Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2016

12725916 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121725,916 03/17/2010
66547 7590 03/23/2016
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Soeng-Hun KIM
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.
678-3922 (Pl 7462) 1199
EXAMINER
MUI, GARY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2464
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SOENG-HUN KIM and HIMKE VAN DER VELDE
Appeal2014-005392
Application 12/725 ,916
Technology Center 2400
Before KAL YANK. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-005392
Application 12/725,916
STATEMENT OF CASE 1
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to transmitting scheduling information in a
wireless network. Spec. 1: 14--17.
Yi
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and are reproduced below:
1. A method for reporting available transmit power
information to a Base Station (BS) by a User Equipment (UE) in
a wireless communication system, comprising:
receiving, by the UE, an uplink resource;
determining whether the uplink resource is a first uplink
resource allocated for a new transmission after a Medium Access
Control (MAC) reset;
starting a timer for reporting the available transmit power
information, if the allocated upli11k resource is the first upli11k
resource allocated for the new transmission after the MAC reset;
and
reporting the available transmit power information, after
expiration of the timer.
REFERENCES
Dec. 24, 20092
Wang
US 2009/0318180 Al
US 2011/0002262 Al Jan. 6, 2011 3
1 Our decision makes reference to Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.,"
filed March 31, 2014), and Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed January 13,
2014), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed January 30, 2014) and
Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed May 2, 2013).
2 Provisional applications filed June 18, 2008, October 24, 2008, December
2, 2008, and January 2, 2009.
3 Provisional application filed August 8, 2008.
2
Appeal2014-005392
Application 12/725,916
REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the combination of Yi and Wang. 4 Final Act. 3-12; Ans. 4-14.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Yi and Wang
teaches "starting a timer for reporting the available transmit power
information," if a received "uplink resource is the first uplink resource
allocated for[] transmission after [a] MAC reset," as recited in independent
claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Appellants specifically argue that Yi fails to teach "starting a timer for
reporting the available transmit power information," if a received "uplink
resource is the first uplink resource allocated for [] transmission after [a]
MAC reset," as recited in independent claim 1. 5 App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2--4.
Appellants argue that although Yi describes restarting a periodic timer, there
is nothing in Yi that describes what caused the timer to be restarted. App.
Br. 5. Instead, Appellants contend that Yi discloses four possible and
optional triggering events, none of which are the same as that which is
claimed. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 3--4. Additionally, Appellants contend that
4 The Examiner's headings for the rejections in the Final Action and Answer
incorrectly state that only claims 1-15 are rejected. See Final Act. 3;
Answer 4. However, in the body of the rejection, the Examiner addresses
claims 1-21. Id. We find this to be harmless error and make the appropriate
change to the heading here.
5 Appellants contend that independent claims 7, 14, and 18 recite "similar"
limitations, but do not specify the particular language relied upon in those
claims. See App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2--4.
3
Appeal2014-005392
Application 12/725,916
checking whether there is a newly allocated uplink resource is the result of
the triggering event, not a condition for restarting the timer. Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, Yi teaches that after a periodic headroom reporting procedure
is triggered and a terminal has received an uplink resource, the terminal
determines whether the resource is the first uplink resource allocated for
transmission. Final Act. 3; see also Yi i-f 49. The Examiner also finds, and
we agree, that if the first uplink resource is available for transmission, a
periodic power headroom reporting (PHR) timer may be restarted. Final
Act. 3; Ans. 15-16; see also Yi i-fi-148--49. We note that although Yi teaches
that the terminal may restart the PHR timer (Yi i-f 49), this conditional
language teaches that there is at least one situation where the timer will be
restarted. Because in that circumstance restarting the timer is dependent
upon a determination that the resource is the first uplink resource allocated
for transmission ("if the allocated uplink resource is the first uplink resource
allocated for the new transmission," as recited in claim 1 ), we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 and claims 2-21 that were not argued separately.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Yi and
Wang teaches "starting a timer for reporting the available transmit power
information," if a received "uplink resource is the first uplink resource
allocated for[] transmission after [a] MAC reset," as recited in independent
claim 1.
4
Appeal2014-005392
Application 12/725,916
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-21under35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over the combination Yi and Wang 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
5