Ex Parte Shah

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2012

11005670 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2012)

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.
11/005,670 12/06/2004 Dipesh H. Shah C04-0007-000; ATT-191 3676
65667 7590 03/27/2012
AT&T Legal Department - Moazzam
Attn: Patent Docketing
Room 2A-207
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
EXAMINER
PEREZ, ANGELICA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DIPESH H. SHAH
____________

Appeal 2009-009036
Application 11/005,670
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-009036
Application 11/005,670

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-42. Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002).
We affirm.

Appellant argues the claims in three separate groups and the
representative claim for each group is 1, 7, and 10, respectively.
1. A radio link timer (RLT) of a mobile system (MS)
of a wireless communications network, the RLT comprising:
first logic configured to receive frame error rate (FER)
information relating to a number of speech frames that an
adaptive multirate (AMR) decoder of the MS was incapable of
successfully decoding; and
second logic configured to make a determination as to
whether or not a call should be released based on the FER
information.

7. A method for determining whether a call is to be released
by a mobile station (MS), the MS including a radio link timer
(RLT) that the MS uses to determine whether or not to release
the call, the method comprising:
decoding a plurality of consecutive speech frames
associated with a call in which the MS is participating;
determining a frame error rate (FER) associated with
each of the speech frames; and
based on the FERs associated with the speech frames,
determining whether to release the call.

10. A method for determining whether a call is to be released
by a base station system (BSS), the BSS including a radio link
Appeal 2009-009036
Application 11/005,670

3
timer (RLT) that the BSS uses to determine whether or not to
release the call, the method comprising:
adaptive multirate (AMR) decoding a plurality of
consecutive speech frames associated with a call in which the
BSS is participating;
determining a frame error rate (FER) associated with
each of the speech frames; and
based on the FERs associated with the speech frames,
determining whether to release the call.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hunzinger (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number
2002/006507 A1 (published May 30, 2002)). Answer 5-6.
Claims 10-18, 25-36, and 40-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hunzinger and Komaili (U.S. Patent
Number 7,164,710 B2 (filed April 16, 2002) (issued January 16, 2007)).
Answer 7-9.
Claims 1-6, 19-24, and 37-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Miyamoto (U.S. Patent Application Publication
Number 2002/0198014 A1 (published December 26, 2002)), Hunzinger, and
Komaili. Answer 9-13.

ANALYSIS
The invention is directed to an apparatus and method in a wireless
telecommunications system in which an RLT is used to determine whether
calls should be released based upon the FER of decoded speech/data channel
frames. Appeal Brief 2-3.
Appeal 2009-009036
Application 11/005,670

4
Argument A (Claims 7-9)
Appellant argues:
Hunzinger teaches a conventional RLT method that
bases its decision whether to release a call upon the
percentage of SACCH frames successfully or
unsuccessfully decoded. By stark contrast, Appellant’s
claimed invention is directed to a RLT method that bases
its decision whether to release a call upon the number or
percentage of speech channel frames (or, alternatively,
data frames, in instances in which the communicated
content is other than speech) that are successfully or
unsuccessfully decoded in a system employing adaptive
multirate (AMR) vocoding. Hunzinger simply does not
disclose, teach, or suggest this feature of using speech (or
data) frames. For at least this reason, Appellant
respectfully requests that this rejection be withdrawn.
Appeal Brief 12.
The Examiner finds that Hunzinger discloses utilizing speech or data
frames and cites paragraph [0067] to support his findings. We agree with
the Examiner and do not find Appellant’s arguments to be persuasive. See
Answer 13; see also Hunzinger, paragraph [0068]. Further, Appellant’s
arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim because claim
7 does not recite, nor does it require adaptive multirate (AMR) vocoding.
Appellant also argues that the claims are not directed to rescue mode
but rather to a Radio Link Timer (RLT), RLT-based method, and computer
program product. Appeal Brief 13. However, in spite of all Appellant’s
assertions and analysis of Hunzinger we are not persuaded of Examiner
error. That is, claim 7 is broad and does not exclude nor limit the claims to
the narrow interpretation urged by Appellant. We sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 7, as well as dependent claims 8 and 9, not
argued separately.
Appeal 2009-009036
Application 11/005,670

5
Argument B (claims 10-18, 25-36, and 40-42)
Appellant contends that Komaili fails to cure the deficiencies of
Hunzinger. Appeal Brief 15. Appellant further argues “nothing in Komaili
can be read to disclose an RLT having logic to receive FER] information
relating to a number of speech or data frames that an AMR] decoder of the
MS was incapable of successfully decoding, as claimed.” Id. Appellant
concludes that “neither Hunzinger nor Komaili discloses, teaches, or
suggests an RLT that determines whether to release calls based upon FER]
information relating to a number of speech/data frames that an AMR]
decoder was incapable of successfully decoding.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner
found that it would have been obvious to combine Hunzinger with Komaili
and provided an articulated reason – “in order to ‘increase or decrease the
vocoder rate and channel coding in response to the level of interference
present in the wireless communication channel.” Answer 8. Komaili uses
an AMR decoder, it is irrelevant that it is conventional, as Appellant argues,
because claim 10 does not require a special or non-conventional AMR
decoder. See Appeal Brief 15-16. The Examiner’s reliance upon Komaili’s
AMR decoder is predicated on Hunzinger’s disclosure of an RLT having
logic to receive FER information relating to a number of speech or data
frames, thus providing the rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. Answer 8. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 as well as claims 11-18, 25-36, and 40-42
since Appellant has not presented any patentability arguments that
specifically state how each of the claims is patentable over the prior art of
record.
Appeal 2009-009036
Application 11/005,670

6
Argument C (Claims 1-6, 19-24, and 37-39)
Appellant argues that Miyamoto fails to cure the deficiencies of
Hunzinger because neither reference discloses FER information relating to a
number of speech/data frames that an AMR decoder is incapable of
successfully decoding. Appeal Brief 16-17. However, the Examiner did not
rely on either of these references to disclose the use of the AMR decoder;
the Examiner relied upon Komaili to disclose the AMR decoder. Answer
10, 16. Therefore we do not find Appellant’s argument to be persuasive and
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 19-24, and 37-39.

DECISION
The Examiner rejection of 1-42 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) (1) (iv).

AFFIRMED

llw