Ex Parte Gorokhov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2016

12178157 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/178, 157 07/23/2008
23696 7590 03/28/2016
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.
072213 5802
EXAMINER
LINDENBAUM, ALAN LOUIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2016 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, A VNEESH AGRAWAL,
and SAMIR KAPOOR
Appeal2014-004942
Application 12/178, 157
Technology Center 2400
Before LARRY J. HUME, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and JAMES W. DEJMEKAdministrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejectionofclaims 1-10, 12-17, 19,20,and22-39. 1 Claims11, 18,and21
are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants identify Qualcomm Incorporated as the
real party in interest. (App. Br. 4.)
Appeal2014-004942
Application 12/178, 157
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to techniques for mitigating
temporary loss of synchronization in a wireless communication system.
(Abstract.) Claims 1, 7, and 23, reproduced below, are illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for wireless communication, comprising:
broadcasting a mode indicator indicating synchronous
operation or asynchronous operation by a cell;
broadcasting a cell identity (ID) of the cell, the cell ID
omitting the mode indicator for the cell; and
using the cell ID for communication with terminals within
coverage of the cell.
7. A method for wireless communication, comprising:
switching from asynchronous operation to synchronous
operation for a cell at a designated switch time;
updating system time for the cell for the switch to
synchronous operation;
generating system time information indicative of the
updated system time and the designated switch time; and
sending the system time information to at least one
terminal within detection range of the cell prior to the designated
switch time such that the at least one terminal receives the system
time information prior to the designated switch time.
23. A method for wireless communication, comprising:
decreasing transmit power of a cell while operating in a
first synchronization mode;
switching from the first synchronization mode to a second
synchronization mode for the cell when the transmit power of the
cell reaches a predetermined power level such that the cell
2
Appeal2014-004942
Application 12/178, 157
operates in accordance with the second synchronization mode;
and
increasing the transmit power of the cell after switching to
the second synchronization mode.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, and 37
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Raith et al. (US 5,353,332,
issued Oct. 4, 1994) (hereinafter "Raith"). (Final Act. 2-3.)
The Examiner rejected claims 7-10, 12-17, 19, 20, and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rottinghaus (US 2008/0080448
Al, pub. Apr. 3, 2008) and Takao et al. (US 7,502,596 B2, issued Mar. 10,
2 009) (hereinafter "Rottinghaus"). (Final Act. 4--7.)
The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Raith and Jin et al. (US 2007/0064730 Al, pub.
Mar. 22, 2007) (hereinafter "Jin"). (Final Act. 7.)
The Examiner rejected claims 23-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rottinghaus. (Final Act. 7-9.)
The Examiner rejected claims 31 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Raith and Rottinghaus. (Final Act. 10.)
The Examiner rejected claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Raith, Rottinghaus, and You et al. (US 2003/0147422 Al,
pub. Aug. 7, 2003) (hereinafter "You"). (Final Act. 10-11.)
The Examiner rejected claims 35 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Raith, Rottinghaus, and Bjork et al. (US 7 ,826,820
B2, issued Nov. 2, 2010) (hereinafter "Bjork"). (Final Act. 11-12.)
3
Appeal2014-004942
Application 12/178, 157
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issues: 2
Issue One: Whether, under § 102(b ), Raith discloses the independent
claim 1 limitation, "broadcasting a cell identity (ID) of the cell, the cell ID
omitting the mode indicator for the cell," and the similar limitation recited in
independent claims 4, 29, and 36. (App. Br. 14--21.)
Issue Two: Whether, under § 102(b ), Raith discloses the claim 34
limitation, "performing cell searches based on whether the mode indicator
indicates synchronous operation or asynchronous operation by the cell."
(App. Br. 20-21.)
Issue Three: Whether, under§ 103(a), the combination of
Rottinghaus and Takao teaches or suggests the independent claim 7
limitation, "sending the system time information to at least one terminal
within detection range of the cell prior to the designated switch time such
that the at least one terminal receives the system time information prior to
the designated switch time," and the similar limitation recited in independent
claims 16, 19, and 22. (App. Br. 22-27.)
Issue Four: Whether, under§ 103(a), Rottinghaus teaches or suggests
the independent claim 23 limitation, "switching from the first
synchronization mode to a second synchronization mode for the cell when
the transmit power of the cell reaches a predetermined power level such that
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Oct. 29, 2013); Reply Brief
(filed Feb. 25, 2014); Final Office Action (mailed May 31, 2013); and the
Examiner's Answer (mailed Dec. 27, 2013) for the respective details.
4
Appeal2014-004942
Application 12/178, 157
the cell operates in accordance with the second synchronization mode," and
the similar limitation recited in independent claim 27. (App. Br. 28-32.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. For the rejections of claims 1---6, 29-33,
and 35-39 (Issue One), we disagree with Appellants' arguments, and we
adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-3) and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 12-15), and we concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. For the remaining issues, we are persuaded that
the Examiner erred. We emphasize the following.
Issue One -Anticipation of Claim 1
The Examiner finds Raith discloses "broadcasting a cell identity (ID)
of the cell, the cell ID omitting the mode indicator for the cell," relying on
the "Direct Sequence (DS) CDMA" code broadcast on control channels of a
cellular telephone system. (Final Act. 2; Ans. 12-15; Raith col. 9, 11. 13-
16.) Based on the fact that Raith discloses the (DS) CDMA code is a "PN
sequence code", and a separate "pilot code" is used for synchronizing, the
Examiner finds:
[A] person of ordinary skill in the art of wireless
communication, at the time of the invention, would have known
that the wireless transmission of the DS-CDMA code (the cell
ID) in Raith would not include a 'mode indicator' that
'indicat[ es] synchronous operation or asynchronous operation
5
Appeal2014-004942
Application 12/178, 157
by a cell,' even though Raith does not expressly disclose that
fact.
(Ans. 13; see also Raith col. 9, 11. 13-19.)
Appellants argue, if Raith does not expressly disclose that the cell
identity omits a mode indicator, "Raith then cannot possibly disclose
broadcasting a cell identity (ID) of the cell, the cell ID omitting the mode
indicator for the cell, as required by claim 1." (App. Br. 16.) Appellants
further argue it is improper for the Examiner "to rely on what one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood in view of the teachings of
the reference." (App. Br. 17.) Appellants are incorrect-the Examiner
may rely on what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
from a statement in an anticipatory reference. See In re Baxter Travenol
Labs., 952 F.2d 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Where, as here, "the [Examiner]
shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the
prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are
not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Appellants have not
met that burden - indeed, Appellants admit that they have "never asserted
that the DS-CDMA code of Raith cannot omit a mode indicator. ... " (Reply
Br. 9.) Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
claims 1, 4, 29, and 36.
Issue Two-Anticipation of Claim 34
In finding Raith discloses, "performing cell searches based on whether
the mode indicator indicates synchronous operation or asynchronous
operation by the cell," the Examiner relies on the following disclosure:
If the two control channels are aligned, for example on a
slot, frame, super frame (a collection of TDMA frames), or
6
Appeal2014-004942
Application 12/178, 157
hyper frame (a collection of super frames), or the time
difference is known to the mobile, the mobile can rapidly lock
to the candidate control channel (cell) assuming information
about where to find and decode that control channel is included
on the present control channel. The present invention is not
limited to TDMA systems and can be applied to other systems
including CDMA. Even if only a limited amount of relative
information is broadcast on the control channel for capacity
reasons, the time difference information makes the cell
selection and reselection process faster which improves system
performance. For example, the mobile station may be blind for
pages a shorter amount of time. Thus, "dead time" associated
with receiving pages while searching is reduced.
(Final Act. 3; Raith col. 8, 1. 64---col. 9, 1. 12.) Appellants argue that this
disclosure does not disclose performing cell searches based on a mode
indicator, as required. (App. Br. 21.) In response, the Examiner does not
address Appellants' argument, and does not cite any other disclosure in
Raith that would support the anticipation rejection. (Ans. 16.) Accordingly,
based on the record before us, we cannot sustain this rejection.
Issue Three - Obviousness of Claim 7
In finding Rottinghaus and Takao teach or suggest, "sending the
system time information to at least one terminal within detection range of
the cell prior to the designated switch time such that the at least one terminal
receives the system time information prior to the designated switch time,"
the Examiner relies, in part, on the teachings in Rottinghaus of generating
system time information for a cell, updating system timing, and sending
system time information to a terminal within range of a cell. (Final Act. 4,
Rottinghaus i-fi-131, 36, 67.) The Examiner further relies on the teachings and
7
Appeal2014-004942
Application 12/178, 157
suggestions in Takao of switching between receiver and transmitter modes at
scheduled times. (Final Act. 4--5; Takao col. 10, 11. 46-64.)
Appellants argue in substance that scheduling times for switching
between receivers and transmitters described in Takao has no relationship to
the provisions for updating and sending timing information in Rottinghaus,
and, therefore, the combination does not teach or suggest the disputed
limitation. (App. Br. 22-25.) The Examiner responds:
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, in the
art at the time of the invention, to pre-designate the switching
time and then send the switching time schedule to the mobile
prior to the time that the base station switched modes, as in
Takao, when a base station switches back to synchronous mode
as in Rottinghaus and to send the information with the system
time information in Rottinghaus.
(Ans. 18.) Accepting that this is so, we are nonetheless persuaded the
Examiner errs in finding a teaching or suggestion of sending system time
information to a terminal prior to the designated switch time switching from
asynchronous operation to synchronous operation, as required by the claims.
We find the portions of the references cited by the Examiner, whether taken
either alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest this aspect of the
limitation at issue. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we cannot
sustain this rejection.
Issue Four-Obviousness of Claim 23
In finding Rottinghaus teaches or suggests, "switching from the first
synchronization mode to a second synchronization mode for the cell when
the transmit power of the cell reaches a predetermined power level such that
the cell operates in accordance with the second synchronization mode," the
8
Appeal2014-004942
Application 12/178, 157
Examiner relies on the disclosure in Rottinghaus of shutting down a base
station when the system loses synchronization, and a back-up "stability
oscillator" then exceeds a maximum allowable drift after a given run time.
(Final Act. 8; Ans. 20-21; Rottinghaus i13.)
Appellants argue, "It is not reasonable to construe this shut down state
as a second synchronization mode, as there clearly is no synchronization
when the Rottinghaus device is turned OFF." (App. Br. 30.) We find this
argument to be persuasive, and therefore we do not sustain this rejection.
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the anticipation rejection
of claims 1, 4, 29, and 3 6 over Raith. We also sustain the anticipation
rejection of claims 2, 5, 30, 33, and 37 over Raith, and the obviousness
rejections of claims 3 and 6 over Raith and Jin, of claims 3 1 and 3 8 over
Raith and Rottinghaus, of claim 32 over Raith, Rottinghaus, and You, and of
claims 35 and 39 over Raith, Rottinghaus, and Bjork, which rejections are
not argued separately with particularity. (App. Br. 22, 28, 33-35.)
Also for the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 34 over Raith, and the obviousness rejections
of claims 7, 16, 19, and 22 over Rottinghaus and Takao, and of claims 23
and 27 over Rottinghaus. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejections
of claims 8-10, 12-15, 17, and 20 over Rottinghaus and Takao, and of
claims 24--26 and 28 over Rottinghaus, which claims are dependent from
claims 7, 16, 19, 23 or 27.
9
Appeal2014-004942
Application 12/178, 157
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6, 29-33, and 35-39.
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 7-10, 12-17, 19, 20,
22-28, and 34.
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-IN-PART
10