Ex Parte Kashima

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

12141321 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/141,321 06/18/2008
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C,
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
07/05/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tsyoshi Kashima
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.
01057_1356 5118
EXAMINER
PHAM,TITOQ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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@dcpatent.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TSYOSHI KASHIMA
Appeal2014-007658
Application 12/141,321
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14--30. App. Br. 2. Claims 4 and 13 are
objected to. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Claims 1, 2, 7-11, 16-19, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Narasimha (US 2008/0268850 Al; pub. Oct. 30,
2008) and Haartsen (US 2007/0293157 Al; pub. Dec. 20, 2007). Ans. 3-5.
Claims 3, 12, 20, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Narasimha, Haartsen, and Liu (US 2008/0069032 Al; pub.
Mar. 20, 2008). Ans. 5---6.
Appeal2014-007658
Application 12/141,321
Claims 5, 6, 14, 15, 21-23, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Narasimha, Haartsen, and Lohr (US 2009/0116434
Al; pub. May 7, 2009). Ans. 6-7.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
N arasimha, Haartsen, and Somasundaram (US Provisional 60/913 ,316, filed
April 23, 2007). Ans. 7-8. 1
Claims 1, 2, 7-11, 16-19, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Talarmo (US 5,778,318; iss. July 7, 1998),
Haartsen, and Lohr. Ans. 8-10.
Claims 3, 12, 20, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Talarmo, Haartsen, Lohr, and Liu. Ans. 10-11.
Claims 5, 6, 14, 15, 21-23, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Talarmo, Haartsen, and Lohr. Ans. 11-12.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Talarmo, Haartsen, and Somasundaram. Ans. 12-13.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to "generating a control message having
a format designated for resource allocation." Abstract. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reproduced below:
1 Claim 30 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, in the Final
Action (see Final Act. 2); however, this rejection was withdrawn by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer (see Ans. 13).
2
Appeal2014-007658
Application 12/141,321
1. A method comprising:
generating a control message having a format designated
for resource allocation, wherein the control message includes a
plurality of control fields; and
reserving a value of one of the control fields to specify
information other than information for resource allocation, the
value indicating information for starting a random access
procedure,
wherein the control message is transmitted over a control
channel according to a lower layer protocol.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 7-11, 16-19, 24, AND 25 OVER
NARASIMHA AND HAARTSEN
The Examiner finds the combination ofNarasimha and Haartsen
teaches all limitations of claim 1. Ans. 3--4. The Examiner finds
Narasimha's timing advance message 535 teaches the recited control
message. Ans. 3--4; see also Ans. 14.
Appellant presents the following principal argument:
the timing advance message of Narasimha et al. cannot
reasonably be considered to correspond to the claimed control
message at least because the timing advance message does not
have a format designated for resource allocation. At best, step
540 simply permits the mobile station 110 to use the UL
resources granted to send a handover complete message, but is
void of any teaching that the timing advance message (the
alleged control message) has a format designated for resource
allocation.
App. Br. 10-11. "However, at least because Narasimha et al. does
not teach the format designated for resource allocation, Narasimha et al.
cannot reasonably be considered to teach a control field in the context of the
independent claims." App. Br. 11. See also Reply Br. 4.
3
Appeal2014-007658
Application 12/141,321
Appellant persuades us the Examiner erred in finding that N arasimha
teaches the recited control message.
Specifically, we find Narasimha (i1i156-57, Figure 5) describes a
handover of a mobile station 110 from a source base station 120 to a target
base station 130. In step 525, Narasimha sends a handover command
including a reserved Random Access Channel (RACH) preamble. In step
530, the mobile station 110 sends the reserved RACH preamble to target
base station 130. To the extent step 525 may illustrate a control message
including information for starting a random access procedure, the Examiner
does not take such a position.
Instead, the Examiner relies on timing advance message 535 for the
recited control message. See Ans. 3--4, 14. Regarding timing advance
message 535, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding timing
advance message 535 teaches the recited control message. To the extent that
timing advance message 535 may be considered as having a format designed
for resource allocation, we find that timing advance message 535 does not
contain a "value indicating information for starting a random access
procedure" as recited in claim 1 because the RACH preamble was already
sent to the mobile station 110 in step 525 and the procedure was started in
step 530.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection based on
N arasimha and Haartsen of claim 1, or of claims 2, 7, and 8, which depend
from claim 1.
4
Appeal2014-007658
Application 12/141,321
For the reasons set forth above:
We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection based on Narasimha
and Haartsen of independent claim 9, which recites "value indicating
information for starting a random access procedure."
We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection based on Narasimha
and Haartsen of independent claim 10, which recites "value indicating
information for starting a random access procedure," or of claims 11, 16, and
1 7, which depend from claim 10.
We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection based on Narasimha
and Haartsen of independent claim 18, which recites "value indicating
information for starting a random access procedure."
We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection based on Narasimha
and Haartsen of independent claim 19, which recites "value indicating
information for starting a random access procedure."
We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection based on Narasimha
and Haartsen of independent claim 24, which recites "value indicating
information for starting a random access procedure."
We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection based on Narasimha
and Haartsen of independent claim 25, which recites "value indicating
information for starting a random access procedure."
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 3, 12, 20, AND 26 OVER
NARASIMHA, HAARTSEN, AND LIU
Claims 3, 12, 20, and 26 depend from claims 1, 10, 12, and 25,
respectively.
5
Appeal2014-007658
Application 12/141,321
The Examiner has not shown that Liu overcomes the above-noted
deficiency ofNarasimha and Haartsen. See Ans. 5---6, 14--15.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection based on
Narasimha, Haartsen, and Liu of claims 3, 12, 20, and 26.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 5, 6, 14, 15, 21-23, AND 27-29
OVER NARASIMHA, HAARTSEN, AND LOHR
Claims 5, 6, 14, 15, 21-23, and 27-29 variously depend from claims
1, 10, 19, and 25.
The Examiner has not shown that Lohr overcomes the above-noted
deficiency ofNarasimha and Haartsen. See Ans. 6-7, 15.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection based on
Narasimha, Haartsen, and Lohr of claims 5, 6, 14, 15, 21-23, and 27-29.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 30 OVER NARASIMHA, HAARTSEN,
AND SOMASUNDARAM
Independent claim 30 recites "value indicating information for starting
a random access procedure." The Examiner does not show that
Somasundaram overcomes the above-noted deficiency ofNarasimha and
Haartsen. See Ans. 7-8, 18.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection based on
Narasimha, Haartsen, and Somasundaram of claim 30.
6
Appeal2014-007658
Application 12/141,321
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 7-11, 16-19, 24, AND 25 OVER
TALARMO, HAARTSEN, AND LOHR
The Examiner finds the combination of Talarmo, Haartsen, and Lohr
teaches all limitations of claim 1. Ans. 8-9. The Examiner finds Talarmo's
other parameters 355 (Figure 3) teach the recited control message. Ans. 8
(citing Talarmo, col. 7, 11. 1-20; col. 8, 11. 37-56); see also Ans. 16-17.
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
1. "Talarmo et al. does not remotely suggest that the random
access algorithm is contained in a control field of a control message reserved
for indicating information for star[t]ing the random access algorithm." App.
Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 6.
11. "[T]he field 355, which merely contains other parameters, does
not contain a value indicating information for star[t]ing the random access
algorithm." App. Br 16; see also Reply Br. 6.
111. "[T]he field 702 merely indicates whether uplink channel is
used or in use for random access and Talarmo et al. does not disclose or
suggest that the field 702 indicates information for starting a claimed
random access procedure in the manner claimed." App. Br. 16; see also
Reply Br. 6-7.
We do not see any error in the Examiner's findings. Nor do we see
any error in the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness.
Talarmo (col. 8, 11. 37-56; and Figure 3) discloses a control channel
allocation message. The message includes various fields including an
identity field 350, a channel defining field 351, a time slot indicating field
7
Appeal2014-007658
Application 12/141,321
352, a validity period field 353, a user group field 354, and a field 355
containing other possible parameters. Id.
The control channel allocation message indicates, to the subscriber
stations, information for starting a random access procedure. See Talarmo,
col. 7, 11. 6-15 ("the control channel is able to transmit random access
algorithm data 355 to radio devices requesting access in control channel
allocation messages").
Thus, Talarmo discloses a value of one of the control fields (Talarmo,
Figure 3, field 355) of the control message indicating information for
starting a random access procedure (Talarmo 's random access algorithm
data).
Contrary to Appellant's arguments i and ii, Talarmo's control channel
allocation message (Figure 3) includes field 355, which may contain random
access algorithm data. See Talarmo, col. 7, 11. 6-15; col. 8, 11. 37-56.
Regarding Appellant's argument iii, we need not further address
Talarmo' s traffic interruption message (Figure 7) because Talarmo 's control
channel allocation message (Figure 3) teaches the argued claim limitations,
as discussed above.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection based on Talarmo,
Haartsen, and Lohr of claim 1, as well as claims 2, 7-11, 16-19, 24, and 25,
which are not argued separately with particularity.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 3, 12, 20, AND 26 OVERT ALARMO,
HAARTSEN, LOHR, AND LIU
Claims 3, 12, 20, and 26 depend from claims 1, 10, 12, and 25,
respectively.
8
Appeal2014-007658
Application 12/141,321
Appellant argues Liu does not cure the purported deficiencies of
Talarmo, Haartsen, and Lohr, and there is no basis for the Examiner's stated
motivation to combine. App. Br. 17-18; see also Reply Br. 7-8.
For reasons discussed above, we find Talarmo, Haartsen, and Lohr are
not deficient. Further, regarding motivation, the Examiner explained "[t]he
motivation is to prioritize transmission." Ans. 11. Accordingly, we find the
Examiner has articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning and
Appellant has not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us
of error in the Examiner's findings.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection based on Talarmo,
Haartsen, Lohr, and Liu of claims 3, 12, 20, and 26.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 5, 6, 14, 15, 21-23, AND 27-29
OVER T ALARMO, HAARTSEN, AND LOHR
Claims 5, 6, 14, 15, 21-23, and 27-29 variously depend from claims
1, 10, 19, and 25.
Appellant argues Lohr does not cure the purported deficiencies of
Talarmo and Haartsen, and there is no basis for the Examiner's stated
motivation to combine. App. Br. 18-19; see also Reply Br. 7-8.
For reasons discussed above, we find Talarmo and Haartsen are not
deficient. Further, regarding motivation, the Examiner explained why there
is motivation. See Ans. 11-13. Accordingly, we find the Examiner has
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning and Appellant has not
proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the
Examiner's findings.
9
Appeal2014-007658
Application 12/141,321
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection based on Talarmo,
Haartsen, and Lohr of claims 5, 6, 14, 15, 21-23, and 27-29.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 30 OVER T ALARMO, HAARTSEN, AND
SOMASUNDARAM
Appellant argues Somasundaram does not cure the purported
deficiencies of Talarmo and Haartsen. App. Br. 19; see also Reply Br. 8.
For reasons discussed above, we find Talarmo and Haartsen are not
deficient.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection based on Talarmo,
Haartsen, and Somasundaram of claim 30.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14--30 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
10