Ex Parte Jones

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 14, 2016

10557329 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
10/557,329 0910412007 Alan Edward Jones
102469 7590 06/16/2016
PARKER JUSTISS, P,C/Nvidia
P.O. Box 832570
Richardson, TX 75083
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.
12-0235 9443
EXAMINER
PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/16/2016 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALAN EDWARD JONES
Appeal2015-000977
Application 10/557,329
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOHN A. EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, 14, 15, 17-21, 23, 24, and26-34. 1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Claims 4, 7, 13, 16, 22, and 25 were previously cancelled.
Appeal2015-000977
Application 10/557,329
INVENTION
The invention is directed to Time Division Duplex (TDD) operations
in cellular communication systems. (Spec. 1.) Claim 1 is illustrative and is
reproduced below:
1. A method for operation in a communication
system supporting communication between at least one user
equipment (UE) and a base station on a primary frequency
carrier and a plurality of secondary frequency carriers,
compnsmg:
conducting a communication on a primary frequency
carrier configured for a time division mode; and
conducting the communication on at least two secondary
frequency carriers of the plurality of secondary frequency
carriers, wherein the at least two secondary carriers of the
plurality of secondary frequency carriers support only downlink
communication;
wherein the at least one UE is associated with the at least
two secondary frequency carriers; and wherein frequency
separations between each of the at least two secondary
frequency carriers and the primary frequency carrier is arranged
to be non fixed.
REFERENCES
Haas et al. WO 00/07399 Feb. 10,2000
Marjelund et al. US 2002/0071480 Al June 13, 2002
Viero US 2002/0089957 Al July 11, 2002
Kitagawa et al. US 2002/0193070 Al Dec. 19, 2002
Emmons, Jr. et al. US 6,847,622 Bl Jan.25,2005
Hildebrand et al. US 2006/0002323 Al Jan. 5,2006
Walton et al. US 7,020,110 B2 Mar. 28, 2006
Jones US 2008/0025236 Al Jan. 31, 2008
2
Appeal2015-000977
Application 10/557,329
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-3, 9-12, 18-21, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Haas, Walton, and
Hildebrand. (Final Act. 4.)
Claims 5, 14, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Haas, Walton, Hildebrand, and Viero.
(Final Act. 8.)
Claims 6, 15, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Haas, Walton, Hildebrand, and
Marjelund. (Final Act. 9.)
Claims 8, 17, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Haas, Walton, Hildebrand, and
Emmons. (Final Act. 11.)
Claims 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Haas, Walton, Hildebrand, and Kitagawa. (Final
Act. 12.)
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellant's arguments and any evidence
presented. We disagree with Appellant's 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, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in
the Answer in response to Appellant's arguments. (Ans. 2--4). We highlight
and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
3
Appeal2015-000977
Application 10/557,329
Based on Appellant's arguments, we decide the appeal on the basis of
representative claim 1. Appellant has not argued any of the other claims
with particularity. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
Appellant argues the Examiner's combining of the cited portions of
Haas with the cited portions of Walton is improper. (App. Br. 7-11.)
Motivation to Combine
The Supreme Court provided clear guidance that the "combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007).
Appellant argues "one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to
search for any other technique since Haas already provides a means to
temporarily add bandwidth through its own technique." (App. Br. 7-8;
Reply Br. 2-3.)
The Examiner finds:
incorporating [Haas] has the advantage of being able to increase
a terminal's bandwidth without having to "steal[]" bandwidth
from another cell. A skilled artisan would surely appreciate in a
situation where [Haas]' s first base station does not have any
available resources to spare, incorporating Walton allows the
terminal to increase bandwidth in an alternative[] manner.
(Ans. 3.)
Appellant argues "the question is not whether one would be 'led
away' or 'prohibited' from a teaching of adding extra bandwidth, the
question is whether one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention would be motivated to modify Haas to add extra bandwidth."
(Reply Br. 2.)
4
Appeal2015-000977
Application 10/557,329
Our reviewing court guides us that the strongest rationale for
combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art
or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific
principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial
result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702
F.2d 989, 994--95 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also DyStar Textilfarben GmbH &
Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
2006); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2144(II), 9th ed.,
Rev. 7, Nov. 2015.
This reasoning is applicable here, because obtaining additional
bandwidth by an alternative manner (without having to "steal" bandwidth
from another cell) would have been desirable. (Ans. 3). Therefore, we agree
with the Examiner that "increase[ing] bandwidth in an alternative[] manner"
is at least one advantage motivating the combination of Haas and Walton.
(See Ans. 3.)
Intended Purpose and Principle of Operation
Appellant argues that "Haas is directed to a single antenna
transmission system and Walton requires a MIMO transmission system."
(App. Br. 9.) Appellant argues that because Haas is directed to a single
antenna system and Walton requires a MIMO system that modifying Haas
with Walton renders Haas unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and
changes the principle of operation of Haas. (App. Br. 10.)
The Examiner finds Appellant's characterization of Haas as directed
to a single antenna environment is speculative. (Ans. 3.) Appellant argues
"there is no teaching or suggestion in Haas that Haas is not exclusive to a
5
Appeal2015-000977
Application 10/557,329
single antenna transmission system." (Reply Br. 3--4.) Appellant has not
identified any evidence in the record supporting Appellant's interpretation of
Haas as directed to a single antenna system. The absence of certain
teachings or suggestions in Haas is not evidence of any particular teaching.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that a single antenna is an intended
purpose or principle of operation of Haas.
Even if Haas, arguendo, used a single antenna system,
[t]he 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.
In re Keller, 642 F .2d 413, 425 (CCP A 1981 ). The artisan is not compelled
to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other
without the exercise of independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v.
Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner finds
Haas's "stealing frequency" technique can be implemented in the multiple-
antenna environment of Walton. (Ans. 4.) Specifically, the Examiner finds
Walton may be designed to implement CDMA, TDMA, FDMA standards
and that Walton is thus compatible with Haas' CDMA or TDMA systems.
(Id.) The overlapping standards of CDMA and TDMA support the
Examiner's finding that the systems of Haas and Walton may be suitably
combined by an artisan of ordinary skill. (See Ans. 4.)
Consequently, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of the
claims.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, 14, 15, 17-21, 23, 24, and 26-34.
6
Appeal2015-000977
Application 10/557,329
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, 14, 15, 17-
21, 23, 24, and 26-34 is affirmed.
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
7