Ex Parte LIN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2018

14020590 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/020,590 09/06/2013 LijunLIN
112246 7590 09/18/2018
Loza & Loza, LLP/Qualcomm
305 N. Second Ave., #127
Upland, CA 91786
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.
QCOM-2268US (132910) 9807
EXAMINER
ESMAEILIAN, MAJID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/18/2018 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qualcomm-pto@lozaip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LIJUN LIN and KAMALAKAR GANTI
Appeal2018-006520
Application 14/020,590 1
Technology Center 2400
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1--4, 6-10, and 12-23. The Examiner has objected to claims 5 and 11
as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but has indicated the claims
would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Final Act. 33. We
have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Qualcomm Incorporated as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2
Appeal2018-006520
Application 14/020,590
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
"dynamically increasing sleep state times in access terminals operating in a
slotted idle mode." Spec. ,r 1. The Specification describes a slotted idle
mode as one in which an access terminal (i.e., a mobile device) "periodically
wakes up from a 'sleep' state and enters an 'awake' state by powering on its
receiver circuitry at known time intervals and processes a control channel for
messages scheduled to be transmitted from [a] base station(s)." Spec. ,r 22.
According to the Specification, by increasing the sleep state duration
(thereby decreasing the awake state duration), significant power savings to
the battery powering the access terminal may be achieved-allowing for
longer operation of the access terminal between charges. Spec. ,r 4 7.
Figure 2 of Appellants' Specification is illustrative and is reproduced
below:
/20'.:
- -- -
sec Offret sec orr;ei
Figure 2 illustrates portions of two 256-slot synchronous control channel
(SCC) cycles according to an example of a slotted idle mode. Spec. ,r 23.
Appellants disclose that in a slotted idle mode, the access terminal will
typically power on its receiver circuitry (i.e., wake up) at the SCC boundary
(202) in order to receive the first control channel packet. Spec. ,r 23. The
2
Appeal2018-006520
Application 14/020,590
SCC boundary is the beginning of the 256-slot SCC cycle. Spec. ,r 23.
According to the Specification, the base station may use an offset in timing
from the SCC boundary before transmitting the first control channel packet.
Spec. ,r 23. As shown in Figure 2, typically, the offset (SCC Offset) is
between O and 3 slots. Spec. ,r 23. Thus, if an access terminal powers on its
receive circuitry at the SCC boundary, but the base station is using an offset
of 3 slots before transmitting control channel data, the access terminal is in
an awake state but not receiving data ( thereby adding to the overall power
consumption of the access terminal). See Spec. ,r,r 24--25.
In a disclosed embodiment, the access terminal may initially power on
the receiver at the SCC boundary and determine the offset by identifying
when it receives a transmission. Spec. ,r 26, Fig. 3. For subsequent SCC
cycles ( assuming a handover from one base station another base station has
not occurred or is likely to occur), the access terminal will delay powering
on the receive circuitry until a time corresponding to the determined offset
after the SCC boundary. Spec. ,r,r 26-27, Fig. 3.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. An access terminal, comprising:
a communications interface including a receiver circuit;
and
a processing circuit coupled to the communications
interface, the processing circuit adapted to:
operate the receiver circuit in a slotted idle mode,
wherein the slotted idle mode employs a scheduled
wakeup time for the receiver circuit to be powered on at a
beginning of each slot cycle;
3
Appeal2018-006520
Application 14/020,590
determine an offset corresponding to a time
difference between the beginning of the first slot cycle and
receipt of a first packet in the first slot cycle;
adjust the wakeup time employed for the slotted idle
mode according to the determined offset; and
power on the receiver circuit in a second slot cycle,
after the first slot cycle, at a time corresponding to the
determined offset after the wakeup time scheduled for a
beginning of the second slot cycle.
The Examiner's Rejections
1. Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 13-15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2014/0079040
Al; Mar. 20, 2014) ("Smith") and Kitade et al. (US 6,487,188 Bl; Nov. 26,
2002) ("Kitade"). Final Act. 3-17.
2. Claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16-18, and 21-23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Kitade, and Fashandi et
al. (US 2007/0058588 Al; Mar. 15, 2007) ("Fashandi"). Final Act. 18-33.
ANALYSIS 2
Claims 1, 7, 13, 14, and 19
In rejecting, inter alia, independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Smith
teaches most of the recited limitations but "does not seem to explicitly
disclose an offset determination" and relies on Kitade for this teaching.
Final Act. 6. We begin our analysis with a brief review of Smith.
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
August 28, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed February 2, 2018
("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed November 15, 2017 ("Ans.");
and the Final Office Action, mailed March 7, 201 7 ("Final Act."), from
which this Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal2018-006520
Application 14/020,590
Smith generally relates to "a base station that communicates with a
plurality of remote devices using a message cycle that includes a fixed
number of frame slots." Smith ,r 2. Smith identifies a problem with having
the remote devices continuously monitoring for transmissions from the base
station is that the batteries in the remote devices will "quickly deplete."
Smith ,r 7. Smith teaches it is known that mobile stations (i.e., remote
devices) "are configured to periodically monitor for notification of
messages, and enter an inactive state during periods of inactivity. If a
mobile station is notified of a pending message the mobile station is
subsequently notified of a time-slot at which the base station will be
transmitting the message." Smith ,r 8. However, the longer the time the
remote device is in an inactive state, the greater the latency between
notifications to the remote device. Smith ,r 8. Conversely, reducing the
latency requires more frequent periods of activity, thereby increasing the rate
at which the battery of the remote device discharges. Smith ,r 8. Rather than
providing multiple independent systems to support different users and
application needs ( as Smith suggests is conventionally done), Smith
describes a system that:
allocates one or more frame slots to each transceiver for
communication within each message cycle. The number of
frame slots allocated can be dynamically adjusted to
accommodate variable traffic loads per transceiver, and an offset
of the frame slots within the message cycle is preferably
predefined to provide a uniform distribution among the
transceivers.
Smith ,r,r 9-13.
5
Appeal2018-006520
Application 14/020,590
Figure 2 of Smith is illustrative and is reproduced below:
FlG. 2
Figure 2 of Smith illustrates a series of message cycles comprising frame
slots 1-N. Smith ,r,r 17, 32. More specifically, Smith describes the example
depicted in Figure 2 as "an example protocol that supports a variety of
services having substantially different performance requirements." Smith
,r 29. A remote transceiver configured to be activated once per message
cycle is indicated by dashed line (210). Smith ,r 32. As shown, the initial
listening period occurs in frame slot 2 and reoccurs at frame slot 2 for
subsequent message cycles. Smith ,r 32. Smith further teaches if remote
device requires less latency (i.e., one slot per message cycle), or more
bandwidth, it can be activated more than once per message cycle. Smith
,r 33. Pattern (220) is indicative of a remote transceiver that is activated
every fourth slot, whereas pattern (230) is indicative of a remote transceiver
that is active for all slots within the message cycle. Smith ,r 34. Smith also
teaches "each remote device is configured to be activated for the same frame
slot(s) in each message cycle, and the base station is aware of which frame
slots are available for transmitting messages to each remote device." Smith
Smith further describes each frame slot preferably includes a
synchronization element, an identification element, and a plurality of
message elements. Smith ,r 42, see also Smith, Fig. 3. "Each remote device
6
Appeal2018-006520
Application 14/020,590
is activated in time to receive the synchronization element 310 and verify
that the frame slot identifier 320 corresponds to its assigned frame slot(s)."
Smith ,r 43. Regarding the activation of the receive circuitry of the remote
device, Smith describes a timer is configured to provide a "wake-up/trigger
signal" to the other component at each frame slot assigned to the remote
device. Smith ,r 48. In particular, the timer provides the trigger signal ahead
of the start point of the assigned frame slot "such that the receiver is
sufficiently enabled to detect the start of each assigned frame." Smith ,r 48.
Appellants assert Smith fails to teach or suggest adjusting a scheduled
wakeup time according to an offset, or to powering on a receiver circuit at a
time corresponding to the offset after a scheduled wakeup time. App.
Br. 10-14; Reply Br. 2--4. In particular, Appellants argue the Examiner
conflates the claimed "scheduled wakeup time" and "offset" with the
teachings of Smith. App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 2--4. Further, Appellants
contend Smith describes a "lead-lag" timing adjustment to wake up the
remote device ahead of scheduled wakeup time such that the receiver is
sufficiently enabled to detect the start of the assigned frame. App. Br. 12-
13; Reply Br. 4. Appellants assert Smith's teaching of adjusting the time to
power on the remote device (i.e., receiver) before the scheduled wakeup
time runs counter to the claim language of powering on the receiver to a
time corresponding to the determined offset "after the wakeup time
scheduled." App. Br. 13. Additionally, Appellants contend because Smith
does not teach the claimed offset, then it cannot teach any of the other claim
limitations that are dependent on the determined offset. App. Br. 15-17.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive of error. As
discussed above, Smith teaches a remote device is assigned a frame slot
7
Appeal2018-006520
Application 14/020,590
within the message cycle. See Smith ,r,r 32-36. Using the example
described in Smith of a remote device being assigned to slot 2 (see, e.g.,
Smith ,r 32, Fig. 2 (210)), Smith teaches the receiver is powered up prior to
the beginning of slot 2 "such that the receiver is sufficiently enabled to
detect the start of each assigned frame." Smith ,r 48. In the same paragraph,
Smith describes that "[ e Jach frame slot ( 1, 2, ... N) of the message cycle
begins at a particular start point, or offset (0, 1/N, 2/N, ... (N-1 )IN), in the
cycle." Smith ,r 48 ( emphasis added). Thus, Smith teaches the offset is the
time in the cycle after the message cycle begins-i.e., the message cycle
boundary. Smith's description of an offset is consistent with Appellants' use
of the term. See Spec. ,r 6 ("an offset correspond[ s] to a time difference
between a beginning of a first slot cycle and receipt of a first packet").
Further, similar to Appellants' scheduled wakeup time corresponding to a
beginning of slot cycle, Smith teaches or reasonably suggests the beginning
of the message cycle as reference point to which the offset is applied. See
Smith i1 48, Fig. 2.
Smith's use of the term "wake-up" is not directed to the beginning of
a message cycle, but rather, is used in the discussion of powering on the
receive circuitry at a time prior to the start of the assigned frame slot (i.e., an
offset after the message cycle boundary). Smith ,r 48. However, a prior art
reference need not use the same terminology as the pending claims. See In
re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (explaining "the reference
need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test"). Thus, Smith teaches, or
reasonably suggests, sending a trigger signal (i.e., wake-up signal) at a time
corresponding to the offset after the start of the message cycle (i.e., the
scheduled wakeup time).
8
Appeal2018-006520
Application 14/020,590
Regarding Smith's disclosure of lead-lag timing adjustment and
Appellants' arguments that such disclosure is inconsistent with the claim
language, we disagree. As discussed above, Smith teaches or reasonably
suggests powering on the receive circuitry at a time corresponding to an
offset after the wakeup time for a beginning of the second cycle (i.e.,
message cycle boundary). Smith's use of lead-lag timing adjustment is used
to account for, and correct for, clock drift between the remote device and the
base station. Smith ,r 49. Such correction does not change that Smith
powers up the receive circuitry at a time corresponding to the offset after the
start of the message cycle.
Because we find Smith teaches the claimed offset, we are not
persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments that Smith cannot teach any of
the claim limitations that are dependent on an offset.
Appellants also contend Kitade fails to teach the determination of an
offset. App. Br. 14--15; Reply Br. 4. In particular, Appellants assert Kitade,
as relied on by the Examiner, merely discloses a propagation delay
corresponding to the distance between the mobile device and the base
station, but that there is no disclosure of determining the delay. App. Br. 14.
Further, Appellants argue "[t]here is no disclosure or suggestion that the
propagation delay represents any delay from a beginning of a slot cycle to
receipt of an actual packet." App. Br. 14.
Kitade is generally directed to a transmission power control method,
capable of minimizing control delays in a closed-loop system. Kitade,
col. 3, 11. 34--38. Kitade describes prior art systems wherein a base station
sends a signal containing transmission power control information to a
mobile device and the mobile device receives the transmission after a
9
Appeal2018-006520
Application 14/020,590
propagation delay, TDelay. Kitade, col. 2, 11. 4--10. The mobile device
measures and determines a signal to interference ratio (SIR) and sends a
signal back to the base station, which is received after, inter alia, a
propagation delay, TDelay. Kitade, col. 2, 11. 7-20, Fig. 1. In a disclosed
embodiment, "the downlink [(i.e., the transmission from the base station to
the mobile device)] is the same as the conventional one." Kitade, col. 5,
11. 41--45. However, on the uplink transmission-from the mobile device to
the base station-Kitade describes that in the mobile device, "data locations
in the slot are determined by taking account of a delay." Kitade, col. 5,
11. 53-63. Data is inserted between pilot data and transmission power
control data and a shift (TShift). Kitade, col. 5, 1. 64--col. 6, 1. 6. Thus,
Kitade teaches "the transmission power control data on the uplink can be
reflected in the slot without delays." Kitade, col. 6, 11. 4--6, Fig. 6. Further,
Kitade describes determining the pilot data and transmission power control
data locations "according to processing delays and propagation delays,
which ensures that control delays are minimized." Kitade, col. 6, 11. 51-56.
Thus, as discussed, Kitade teaches, or reasonably suggests
determining the processing and propagation delays (e.g., TDelay) in order to
locate the pilot and transmission power control data in the uplink signal.
Additionally, Smith further teaches that other techniques for determining an
offset-such as monitoring the transmission of the base station at the
beginning of the message cycle until a command message assigning the
offset is received-is "common in the art." See Smith ,r 52; see also
Ans. 39. Thus, Smith also teaches or reasonably suggests determining an
offset corresponding to a time difference between the beginning of the slot
10
Appeal2018-006520
Application 14/020,590
cycle (i.e., a default offset of zero) and receipt of a first data packet in the
cycle (i.e., an assigning command of the offset).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 7, 14, and 19, which recite similar limitations and for
which Appellants rely on the arguments related to claim 1. See App. Br. 17-
18. Additionally, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim
13, which was not argued separately. See App. Br. 18; see also 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
Claims 2, 8, 15, and 20
Appellants assert the cited references also fail to teach or suggest
"power on the receiver circuit at the beginning of the first slot cycle; receive
the first packet in the first slot cycle via the communications interface; and
measure a number of slots between the beginning of the first slot cycle and
receipt of the first packet," as recited in dependent claim 2. App. Br. 18.
Dependent claims 8, 15, and 20 recite similar limitations. In particular,
Appellants argue the remote device in Smith is assigned a frame slot offset
and wakes up (i.e., powers on) prior to the start of the assigned slot, but that
Smith "fails to disclose any remote device waking up at a scheduled wakeup
time (i.e., the beginning of the message cycle), and then measuring a number
of slots between the scheduled wakeup time and reception of a packet."
App. Br. 18.
11
Appeal2018-006520
Application 14/020,590
We disagree. As discussed above, Smith describes:
Other techniques for assigning different offsets to
communicating elements are common in the art, including, for
example, having each remote device default to a common phase,
typically zero, then monitoring at that offset for a command
message from the base station that assigns the offset to each
remote device using a registration protocol.
Smith ,r 52. Thus, Smith teaches, powering on the remote device at the
beginning of the message cycle (i.e., a default offset of zero) and monitoring
for receipt of data to indicate the assigned offset. An obviousness analysis
"need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007). Because Smith also
teaches that each frame slot begins at a particular offset (see Smith ,r 48), an
ordinarily skilled artisan would understand Smith suggests measuring the
number of slots until receiving a command message from the base station as
a way to determine the offset to be used for subsequent message cycles.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 8, 15,
and 20.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16-18, and 21-23
Appellants assert Fashandi "fails to remedy the deficiencies of Smith
et al. and Kitade et al. with respect to independent claims 1, 7, 14, or 19" and
claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16-18, and 21-23, which depend therefrom, are,
therefore, allowable. App. Br. 19. As discussed above, we are unpersuaded
of Examiner error or deficiencies of Smith and Kitade related to the
12
Appeal2018-006520
Application 14/020,590
independent claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16-18, and 21-23. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-10, and
12-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
13