TFORM 208 i "mnrcR frâ€¢~ A.Bl E MED'UV '}fl ~ )J.... - ~J.. ~ S..,,' .. ~ ,tf'\:J~ ...... " ... : ~~ ~ ;.â€¢:: ~ l RE'â€¢''f.''' 'E'R s~Â·, E'"'T''"'R F'"'R 1 ~ . Â·v~~v Â·~ Â· t;.L ... w v . v Â· ~ l POWER-OPTIMIZED DEMFRONT I l RXSWffCrl:NG 2!3 [ t ................................................................................................... - ........................ ~ .... .. Appellants' Figure 2 shows user equipment (UE) 202 operable in two different modes: (1) a low power mode, via low-power receiver 204; and (2) a high power mode, via high-power receiver 206. According to Appellants, "the UE [202, shown in Figure 2] selects a low power[] receiver mode [via low-powered receiver 204] when no data is being sent across the access network (e.g., HSDPA, LTE) and enables an advanced[] receiver mode [via high-power receiver 206] (e.g., having a relatively higher data rate capability) when valid data has been detected." 2 Appeal2018-004398 Application 13/282,648 Spec. ,r 6. In an aspect, "receiver subsystem selection due to network activity is based on internal UE timers." Spec. ,r 32. Illustrative Claims Claims 1, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are independent. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics. 1. A method, comprising: enabling a first receiver of a device, the first receiver being configured to receive a control channel on a downlink from a node; receiving, by the first receiver on the control channel, a first schedule indicating when the device is to receive data on the downlink; enabling a second receiver of the device that consumes more power than the first receiver, the second receiver being configured to receive the data on the downlink according to the first schedule and to receive the control channel; disabling the first receiver of the device while the second receiver receives the data on the downlink; and re-enabling the first receiver for receiving the control channel on the downlink subsequent to the second receiver receiving the data, wherein: the re-enabling of the first receiver is based on expiration of a timer having an associated timer duration, the timer duration is based on a period of network activity or a network parameter associated with discontinuous reception, and the timer duration is extendable in response to the second receiver receiving on the control channel a second schedule indicating when the device is to receive additional data. App. Br. 15 (Claims App.). 3 Appeal2018-004398 Application 13/282,648 Valadon Love et al. ("Love") DiGirolamo et al. ("Di Girolamo") Evidence Considered US 2010/0008405 Al Jan. 14,2010 US 2004/0253955 Al Dec. 16, 2004 US 2009/0196197 Al Aug. 6, 2009 Examiner's Rejections (1) Claims 1, 4--9, 14--17, 20-25, 30, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Valadon and Love. Final Act. 6-22. (2) Claims 10, 12, 26, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Valadon, Love, and DiGirolamo. Final Act. 22- 24. ANALYSIS With respect to independent claim 1 and similarly, claims 14--17, the Examiner finds Valadon teaches a digital communication system having multiple receiver configurations and a demodulation unit configured to operate in two different modes: (1) a first (low power) mode, typically with a lower complexity and low power consumption, and (2) a second (high power) mode, typically with increased complexity and power consumption, and to transition between these two modes [ via enabling and disabling elements in the receiver] in response a triggered signal. Valadon ,r,r 9, 11, 23. In particular, the Examiner finds Valadon teaches most aspects of Appellants' method claim including: 4 Appeal2018-004398 Application 13/282,648 enabling a first receiver of a device, the first receiver being configured to receive a control channel on a downlink from a node; receiving, by the first receiver on the control channel, a first schedule indicating when the device is to receive data on the downlink; enabling a second receiver of the device that consumes more power than the first receiver, the second receiver being configured to receive the data on the downlink according to the first schedule and to receive the control channel; disabling the first receiver of the device while the second receiver receives the data on the downlink; and re-enabling the first receiver for receiving the control channel on the downlink subsequent to the second receiver receiving the data. Final Act. 6-8 (citing Valadon ,r,r 8-10, 37). To support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner relies on Love for teaching the use of a timer in context of Valadon's "re-enabling of the first receiver[] based on expiration of a timer having an associated timer duration, [wherein] the timer duration is based on a period of network activity or a network parameter associated with discontinuous reception, and the timer duration is extendable in response to ... when the device is to receive additional data." Final Act. 8-9 (citing Love ,r,r 22, 27). Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding Valadon. Appellants even acknowledge Love teaches the use of a timer in a digital receiver system to transition between two modes. App. Br. 10 ( citing Love ,r,r 22, 27). However, Appellants present several arguments against the Examiner's combination ofValadon and Love, including: (1) Love does not teach the disputed limitation: "the re-enabling of the first receiver [] based on expiration of a timer having an associated timer duration" as recited in 5 Appeal2018-004398 Application 13/282,648 claim 1 because Love's primary receive branch [first receiver] "is always enabled" and "does not disable" and, as such, there is no need for "the re- enabling of the first receiver [] based on expiration of a timer" as recited; (2) "Love's use of the timer is completely in opposition to how the timer is used in independent claim 1 "; (3) because "Love teaches the use of a time for disabling the diversity receive branch [ second receiver] and not for re- enabling, Love teaches away from how the timer is used in independent claim 1; and ( 4) because "Love does not disclose or suggest re-enabling of the first receiver based on expiration of a timer having an associated timer duration ... the Office Action is improperly relying on one of ordinary skill in the art using hindsight." App. Br. 8-12; Reply Br. 4--11. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Rather, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 3-13. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For additional emphasis, we note Appellants cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on the combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference .... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." Id. For example, Valadon already teaches a demodulation unit configured to operate in two different modes: (1) a first (low power) mode, typically with a lower complexity and low power consumption, and (2) a second (high power) mode, typically with increased complexity and power consumption, 6 Appeal2018-004398 Application 13/282,648 and to transition between these two modes [ via enabling and disabling elements in the receiver] in response a triggered signal. Valadon ,r,r 9, 11, 23. As correctly recognized by the Examiner, Valadon also teaches the "re- enabling the first receiver ... subsequent to the second receiver receiving data." Final Act. 7 ( citing Valadon ,r 3 7). "Love is [only] provided to show that such an activity timer would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention." Ans. 6. As such, we agree with the Examiner that "it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an inactivity timer as taught by Love in Valadon's system" "to further enhance the system reliability and efficiency by enabling diversity reception for the duration of the timer." Final Act. 8-9 ( citing Love ,r 22); Ans. 6. We are, likewise, not persuaded that Love teaches away from the use of a timer in the context of Valadon's receiver system configured to transition between two modes. With respect to Appellants' "impermissible hindsight" argument, that argument is not persuasive because "the weight of the evidence shows that the proffered combination is merely a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." See In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694, 702, n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Appellant's hindsight argument is of no moment where the Examiner provides a sufficient, non-hindsight reason to combine the references). For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and, similarly, independent claims 14--17 argued for substantially the same reasons, and dependent claims 4--10, 12, 20-26, 30, and 31, argued for their dependency on claim 1. App. Br. 13. 7 Appeal2018-004398 Application 13/282,648 CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4--10, 12, 14--17, 20- 26, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. DECISION As such, we affirm the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 4--10, 12, 14--17, 20-26, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8