Ex Parte Wang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2017

13947935 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 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.
13/947,935 07/22/2013 Jibing WANG QCB124280 4870
12811 7590 09/27/2017
Paradice and Li LLP/Qualcomm
1999 S. Bascom Ave.
Suite 300
Campbell, CA 95008
EXAMINER
ELNOUBI, SAID M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2017 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
uspto@paradiceli.com
william @paradiceli. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIBING WANG
Appeal 2017-005265
Application 13/947,93 51
Technology Center 2600
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, KAMRAN JIVANI, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—27, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Qualcomm, Inc.” Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-005265
Application 13/947,935
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
The claimed invention relates to wireless communications, and
specifically, to minimizing “intermodulation distortion” (a form of
interference) in overlapping networks, such as WLAN and LTE networks.
Spec. 2—5. Claims 1,10, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative
of the invention and subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows:
1. A wireless communications device, comprising:
a first transceiver configured to operate using a first
wireless protocol;
a second transceiver configured to operate using a second
wireless protocol; and
a coexistence manager configured to:
receive an allocation of network resources using the first
transceiver;
predict intermodulation distortion (IMD) regarding an
upcoming transmission using the first transceiver based, at least
in part, on at least one characteristic determined from the
allocation of network resources; and
selectively reduce transmit power at the second transceiver
based, at least in part, on the predicted IMD when reception
quality at the first receiver is below a desired threshold.
Br. 11 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—6, 8—15, 17—24, 26, and 27 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhu et al.
(US 2014/0274179 Al; Sept. 18, 2014) (“Zhu”) and Elbwart et al.
(US 2014/0029537 Al; Jan. 30, 2014) (“Elbwart”). Final Act. 5-16.
2
Appeal 2017-005265
Application 13/947,935
Claims 7, 16, and 25 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Zhu, Elbwart, and Kadous et al.
(US 2012/0071106 Al; Mar. 22, 2012) (“Kadous”). Final Act. 16-19.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have
made but did not make in the Appeal Brief are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are unpersuaded
the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
forth in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s
Answer, and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis.
Claims 1—6, 8—15, 17—24, 26, and27
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches
or suggests “predicting] intermodulation distortion (IMD) regarding an
upcoming transmission . . . based ... on at least one characteristic
determined from the allocation of network resources,” as recited in claim 1,2
Br. 4—9. Specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner relies on Zhu as
teaching this limitation, but that Zhu only teaches “inferring” a presence of
IMD from “current operating conditions.” Id. at 6—8. Appellant contends
this teaching in Zhu is not the same as “predicting” IMD regarding an
“upcoming” transmission based on a “characteristic determined from
2 Appellant argues claims 1—6, 8—15, 17—24, 26, and 27 as a group, and we
choose independent claim 1 as representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2017-005265
Application 13/947,935
allocation of network resources,” as claim 1 requires. Id. On the record
before us, however, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
As the Examiner finds, Zhu teaches predicting IMD from an
“expected” allocation of network resources. Ans. 4 (citing Zhu 1 66). Zhu
teaches a device decreasing its WLAN transceiver’s transmission power in
order to reduce its LTE transceiver’s IMD, where IMD is expected based
upon WLAN and LTE states of connection. Zhu 27, 95, 98—99. Zhu
further teaches the WLAN and LTE states of connection can be “expected”
states of connection {id. at 66) and network allocations of WLAN and LTE
transmission frequencies {id. at Table L). Thus, we discern no error in the
Examiner’s finding that Zhu teaches predicting IMD of an upcoming
transmission (from expected WLAN and LTE states of connection
experimentally known to cause IMD) based on an allocation of network
resources (WLAN and LTE transmission frequencies).
Appellant additionally argues that, even assuming Zhu teaches
predicting IMD as recited in claim 1, the Examiner erred in finding the prior
art teaches or suggests the same device “received] an allocation of network
resources,” as further recited in claim 1. Br. 11 (emphasis added). Again,
however, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contentions.
As the Examiner finds, Zhu teaches a device predicting IMD from its
LTE uplink frequency allocations for upcoming transmissions. See supra.
Elbwart, in turn, teaches a device receiving such LTE uplink frequency
allocations via “resource block group (RBG)” information. Elbwart || 77,
108. Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s finding that
one of ordinary skill would understand the Elbwart device’s received
frequency allocation information could be used, pursuant to Zhu’s teachings,
4
Appeal 2017-005265
Application 13/947,935
to also predict IMD from the LTE uplink frequency allocation. Ans. 2—3;
Final Act. 6; see KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)
(person of ordinary skill in the art is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.”). We, therefore, agree with the Examiner’s finding that the
combination of Zhu and Elbwart teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner has
erred. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1—6, 8—
15, 17-24, 26, and 27.
Remaining Claims 7, 16, and 25
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7, 16, and 25
for the same reasons as claim 1, and that the addition of Kadous does not
cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1. Br. 10. For the reasons set
forth above, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred.
Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 7, 16, and
25.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—27.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5