Ex Parte NORY et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

13050743 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/050,743
124192
GOOGLE
7590
FILING DATE
03/17/2011
06/29/2016
C/O Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4300
Chicago, IL 60606
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ravikiran NORY
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.
GP-101610-00-US 3188
EXAMINER
HENSON, JAMAAL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2411
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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):
googleusinternal@faegrebd.com
inteas@faegrebd.com
michelle.davis@faegrebd.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RA VIK.IRAN NORY, RA VI KUCHIBHOTLA, and
ROBERT T. LOVE 1
Appeal2015-000830
Application 13/050,743
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-12. Claims 13-20 are cancelled. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Motorola Mobility
LLC. See Appeal Brief 2.
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellants' Specification filed
March 17, 2011 (Spec.); (2) the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed
September 26, 2013; (3) the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed May 9, 2014;
(4) the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed August 28, 2014; and (5) the
Reply Brief (Reply Br.) mailed October 15, 2014.
Appeal2015-000830
Application 13/050,743
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, the application relates to a method of
reporting power headroom of user equipment in an L TE wireless
communications network. Spec. 1, if 2. In the method, the user equipment
sends a composite report for a subframe including two different maximum
transmit power values to a base station. Spec. 10, if 25. Claim 1 is
reproduced below with disputed limitation emphasized:
1. A method in a wireless communication device, the
method comprising:
determining a first configured maximum transmit power
(PcMAX) value corresponding to a first set of resource blocks
(RBs) in a carrier for a subframe, the first set of RBs including
less than a complete set of RBs constituting the carrier;
determining a second P cMAX value corresponding to a
second set of RBs in the carrier for the subframe, the first and
second sets of RBs containing RBs of a common type, the
second set of RBs different from the first set of RBs and the
second set of RBs including less than the complete set of RBs
constituting the carrier; and
sending a composite report for the subframe including at
least the first P cMAX value and the second P cMAX value to a base
station.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal:
Heo et al. (hereinafter
"Heo")
US 2010/0296471 Al
REJECTIONS
Nov. 25, 2010
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
2
Appeal2015-000830
Application 13/050,743
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Heo.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
issues raised by the Appellants. We have not considered other possible
issues that have not been raised by Appellants and which are, therefore, not
before us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the limitations "a first set of
resource blocks (RBs) in a carrier for a subframe, the first set of RBs
including less than a complete set of RBs constituting the carrier" and "a
second set of resource blocks," recited in claim 1, render the claim indefinite
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Heo anticipates claim 1?
DISCUSSION
Rejection of Claims 1-12 under 35 US.C. § 112, second paragraph
The Examiner determined that the language "a first set of resource
blocks (RBs) in a carrier for a subframe, the first set of RBs including less
than a complete set of RBs constituting the carrier" in claim 1 renders this
claim and its dependent claims indefinite because the term "resource blocks"
is used in a manner contrary to the term's ordinary meaning and the written
description does not clearly redefine the claim term to put one reasonably
skilled in the art on notice that the applicants intended to so redefine that
claim term. See Final Act. 2-3 (citing Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim
Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Specifically, the Examiner
3
Appeal2015-000830
Application 13/050,743
states he "believes that the applicant[ s] intended to recite 'resource
elements' instead of 'resource blocks' in the claims" because each 0.5 ms
slot of a subframe can include only 1 resource block of 0.5 ms duration.
Final Act. 3.
Appellants contend the Examiner errs because in LTE "[ e Jach 0.5 ms
slot can contain a plurality of resource blocks in the frequency domain."
Appeal Br. 8 (citing§§ 4 and 5.2.1 of the LTE specification 3GPP TS
36.211 v8.9.0. ("LTE Specification")). Specifically, Appellants contend:
in L TE, a radio frame is 10 ms in the time domain and is
composed of 1 ms subframes. Each subframe contains two 0.5
ms slots in the time domain (and not two 0.05 ms resource
blocks as stated by the Office Action). Each 0.5 ms slot can
contain a plurality of resource blocks in the frequency domain.
The number of resource blocks depends on the bandwidth of an
L TE carrier.
Appeal Br. 8 (citing L TE Specification and Telesystem Innovations Inc.,
LTE in a Nutshell: The Physical Layer ("LTE in a Nutshell"), pg. 6 (2010)).
Appellants' contentions are persuasive. We agree with Appellants
that "[e]ach 0.5 ms slot can contain a plurality of resource blocks in the
frequency domain." Appeal Br. 8. For example, Appellants correctly point
out that the number of resource blocks depends on the allocated bandwidth.
Id. The minimum allocated transmission bandwidth is 180 kHz, which
results in a single resource block per slot. L TE in a Nutshell, pg. 6.
Increasing the transmission bandwidth, however, results in multiple resource
blocks per slot, where each additional resource block increases the occupied
bandwidth by an additional 180 kHz. See Anritsu Company, L TE Resource
Guide, pg. 7, FIGS. 7 and 8 (2009) (submitted by Appellants) (illustrating
that each additional resource block per slot increases bandwidth by 180 kHz
4
Appeal2015-000830
Application 13/050,743
(Fig. 7) and noting that the number of resource blocks can range between 6
and 100 as the maximum occupied bandwidth varies from 1.08 to 18 MHz
(Fig. 8)). Accordingly, the Examiner fails to establish that each 0.5 ms slot
of a subframe can only include a single resource block, thereby indicating
confusion between the terms "resource blocks" and "resource elements."
We disagree, therefore, with the Examiner's finding that claim 1 is
indefinite. We, likewise, reverse the indefiniteness rejection of dependent
claims 2-12.
Rejection of Claims 1-12 under 35 USC§ 102
Appellants assert their invention is not anticipated by Heo. App.
Br. 9. Specifically, Appellants state "Heo does not teach a composite report
with two PCMAX values for two sets of resource blocks of the same type
within the same carrier. (Please refer to the other elements of the presently
pending independent claim 1 ). " Id.
Such a conclusory statement, however, amounting to little more than a
paraphrasing of the claim language and a general denial, is unpersuasive to
rebut the prima facie case produced by the Examiner. Cf 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.3 7 ( c )(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim recites
will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.");
see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that
the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art."); cf In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir.
1991) ("It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater
5
Appeal2015-000830
Application 13/050,743
detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over
the prior art.").
We accordingly sustain the Examiner's§ 102(e) rejection of claim 1
as anticipated by Heo.
Appellants do not make any other substantive argument regarding the
rejection of dependent claims 2-12. See Appeal Br. 9-10. Therefore, we
likewise sustain the rejection of these dependent claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 under
35 U.S.C. § 102( e) as being anticipated by Heo.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6