Ex Parte Gorokhov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2016

11849508 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111849,508 0910412007
23696 7590 07/27/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alexei Gorokhov
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.
060775Bl 5836
EXAMINER
RUTKOWSKI, JEFFREY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2415
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXEI GOROKHOV, AAMOD KHANDEKAR, and
A VNEESH AGRAWAL
Appeal2015-000679
Application 11/849,508
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3 through5, 10 through 20, 22, 23,
26 through 29, and 49 through 64.
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method of dynamically de-assigning
resources and communication channels for transmitting messages indicative
of resource de-assigning. See Abstract of Appellants' Specification.
Appeal2015-000679
Application 11/849,508
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method of generating de-assignment messages for a wireless
communication device, comprising:
determining whether to de-assign a subset of one or more
resources assigned to an access terminal for at least two frames,
wherein a channel is associated with an individual resource and the
subset may be any one or more of the one or more resources;
generating a message indicative of a request to de-assign
resources in response to de-assignment being determined, wherein the
message comprises an acknowledgement message having at least one
of four states, and further wherein the message comprises duration
identifier indicating a duration of the de-assignment, wherein the
message de-assigns the subset of resources; and
transmitting the message on a dedicated and reserved de-
assignment channel.
REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 16 through 20, 22,
23, 26, 28, 49, 50, 52, 56, 57, and 59 through 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tiedemann, Jr. et al. (US 2005/0030964 Al; pub. Feb. 10,
2005) and Leppisaari et al. (WO 98/48581; pub. Oct. 29, 1998). Answer 2-
6.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 4 and 51under35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Tiedemann, Leppisaari, and Noda (US 2003/0063688
Al; pub. Apr. 3, 2003). Answer 10.
1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed May 15, 2014,
Reply Br. filed October 13, 2014, and the Examiner's Answer mailed on
August 13, 2014.
2
Appeal2015-000679
Application 11/849,508
The Examiner has rejected claims 10, 11, 53, and 54 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Tiedemann, Leppisaari, and Ode et al. (US
2007/0121538 Al; pub. May 31, 2007). Answer 10-12.
The Examiner has rejected claims 12, 15, 27, 29, 55, and 58 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tiedemann, Leppisaari, and IEEE
C802.20-05/68rl. Answer 12-13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to the Appellants'
arguments. Appellants' arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 17, 18, 19, 20, 49, and 60
through 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The dispositive issue presented by
Appellants' arguments is - did the Examiner err in interpreting the claim
limitations directed to transmitting a messaging on a "dedicated and reserved
de-assignment channel"?
Appellants argue that Leppisaari, the reference which the Examiner
relies upon to teach the disputed limitation, teaches "de-allocation messages
and packet data transmission occur on the same 'carrier frequency"' which is
different than transmitting on a dedicated and reserved de-assignment
channel. App. Br. 12, Reply Br. 3. In response to Appellants' arguments,
the Examiner states:
Leppisaari suggests the downlink portion of the carrier frequency
assigned for packet data transmissions is reserved and dedicated
because only the RLC/MAC control messages are transmitted in the
downlink direction (see page 7 lines 7-15). The Examiner views this
as being reasonable because the claims allow for the channel to be
used for other purposes, such as acknowledgements (see claim 5).
3
Appeal2015-000679
Application 11/849,508
According to the [Page 14] specification, the purpose of sending the
acknowledgement message with the four states is to allow for re-use
of the acknowledgement channel for other resources (see specification
0097).
Answer 13-14. We disagree with the Examiner because, as Appellants
argue, the claim 5 recitation of the de-assignment channel being a reserved
acknowledgement channel does not support the Examiner's contention that
the de-assignment channel can be used for data transmissions because the
acknowledgment message relates to reassignment, not data. We further note
that although paragraph 97 of Appellants' Specification states that the
acknowledgment channel can be used for other resources, it does not
identify that the dedicated and reserved de-assignment channel can be used
for other resources. Accordingly, we disagree with the claim interpretation
used by the Examiner to reject each of the independent claims. As the
Examiner relies upon this claim interpretation to show that Leppissari
teaches this disputed limitation, we consider the Examiner's rejection to be
in error. We note that Tiedemann teaches use of a dedicated channel, for
control information; however, the Examiner has not made findings relying
upon Tiedemann to teach the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we are
constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3
through 5, 10 through 20, 22, 23, 26 through 29, and 49 through 64.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3 through 5, 10
through 20, 22, 23, 26 through 29, and 49 through 64 is reversed.
REVERSED
4