Ex Parte Ji

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2016

12360544 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/360,544 01127/2009
23696 7590 06/28/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tingfang Ji
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.
080738Ul 6525
EXAMINER
PHUNG,LUAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2016 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 TINGFANG JI 1
Appeal2014-004709
Application 12/360,544
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHN A. EV ANS, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3---6, 8-13, 16-22, and 24--50, which constitute
all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant indicates the real party-in-interest is Qualcomm Incorporated.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-004709
Application 12/360,544
The disclosed invention relates to management of wireless resources
in a mobile communication environment. Spec. i-fi-f 11-13, 43-57, Abstract.
Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claim Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, reads as follows (disputed limitations in italics):
1. A method for wireless communication in a wireless
network, comprising:
employing a set of processors to generate a network
assignment block (NAB) for a neighboring cell of the wireless
network based on instructions that cause the set of processors to
obtain channel or interference information pertaining to the
neighboring cell, wherein the channel or interference
information is determined by an access terminal (AT);
assign a downlink wireless communication for the
neighboring cell based at least in part on the channel or
interference information and include the downlink
communication assignment in the NAB;
specif); in the NAB an ID of the neighboring cell, an ID of
the AT, and a wireless resource for the downlink wireless
commitnication; and
initiate transmission of the NAB over-the-air (OTA) to
the AT in a coverage area of the wireless network; and
saving the instructions in a memory.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3---6, 8-13, 16-19, 21, 22, 24--35, 37--45, and 48-50 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Oyman (US
2007 /0211757 Al; published Sept. 13, 2007) and Harrison (US 5,822,693;
issued Oct. 13, 1998).
Claims 20, 36, 46, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Oyman, Harrison, and Benveniste (US 2007 /0211749 Al;
published Sept. 13, 2007).
2
Appeal2014-004709
Application 12/360,544
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action, and the arguments in the Reply Brief presented in response to the
Examiner's Answer. We agree with Appellant's arguments and highlight
and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis below.
The Examiner finds that Oyman teaches or suggests "specify in the
[network assignment block] NAB an ID of the neighboring cell, and ID of
the [access terminal] AT, and a wireless resource for the downlink wireless
communication," as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 2, 6; Ans. 6-7.
Specifically, the Examiner finds Oyman discloses in figure 1 a macro base
station 101, a micro base station 102 which the Examiner equates to an AT,
and micro base station 104 which the Examiner equates to a neighboring
cell. See Final Act. 2, 6; Ans. 6-7. The Examiner further finds that Oyman
discloses the macro base station may perform resource allocation for the
multiple hops between micro base stations. See Final Act. 2, 6; Ans. 6-7
(citing Oyman i-f 28). The Examiner finds that "micro base stations 102 and
104[] inherently include[ e] their IDs for resource allocation to be received at
these nodes." Final Act. 2, 6; Ans. 6-7. The Examiner asserts "[s]ince
resource allocation is provided for multiple hops between micro base
stations, the IDs of the micro base stations corresponding to the claimed
neighboring cell and AT, must also be included in the resource allocation."
Final Act. 3; Ans. 8. The Examiner further asserts that to perform resource
allocation to nodes 102 and 104, it is necessary to specify their addresses for
them to provide the proper time/frequency resources. See Ans. 8
3
Appeal2014-004709
Application 12/360,544
The Examiner also finds that Harrison teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation of claim 1. See Final Act. 3, 8; Ans. 9. Specifically, the
Examiner finds Harrison discloses that when home base station (HBS) 114
operates in the licensed personal communications system (PCS) band,
control information is generated for the HBS, and the control information is
transmitted from PCS system 102 to dual mode telephone (DMT) 120,
which the Examiner equates to the AT, and then from the DMT 120 to HBS
114, which the Examiner equates to the neighboring cell. See Final Act. 3,
8; Ans. 9 (citing Harrison 4:22-28, 4:45--49). The Examiner asserts
"transmitting control information to DMT and HBS inherently require their
IDs." Final Act. 3, 8; Ans. 9.
The Examiner further explains that both Oyman and Harrison disclose
providing a wireless resource based on Oyman's resource allocation and
Harrison's control information. Final Act. 3; Ans. 8-9. The Examiner
asserts the resource is provided to the next node, and a neighboring node
beyond the next node, and a destination node, which the Examiner equates
to the claimed neighboring cell and AT. Final Act. 3; Ans. 8-9.
The Examiner also cites Myers et al. (US 2013/0070646 Al,
published Mar. 21, 2013) and Ramesh (US 2006/0251119 Al, published
Nov. 21, 2013) as extrinsic evidence to show that transmitting a message to
a neighboring node and to a destination node requires an ID of the
neighboring node and an ID of the destination node. See Final Act. 3--4;
Ans. 9-10.
"To establish inherency the extrinsic evidence 'must make clear that
the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in
the reference, and that it would be so recognized by person of ordinary
4
Appeal2014-004709
Application 12/360,544
skill."' In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "Inherency,
however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere
fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not
sufficient." Id.
We agree with Appellant that the resource allocation provided in
Oyman for multiple hops between micro base stations does not necessitate
expressly or inherently the use of an NAB with an ID of a neighboring cell,
an ID of an AT, and wireless resource for the downlink wireless
communication. See App. Br. 10. We also agree that the provided
reasoning relies on possibilities and speculation that the teachings of the
references would include a NAB with an ID of a neighboring cell, an ID of
an AT, and wireless resource for the downlink wireless communication. See
id. We further agree that the Examiner's assertion that IDs are inherent in
Harrison's control information relies on possibilities and probabilities. See
id. Lastly, we agree that the proffered extrinsic evidence (i.e., Myers and
Ramesh) does not make clear that the missing descriptive matter is
necessarily present in the resource allocation or control information
described in Oyman and Harrison respectively. See id. at 12. Although
Myers and Ramesh each teach the use of destination addresses and next hop
addresses for messages, we are not persuaded that such address information
is necessarily present in the teachings of Oyman and Harrison. It is possible
that other methods could be utilized to send messages/allocation or
assignment information to nodes without using destination addresses or
target IDs, such as, for example by broadcasting the message/allocation or
5
Appeal2014-004709
Application 12/360,544
assignment information to any nodes that are capable of receiving the
message/allocation or assignment information.
For these reasons, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of claim
1, and independent claims 13, 24--27, 37, and 48-50 which recite similar
limitations (see App. Br. 12-13), and claims 3---6, 8-12, 16-19, 21, 22, 28-
35, and 38--45 dependent therefrom as unpatentable over Oyman and
Harrison. As applied by the Examiner, Benveniste does not remedy the
deficiencies of Oyman and Harrison. See Final Act. 21-23. For the same
reasons as claims 1, 3-6, 8-13, 16-19, 21, 22, 24--35, 37--45, and 48-50, we
are we are constrained to reverse the rejection of 20, 36, 46, and 47 as
unpatentable over Oyman, Harrison, and Benveniste.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 3---6, 8-13, 16-22, and 24--
50.
REVERSED
6