Ex Parte Tang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2018

13963026 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018)

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.
13/963,026 08/09/2013 Yuqiang Tang 6888-28005 7940
81310 7590 03/02/2018
Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & G (Apple)
P.O. BOX 398
Austin, TX 78767-0398
EXAMINER
SHAO, HONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2018 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
ptomhkkg @ gmail .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUQIANG TANG and MARK A. HARRIS
Appeal 2017-008142
Application 13/963,026
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 22-41. App. Br. 14 (Claims App’x).2 Claims 1—21 have
been canceled. Response to Office Action 2, filed July 5, 2016. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is listed as Apple Inc. App. Br. 2.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Action (Final Act.)
mailed September 1, 2016, (2) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed
December 22, 2016, (3) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed March 23,
2017, and (4) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed May 9, 2017.
Appeal 2017-008142
Application 13/963,026
Invention
Mobile communication systems include cells for mobile stations and
base stations to communicate. Spec. 12, Fig. 1. These systems include
control channels (e.g., paging channels) carrying control data between
mobile stations and base stations and communicating at a fixed power level.
Id. 7—8. The power level of the paging channel is selected to achieve a
compromise between reliability of communication of control messages and
available bandwidth or capacity within a given cell. Id. 1 8. More
specifically, the higher the power level, the lower the available bandwidth
will be in the cell, whereas at lower power levels, communication error
likelihood increases and reliability decreases. Id. Appellants’ invention
concerns a method, transmitter, and medium “to dynamically adjust the
power level of a control channel for communicating control messages to
enhance flexibility and performance.” Id. 110.
Claim 22 is reproduced below with emphases:
22. A method for performing wireless communications in a
mobile communications network, comprising:
a communication device determining a type of a message
to be communicated in a control channel;
the communication device determining a power level,
based on the determined type of the message, for transmission
of the message using the control channel, wherein said
determining the power level comprises setting different power
levels for different types of messages carried in the control
channel, wherein a plurality of specific power levels are
associated with at least one type of message;
the communication device setting the power level for
transmission of the message based on said determining; and
after setting the power level for transmission, the
communication device transmitting the message in the control
channel using the determined power level.
2
Appeal 2017-008142
Application 13/963,026
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Chennakeshu US 5,918,174 June 29, 1999
Kayama US 2003/0096631 A1 May 22, 2003
Larghi US 6,657,976 B1 Dec. 2,2003
The Rejections
Claims 22, 26—30, 34—37, 40, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) (pre-AIA) or § 103 as unpatentable over Chennakeshu and
Kayama. Final Act. 3—5.
Claims 25 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) or
§ 103 as unpatentable over Chennakeshu, Kayama, and Larghi. Final Act.
6—7.3
Related Appeals
This application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 13/957,607
(now abandoned), which is a continuation of U.S. Application No.
13/539,594 (now US 8,504,093), which in turn is a continuation of U.S.
Application No. 10/389,473 (now US 8,238,956). No terminal disclaimer
has been filed in the instant application.
Notably, yet another application, U.S. Application No. 13/962,395,
was appealed to the Board on December 22, 2016, and was assigned Appeal
No. 2017-008157. We remind Appellants of the requirement to identify
by application, patent, appeal, interference, or trial number all
other prior and pending appeals, interferences, trials before the
Board, or judicial proceedings (collectively, “related cases”)
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 23, 24, 31, 32, 38, and
39 based on Chennakeshu, Kayama, and Petrus (US 2004/0005905 Al,
published Jan. 8, 2004) presented in Final Action (Final Act. 6). Ans. 2.
3
Appeal 2017-008142
Application 13/963,026
which satisfy all of the following conditions: involve an
application or patent owned by the appellant or assignee, are
known to the appellant, the appellant’s legal representative, or
assignee, and may be related to, directly affect or be directly
affected by or have a bearing on the Board’s decision in the
pending appeal[.]
37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(ii).
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER
CHENNAKESHU AND KAYAMA
Claims 22, 27—30, 35—37, and 41
Regarding independent claim 22,4 the Examiner finds Chennakeshu
teaches a communication device determining (1) a message type in a control
channel (e.g., a paging signal in a paging channel (PCH)) and (2) a power
level based on the message type using power level indicator 36. Final Act. 3
(citing Chennakeshu 6:32-40, 7:7—16, 28—33, Fig. 2). Chennakeshu further
teaches a plurality of power levels are associated with at least one message
type (e.g., paging signal 32) and the communication device sets its power
level (e.g., normal or higher). Id. at 3^4 (citing Chennakeshu 4:29-37,
7:57—63, Fig. 4A). Chennakeshu even further teaches the communication
device transmits the message in the control channel using the determined
power level. Id. at 4 (citing Chennakeshu 6:12—20, 8:6—29, Fig. 3).
However, the Examiner determines Chennakeshu does not disclose setting
different power levels for different message types carried in the control
4 Claims 22, 27—30, 35—37, and 41 are argued as a group. App. Br. 7—10.
We select claim 22 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal 2017-008142
Application 13/963,026
channel, turning to Kayama. Id. (citing Kayama 82—83, 89—91, 94,
Figs. IB, 2).
Appellants argue Kayama teaches a base station controlling the
transmission power of a mobile station but does not teach controlling the
transmission power of its own messages at different power levels for
different message types. App. Br. 7—8. Specifically, Appellants assert the
cited passages in Kayama teach the base station setting or controlling the
transmission level for messages sent by the mobile stations, not the
transmission level for messages sent by the base station. Id. at 8—9 (citing
Kayama 89, 90, 94, 112); see Reply Br. 3^4. Presuming that the mobile
station is “the transmitting device,” Appellants also contend the mobile
station does not set the different power levels for the different types of
message but varies the power level for a single message type. Id. at 8; Reply
Br. 4. Appellants further argue Kayama does not indicate the power level of
a message to be transmitted based on a determined message type and does
not determine transmission power levels for various control signal types. Id.
at 9-10 (citing Kayama 88—89, 93).
ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 22 by finding
Chennakeshu and Kayama collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1) “the communication device determining a power level, based on
the determined type of the message, for transmission of the message using
the control channel, wherein said determining the power level comprises
setting different power levels for different types of messages carried in the
control channel” and
5
Appeal 2017-008142
Application 13/963,026
(2) “the communication device transmitting the message in the control
channel using the determined power level”?
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 22. Notably, this claim does not recite a base station or a
mobile device. Rather the claim recites “a communication device,” and this
same device (1) “determin[es] a power level, based on the determined type
of the message, for transmission of the message,” (2) “set[s] the power level
for transmission of the message based on said determining,” and (3)
“transmit[s] the message in the control channel using the determined power
level.” App. Br. 14 (Claims App’x). As such, whether a base station or a
mobile device performs the recited steps in claim 22 is of no import. See
App. Br. 7—9. However, the same communication device (e.g., the base
station or a mobile device) in claim 22 performs its recited steps.
Turning to the arguments presented, Appellants focus on Kayama.
App. Br. 7—10. Yet, the rejection is based on both Chennakeshu and
Kayama and relies on Chennakeshu to teach most of the disputed
limitations. Final Act. 3^4. For example, the rejection relies on
Chennakeshu—not Kayama—to teach (1) a communication device (e.g.,
network control center 18) determines a power level (e.g., power level
indicator 36) for transmission (e.g., paging signal 32) based on the
determined message type (e.g., paging signal type) (Final Act. 3 (citing
Chennakeshu 7:28—33, Fig. 2)), (2) a plurality of specific power levels are
associated with at least one type of message (e.g., two power levels (normal
power and a higher power) for paging signal 32) {id. at 3 (citing
6
Appeal 2017-008142
Application 13/963,026
Chennakeshu 4:29-37, 7:57—62)), and (3) the communication device (e.g.,
network control center 18) sets the transmission power level and transmits a
message (e.g., paging signal 32) in the control channel using the determined
power level (e.g., normal level) {id. at 4 (citing Chennakeshu 6:12—20, 7:57—
63, 8:6—29, Fig. 3); see also Chennakeshu 4:31—33, 7:28—30). These
findings related to Chennakeshu are undisputed in the record.
Because Chennakeshu teaches the same communication device (e.g.,
network control center 18) performing all these steps, including determining
the power level (e.g., controlling the transmission power) of its own message
based on the message type {see Chennakeshu 6:12—15, 7:28—36, 57—63,
8:6—11, Figs. 2—3), we find the arguments asserting Kayama fails to teach
these features {see App. Br. 7—9; Reply Br. 3 4) unavailing.
Additionally, Chennakeshu teaches “a plurality of specific power
levels are associated with at least one type of message” (e.g., normal or
higher power level for paging signal 32) as recited. Final Act. 3 (citing
Chennakeshu 4:29-37, 7:57—62). As such, Chennakeshu teaches setting
different power levels to a specific message type (e.g., paging signal 32).
However, as the Examiner states, Chennakeshu does not teach “said
determining the power level comprises setting different power levels for
different types of messages carried in the control channel,” turning to
Kayama. Final Act. 4. As such, Kayama is cited for a limited purpose in the
rejection—to teach it is known in the art to assign or set different power
levels for different message types— and not to teach a specific
“communication device” sets a power level or transmits the recited
“message.” See id. (citing Kayama Tflf 82—83, 89-91, and 94).
7
Appeal 2017-008142
Application 13/963,026
Kayama, for example, teaches it was known to transmit various
signals along a channel to a terminal’s receiver and determining the
transmission power levels for these various signal types based on
transmission method determiner 136. Kayama 1 82, cited in Final Act. 4.
Thus, Kayama teaches one skilled in the art to set different power levels for
message types. See id. Kayama further teaches transmission method
determiner 136 determines the transmission power level for a message type
(e.g., a preamble or reservation signal) based on the received intensity of
specific signals (e.g., a preamble or reservation signal respectively). Id. H
90, 92. As such, Kayama teaches and suggests that it is known to determine
a transmission power level for a message “based on the determined type of
message” and to set “different power levels for different types of messages”
as recited. See id. H 82, 92.
To be sure, Kayama teaches the determined transmission power level
relates to setting the power level for a message transmitted from the mobile
station to the base station. See id. 11 88-90; see also App. Br. 1—9.5 Yet we
fail to see why Kayama’s teaching of determining different power levels for
different message types cannot apply to Chennakeshu’s transmission from
its communication device (e.g., network control center 18), which already
teaches transmitting a signal at two different levels, as the rejection
proposes. See Final Act. 4 (stating “it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine the
5 To the extent the Examiner asserts packet data and its transmitted power
level are transmitted from a base station (Ans. 3 (citing Kayama 191)),
Kayama discusses and shows packet data transmitted on shared, uplink
packet channel 24, 34 from the mobile device. See Kayama H 109, 119,
Figs. 2—3. See also Reply Br. 4.
8
Appeal 2017-008142
Application 13/963,026
teaching of Kayama as mentioned above as a modification to Chennakeshu,
such that the combination would allow [f]o[r] determin[ing] transmission []
power levels of the various types of signals”).
Moreover, Kayama further teaches a base station transmits various
control signals, including an acknowledgement signal, a synchronizing
signal, and an allocation signal based on the determination of transmission
method determiner 136. Kayama 194, cited in Final Act. 4. When
combined with Chennakeshu, the proposed combination would predictably
result in a communication device that transmits various message types (e.g.,
paging, acknowledging, and synchronizing signals) and setting different
power levels to each message types based on the determined message type
as recited.
When viewed from this perspective, we agree that Chennakeshu in
combination with Kayama teaches “the communication device determining a
power level, based on the determined type of message using the control
channel, wherein said determining the power level comprises setting
different power levels for different types of messages carried in the control
channel” and “the communication device transmitting the message in the
control channel using the determined power level” as recited.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of independent claim 22 and claims 27—30, 35—37, and 41,
which are not separately argued.
Claims 26, 34, and 40
Claims 26, 34, and 40 depend from claims 22, 30, and 37 respectively
and are argued as a group. App. Br. 11—12. We select claim 26 as
representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 26 recites “said
9
Appeal 2017-008142
Application 13/963,026
determining the type of message comprises an acknowledgement message,
wherein said determining the power level is based on the message being an
acknowledgement message.” App. Br. 15 (Claims App’x). The Examiner
concludes “Chennakeshu as modified by Kayama” teaches the features of
claim 22 and Kayama teaches that transmitting acknowledgement messages
from a base station as recited in claim 26 is known. Final Act. 5 (citing
Kayama 88—89, 94).
Appellants repeat that Kayama does not (1) set the transmission power
levels for, but rather by, a base station and (2) discuss transmission power
levels being set based on message type. App. Br. 12. We disagree for
reasons previously stated. Additionally, we agree with the Examiner
Kayama teaches sending acknowledgement messages from a base station is
known. Kayama 194, cited in Final Act. 5 and Ans. 3. When combining
this specific teaching with the others discussed above, the combination of
Chennakeshu and Kayama would predictably yield what is recited in claim
26.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of claim 26 and claims 34 and 40, which are not separately
argued.
THE REMAINING REJECTION
Claims 25 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Chennakeshu, Kayama, and Larghi. Final Act. 6—7. No separate arguments
have been presented for this rejection. See generally App. Br. 7—12. We
sustain this rejection for the above-stated reasons. Accordingly, Appellants
have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claims 25 and 33.
10
Appeal 2017-008142
Application 13/963,026
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22, 25—30, 33—37, 40,
and 41 under § 103.
The rejection of claims 23, 24, 31, 32, 38, and 39 has been withdrawn.
We presume these claims stand objected to due to their dependency on
rejected base claims but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form
to include all the limitations of their respective base claims and any
intervening claims.
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).
AFFIRMED
11