Ex Parte Hart

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 13, 2016

11453055 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111453,055 06/15/2006
79184 7590 10/17/2016
SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
Suite 400
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael John Hart
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.
305243.032 5312
EXAMINER
DEAN, RAYMOND S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/17/2016 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):
dcdocketing@sgrlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL JOHN HART
Appeal2015-007074
Application 11/453,055
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 64---66, 72, 73, 75, and 76, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this application. Claims 1---63, 67-71, 74, and 77 have been
cancelled. Corrected Br. 1, 4, 6, 8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Fujitsu Limited as the real party in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-007074
Application 11/453,055
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a communication
system. Claim 64, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
64. A communication system comprising:
a source apparatus for transmitting signals to a destination
apparatus via one or more intermediate apparatus;
at least one intermediate apparatus for transmitting signals
received from the source apparatus, or signals derived from the
signals, to a destination apparatus;
a destination apparatus for receiving signals from the
source apparatus via the, or each, intermediate apparatus;
wherein
the destination apparatus comprises:
indicator derivation unit operable to derive one or more
indicators of the quality of signals received at the destination
apparatus;
indicator deviation detection unit operable to detect a
difference between the, or one of the, indicators derived by the
indicator derivation means and a desired value;
a request determining unit operable, following detection
of such a difference by the indicator deviation detection unit, to
determine a change in the amount of resource allocated to the
intermediate apparatus that will bring the indicator to the desired
value, the request determining unit being further operable to
transmit a resource allocation change request, based on the
determined change, to the source apparatus via the, or each,
intermediate apparatus, wherein the resource allocation change
request specifies a requested amount of resource or a requested
change in the amount of resource, to be allocated to the
intermediate apparatus;
wherein the source apparatus comprises:
a request receiving unit to receive, from the destination
apparatus via the, or each, intermediate apparatus, a resource
allocation change request derived by the destination apparatus,
or a revised resource allocation change request that is obtained at
2
Appeal2015-007074
Application 11/453,055
one said intermediate apparatus by rev1smg the resource
allocation change request;
a resource allocation determining unit operable to
determine an amount of resource to be allocated to one said
intermediate apparatus based on the resource allocation change
request, or the revised resource allocation change request, so as
to maintain a balance between a measure of quality of a signal
received at the destination apparatus and a measure of quality of
a signal received at said intermediate apparatus; and
a transmitting unit operable to transmit a command to the
intermediate apparatus commanding the intermediate apparatus
to allocate the determined amount of resource allocation;
wherein the, or each, intermediate apparatus comprises a
resource allocation unit operable to allocate the amount of
resource determined for said intermediate apparatus.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Bar-Ness et al.
Oh et al.
Hu et al.
US 7,483,493 B2
US 7,574,230 Bl
US 2008/0165720 Al
REJECTION
Jan.27,2009
Aug. 11, 2009
July 10, 2008
Claims 64---66, 72, 73, 75, and 76 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hu, Oh, and Bar-Ness. Final Act. 3-29.
GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of the rejection
of claims 64---66, 72, 73, 75, and 76 on the basis of representative claim 64.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal2015-007074
Application 11/453,055
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, and we incorporate herein
and 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. 3-29), and (2) the
reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' arguments (Ans. 29-31 ). We incorporate such findings,
reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However,
we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows. 2
Appellant argues that although Hu teaches "the feedback of CSI from
the relay to the transmitter (potentially via the receiver) ... , Hu does not
disclose or suggest 'a requested amount of resource or a requested change in
the amount of resource, to be allocated to the intermediate apparatus,"' as
recited in claim 64. Br. 15. Appellant also argues that although "Barr-Ness
discloses adaptation of the transmission power in response to channel
variations based on CSL, ... [t]his is different than the claimed 'resource
allocation change request' that 'specifies a requested amount of resource or a
requested change in the amount of resource, to be allocated to the
intermediate apparatus' as recited by claim[] 64." Br. 16.
2 Rather than reiterate the entirety of the arguments of Appellants and the
positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 17,
2014); the Final Office Action (mailed Mar. 31, 2014); and the Examiner's
Answer (mailed May 7, 2015) for the respective details.
4
Appeal2015-007074
Application 11/453,055
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The
test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425(CCPA1981). Because Appellant's arguments are directed to the
references individually and not the combination of the teachings as applied
by the Examiner (see Ans. 29-30 relying on the combination of Hu and Bar-
Ness ), we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 64---66, 72, 73, 75, and 76.
For at least these reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. We find a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of
obviousness for all claims on appeal.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 64---66, 72, 73,
75, and 76.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5