Ex Parte JonesDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 14, 201610557329 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation