Ex Parte Taghavi Nasrabadi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2017

12550718 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 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.
12/550,718 08/31/2009 Mohammad Hossein Taghavi Nasrabadi 092436 1473
23696 7590 04/28/2017
OTTAT mMM TNmRPORATFD
EXAMINER
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
SHERIF, FATUMA G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2017 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MOHAMMAD HOSSEIN TAGHAVINASRABADI, HEMANTH
SAMPATH, and SANTOSH P. ABRAHAM
Appeal 2017-001471
Application 12/550,718
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, ERIC B. CHEN, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-001471
Application 12/550,718
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5—14, 17—26, and 29-45. Claims 3, 4, 15, 16, 27, and 28 have
been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a wireless communications apparatus,
which includes a processing system configured to turn off a first wireless
interface that supports communications within a first coverage area. The
apparatus is further configured to communicate with a second apparatus
using a second wireless interface that supports communications within a
second coverage area greater than the first coverage area. The processing
system is also configured to turn on the first wireless interface based on the
communication with the second apparatus. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. An apparatus for wireless communications, comprising:
a processing system configured to:
provide an indication to a second apparatus that a first power
savings mode for a first wireless interface will be entered, wherein the
first wireless interface is configured to support communications
within a first coverage area and wherein the processing system is
further configured to provide the indication using either the first
wireless interface or a second wireless interface configured to support
communications within a second coverage area greater than the first
coverage area;
enter the first power savings mode for the first wireless
interface based on a time period of inactivity of the first wireless
interface;
communicate with the second apparatus using the second
wireless interface; and
2
Appeal 2017-001471
Application 12/550,718
exit the first power savings mode based on the communication
with the second apparatus.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 13, 14, 19, 25, 26, 31, and 37-45 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Singh (US 2008/0176521 Al;
July 24, 2008) and Hammond (US 2004/0203789 Al; Oct. 14, 2004).
Claims 5, 8—12, 17, 20-24, 29, and 32—36 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Singh, Hammond, and Sano
(US 2008/0046542 Al; Feb. 21, 2008).
Claims 6, 18, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Singh, Hammond, and Kim (US 2007/0159992 Al;
July 12, 2007).
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Section 103 Rejection—Singh and Hammond
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 12; Reply
Br. 3) that the combination of Singh and Hammond would not have rendered
obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “enter the first
power savings mode for the first wireless interface based on a time period of
inactivity of the first wireless interface.”
The Examiner found that the high-rate (HR) power saving module of
Singh, which informs the low-rate (LR) power saving module that a recent
HR stream transmission has been completed, corresponds to the limitation
“enter the first power savings mode for the first wireless interface based on a
time period of inactivity of the first wireless interface.” (Final Act. 3; see
also Ans. 4—5.) In particular, the Examiner found that “[bjased on the
broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification, the phrase
‘a time period of inactivity’ is interpreted as any period of time when the
3
Appeal 2017-001471
Application 12/550,718
apparatus or module is inactive, whether [sic] completion of a
communication or not.” (Ans. 5.)
Singh relates to “wireless communications, and in particular to power
usage in wireless communications.” (]f 2.) Figure 7 of Singh illustrates a
block diagram of a wireless station implementing a power saving process
(114), including LR communication module 32 having power saving
module 32D, high-rate (HR) communication module 33 having power
saving module 33D, and convergence module 34. 33, 37.) Singh
explains that “HR power saving module 33D (FIG. 7) send[s] a message . . .
to the power saving module 34A of the convergence module 34 indicating
completion of the stream transmission” and “LR power saving module 32D
checks beacons/messages on the out-of-band channel to determine that other
stream requests are not pending for the communication module 33, and
sends message ... to the module 34A to place the HR communication
block 33 to power saving mode.” (137.)
Although the Examiner cited to HR power saving module 32D of
Singh, which informs the LR power saving module 33D that a recent HR
stream transmission has been completed, the Examiner has provided
insufficient evidence to support a finding the Singh teaches the limitation
“enter the first power savings mode for the first wireless interface based on a
time period of inactivity of the first wireless interface.” In particular, even if
the Examiner is correct that “the phrase ‘a time period of inactivity’ [as
recited in claim 1] is [] any period of time when the apparatus or module is
inactive” (Ans. 5), the Examiner has not demonstrated that HR
communication module 33 of Singh enters power saving mode “based on a
time period of inactivity of the first wireless interface,” as recited by claim 1
4
Appeal 2017-001471
Application 12/550,718
(emphasis added) because Singh’s power savings mode is based on HR
power saving module 33D sending a message to the power saving module
34A and LR power saving module 32D determining that other stream
requests are not pending for the communication module 33. (See 137.) In
addition, the Examiner has not established that Hammond cures deficiencies
of Singh.
Therefore, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that “Singh
fails to teach or suggest ‘enter the first power savings mode for the first
wireless interface based on a time period of inactivity of the first wireless
interface’ as recited in claim 1” because “Singh is not placed in a power
savings mode based on a time period of inactivity by the HR communication
module, but only based on completion of a communication when there are
no pending communications.” (App. Br. 12 (emphases omitted); see also
Reply Br. 3.)
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2, 7, and 40 depend from independent
claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 7, and 40 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.
Independent claims 13, 25, 37, 38, and 39 recite limitations similar to
those discussed with respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 13, 25, 37, 38, and 39, as well as dependent claims 14,
19, 26, 31, and 41—45, for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 1.
5
Appeal 2017-001471
Application 12/550,718
Section 103 Rejection—Singh, Hammond, and Sano
Claims 5, 8—12, 17, 20-24, 29, and 32—36 depend from independent
claims 1,13, and 25. Sano was cited by the Examiner for teaching the
additional features of claims 5, 8—12, 17, 20—24, 29, and 32—36. (Final
Act. 8—13.) However, the Examiner’s application of Sano does not cure the
above noted deficiencies of Singh and Hammond.
Section 103 Rejection—Singh, Hammond, and Kim
Claims 6, 18, and 30 depend from independent claims 1,13, and 25.
Kim was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of
claims 6, 18, and 30. (Final Act. 13—14.) However, the Examiner’s
application of Kim does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Singh and
Hammond.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5—14, 17—26, and 29—
45 is reversed.
REVERSED
6