Ex Parte PHAN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 5, 2017

14092121 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/092,121 11/27/2013 Vinh Van PHAN 059864.02328 2612
32294 7590 06/07/2017
Squire PB (NVA/DC Office)
8000 TOWERS CRESCENT DRIVE
14TH FLOOR
VIENNA, VA 22182-6212
EXAMINER
VIANA DI PRISCO, GERMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/07/2017 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):
IPGENER ALTY C @ SQUIREpb.COM
SONIA. WHITNEY @ SQUIREpb.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VINH VAN PHAN, LING YU,
KARI VEIKKO HORNEMAN, and KLAUS HUGL
Appeal 2016-007226
Application 14/092,121
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—22, all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-007226
Application 14/092,121
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to “[p]roximity-based or location-based
services or applications [which] are accessible with (mobile) user devices
through (mobile) communications networks.” Spec. 12. Claims 1,7, 13,
and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference:
1. A method, comprising:
monitoring, by a receiving user device, a first channel
allocated to proximity-based services within a proximity-based
service cluster;
transmitting, if the user device is not receiving
transmissions on the first channel, an indication that the
receiving user device is not receiving transmissions on the first
channel allocated to the proximity-based services within the
proximity-based service cluster; and
receiving an indication of a second channel allocated to
the proximity-based services within the proximity-based service
cluster.
References and Rejections
Claims 1—5, 7—11, 13—15, and 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Phan (WO 2010/102668 Al; Sept. 16,
2010). Final Act. 2.
Claims 6, 12, 16, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Phan and Lin (US 2013/0242866 Al; Sept. 19,
2013). Final Act. 7.
Claims 17 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Phan and Li (US 2013/0301438 Al; Nov. 14, 2013).
Final Act. 9.
2
Appeal 2016-007226
Application 14/092,121
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (see Final
Act. 2—10; Advisory Action; Ans. 2—6) as our own, and we add the
following primarily for emphasis.
A. Independent claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1,
because “Phan does not use the term ‘cluster’ or explicitly or implicitly
describe a ‘cluster.’ Instead, Phan mentions a pair of user terminals 220,
222 that can communicate directly with each other via a D2D direct
communication link 224.” App. Br. 11—12. Particularly, Appellants contend
the requirements of a cluster, as defined the Specification, are missing in the
disclosure of Phan: “There is no such cluster of user devices mentioned in
Phan. There is no group of devices that control usage of resources allocated
by a network node. There is no cluster head assigned to the devices of
Phan.” App. Br. 12 (citing Spec. 13); see also Reply Br. 3^4.
During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Am. Acad, of Sci.
Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, Appellants’
arguments do not provide persuasive reasoning or evidence to distinguish
the claim terms from the Examiner’s findings with respect to Phan. Further,
Appellants’ Specification provides all descriptions of proximity-based
service clusters in non-limiting, exemplary terms. For example, Appellants’
Specification states that “[