Ex Parte Viero

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 11, 2012

10014153 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TIMO VIERO
____________

Appeal 2011-004684
Application 10/014,153
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004684
Application 10/014,153

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
36-40, 42, 48, 53, 55-57, 59-62, 64-66, 74, 75, and 81-94.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to performing random access in a mobile
communications network. Claim 36, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
36. A method, comprising:

receiving a dynamically adjustable parameter defining
allowed access slots of a physically existing random access
channel from a base transceiver station of a mobile
communications network by at least one mobile station of a
plurality of mobile stations of the mobile communications
network;

determining, at said at least one mobile station, said
allowed access slots of the physically existing random access
channel based on said parameter;

using, at said at least one mobile station, at least one of
said determined allowed access slots of the physically existing
random access channel to initiate a random access operation
with said base transceiver station; and

receiving said parameter via a broadcast channel,
wherein said broadcast channel is a broadcast channel of a
wideband code division multiple access system.

1 Claims 35, 43-47, 51, and 76-80 are indicated as allowed (Ans. 2), and are
thus not on appeal.
Appeal 2011-004684
Application 10/014,153

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sardana

Kanterakis

Popovic'

Gustafsson
US 5,012,469

US 6,169,759 B1

US 6,567,482 B1

US 6,643,275 B1
Apr. 30, 1991

Jan. 2, 2001
(filed Mar. 22, 1999)

May 20, 2003
(filed Mar. 5, 1999)

Nov. 4, 2003
(filed May 15, 1998)

REJECTIONS
Claims 36-40, 48, 53, 55-57, 59-62, 64-66, 74, 75, 82, 84, 86, 88, 90,
92, and 94 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Popovic' and Kanterakis.
Claim 42 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Popovic', Kanterakis, and Gustafsson.
Claims 81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, and 93 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Popovic', Kanterakis, and Sardana.

ANALYSIS
Claims 36-40, 42, 48, 53, 55-57, 59-62, 64-66, 74, 75, 81, and 83-94
Appellant contends that Popovic' and Kanterakis fail to disclose
“receiving a dynamically adjustable parameter defining allowed access slots
of a physically existing random access channel”, as recited in representative
independent claim 36 (App. Br. 9-11). We disagree.
Appeal 2011-004684
Application 10/014,153

4
The Examiner relies on Kanterakis for the disputed limitation (see
Ans. 5, 20-22). Kanterakis discloses:
The length of the access burst is variable and the length of the
access burst is allowed to vary from a few access slots to many
frame durations. The amount of data transmitted by the remote
station could depend on various factors. Some of those are:
class capability of the remote station, prioritization, the control
information transmitted down by the base station, and various
bandwidth management protocols residing and executed at the
base station.

(Kanterakis, col. 7, ll. 32-40). As shown here, the amount of data
transmitted by the remote station can depend on “the control information
transmitted down by the base station.” One of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood that the amount of data transmitted—i.e., the length of an
access burst—corresponds to a number of access slots, given a particular
rate of data transmission. For instance, as cited above, Kanterakis discloses
that “the length of the access burst is allowed to vary from a few access slots
to many frame durations” (Kanterakis, col. 7, ll. 33-35).
The amount of data transmitted by Kanterakis’s remote station can
also depend on “various bandwidth management protocols residing and
executed at the base station” (see Kanterakis, col. 7, ll. 35-40). One such
“bandwidth management functionality is implemented via signaling
information on the down link common control channel” which includes a
mechanism “for the base station to relay the maximum possible data rate the
CPCH users are allowed to transmit” (Kanterakis, col. 9, ll. 52-64).
Therefore, in considering the reference as a whole, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood that Kanterakis discloses that the base
station can control the amount of data transmitted from the remote station at
Appeal 2011-004684
Application 10/014,153

5
a given maximum data rate, thus defining an allowed number of access slots
for transmission. Further, as Kanterakis discloses that “the length of the
access burst is allowed to vary” (col. 7, ll. 33-34), one of ordinary skill in the
art would have understood that not only can the base station define an
allowed number of access slots, but that the base station can vary the
allowed number of access slots.
Accordingly, Appellant’s argument that “[a]llowing the traffic burst
transmitted by the mobile station to vary in length does not change the
definition of the allowed access slots advertised by the base station” (App.
Br. 10) is not persuasive. Whether Kanterakis’s remote station may decide
how many access slots it will use does not change the fact that Kanterakis’s
base station can define an allowed number of access slots by controlling the
amount of data a remote station can transmit, as discussed above. We are
thus not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Kanterakis
discloses “receiving a dynamically adjustable parameter . . . from a base
station.”
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 36, and claims 37-40, 42, 48, 53, 55-57, 59-62, 64-66, 74, 75, 81, and
83-94 not separately argued.

Claim 82
Appellant contends that
Popovic['] and Kanterakis are limited to the conventional, fixed
definition systems where the allowed access slots are not
dynamically adjustable. Accordingly, Popovic['] in view of
Kanterakis cannot teach operating according to a “modified” set
of allowed access slots when they do not provide the ability to
modify the allowed access slots in the first place
Appeal 2011-004684
Application 10/014,153

6
(App. Br. 13). However, as discussed above, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding (Ans. 5, 20-22) that Kanterakis discloses “receiving a dynamically
adjustable parameter . . . from a base station.” Appellant does not
specifically explain why it would not have been obvious to actually modify
the dynamically adjustable parameter, given Kanterakis’s disclosure of a
dynamically adjustable parameter (see App. Br. 13). We are therefore not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 82.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 36-40, 42, 48, 53, 55-57,
59-62, 64-66, 74, 75, and 81-94 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejections of claims 36-40, 42,
48, 53, 55-57, 59-62, 64-66, 74, 75, and 81-94.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

tkl