Ex Parte Wu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

13954764 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/954,764 07/30/2013 Zhibin Wu
109682 7590 09/27/2018
Holland & Hart LLP/Qualcomm
P.O. Box 11583
Salt Lake City, UT 84147
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
PQ199 (81679.0264) 3211
EXAMINER
FOUD, HICHAM B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
patentdocket@hollandhart.com
qualcomm@hollandhart.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZHIBIN WU, VINCENT D. PARK, and JUNYI LI, CHESTER 1
Appeal2018-002312
Application 13/954,764
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-36. Claims 37-59 are canceled. Appeal Br. 2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant is the applicant, Qualcomm Incorporated, identified in the
Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-002312
Application 13/954,764
Invention
The Specification discloses management of a multimedia broadcast
multicast service (MBMS) that includes the use of a peer discovery signal
that includes an identifier of the MBMS. Abstract.
Illustrative Claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A method for managing a multimedia broadcast multicast service
(MBMS), comprising:
receiving content of an MBMS while operating in a coverage area of a
base station;
sensing a transition to operate outside the coverage area of the base
station; and
broadcasting a peer discovery signal to request a relay of the content
of the MBMS, the peer discovery signal comprising an identifier of
theMBMS.
Rejections
First Grounds:
The Examiner rejects claims 1---6, 8-17, 19-28, and 30-36 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP, 3rd Generation
Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System
Aspects; Study on architecture enhancements to support Proximity Services
(ProSe) (Release 12), TR 23.703 v0.5.0 (marked-up version), (July 2013),
available at http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/23_series/23.703/23703-
050.zip ("3GPP"). Final Act. 2-5.
The Examiner rejects claims 7, 18, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over 3GPP and WiMAX Forum, WiMAX End-to-End
Network Systems Architecture (Stage 2: Architecture Tenets, Reference
Model and Reference Points), DRAFT (Dec. 15, 2005) ("WiMAX"). Final
Act. 5-6.
2
Appeal2018-002312
Application 13/954,764
Second Grounds:
The Examiner alternatively rejects claims 1---6, 8-17, 19-28, and 30-
36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over HTC, UE Relay for
Public Safety, Agenda Item 6.4 (Approval/ Discussion), ProSe / Rel-12, SA
WG2 Meeting S2#98, S2-I32483, (July 15-19, 2013) ("HTC") and
Oprescu-Surcobe et al. (US 2012/0082098 Al; published Apr. 5, 2012)
("Oprescu-Surcobe"). Final Act. 6-9.
The Examiner alternatively rejects claims 7, 18, and 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over HTC, Oprescu-Surcobe, and
WiMAX. Final Act. 9.
FIRST GROUNDS
Findings and Contentions
3GPP discloses a nine-step process for user equipment to receive a
broadcast on a downlink via a ProSe DE-to-Network (user equipment to
network) relay. This process is illustrated in 3GPP Figure 6.3.11.2.2-1,
reproduced below:
3
Appeal2018-002312
Application 13/954,764
l ................................................. 1
G. Pro.St.: UE-t1)-N"Ct\.1:,'ork :·':'(:3°{ ctttarhe·d \'.()
EVi
... --;-:··:,;".:: •:v"""'"'·-x- «:oi,:;,;~"'"'" :IP .,M,,:s, >:co;;s:~:;;--:.
_,,·
···················································t...--·/
BB
-----------+--.. :t ~,e:glfter·~v:t~~ GCS£-,~5--+--------+-------t-1
I
~----------------J ________ J _________ l _____________ _
tht= S:E::fYk.e
:.:rn:n:.:.{l::)i~rrit:r~t
1
8. P.:el~v re.ads.
the ~,1(-C:H ,arid
!:c..,tall~ 3,c:ti:Vi;:;tes
3GPP Figure 6.3.11.2.2-1 is a sequence or event diagram variation
depicting different devices or entities, distributed horizontally, with steps for
message exchanges or interactions among the device distributed vertically
such that earlier messages or interactions are depicted above later messages
or interactions. The devices included in this diagram include user equipment
(DE) and a ProSe DE-to-Network (DE-to-NW) relay. 3GPP 154. In steps
one ("Discovery Procedure") and two ("Direct connection establishment (IP
address allocated)"), the user equipment "establishes a connection to the
ProSe DE-to-Network Relay." Id. Starting from step six ("Activate MBMS
Service (TMGI, ... )"), the user equipment identifies the TMGI (temporary
4
Appeal2018-002312
Application 13/954,764
mobile group identifier) "corresponding to the eMBMS service ... signaling
to the ProSe DE-to-Network Relay ... the TMGis of the services [the user
equipment] wants to start receiving." Id. at 154--55.
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds that the message
sent in step 6 of this process-the Activate MBMS Service step----is a
broadcast peer discovery signal comprising an identifier of the MEMS.
Final Act. 3. The Examiner proffers that "the term 'peer discovery signal' is
just a peer signal sent from the DE to the relay node ... and therefore the
3GPP's 'activate MBMS service' signal reads on the claimed 'a peer
discovery signal' since both signals' functionality are the same." Ans. 14.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred "because 3GPP sends the
'Activate MBMS Service' message after its discovery procedure has ended,
[thus] 3GPP fails to disclose or suggest broadcasting 'a peer discovery
signal'" comprising an identifier of the MBMS as recited in claim 1. Appeal
Br. 11.
Analysis
We agree with Appellant the Examiner erred. Broadcasting a peer
discovery signal as claimed and illustrated in the Specification does not
include all peer communications as suggested by the Examiner. See Ans.
14. Rather, the claimed broadcasting of a peer discovery signal represents
broadcasting a signal prior to the establishment of direct peer-to-peer
communications. See Spec. ,r,r 52-53, Fig. 3. Appellant correctly notes the
Activate MBMS Service step of 3GPP occurs after the discovery procedure.
Appeal Br. 11; see also 3GPP 354--55. The user equipment and the ProSe
DE-to-Network relay are directly connected before the Activate MBMS
Service step, thus obviating the need to broadcast a peer discovery signal to
5
Appeal2018-002312
Application 13/954,764
establish the connection. See 3GPP 354--55. The Examiner's findings,
therefore, do not show that sending the Activate MBMS Service message of
3GPP teaches or suggests broadcasting a peer discovery signal containing
the TMGI information of the Activate MBMS Service message. Moreover,
the Examiner does not present persuasive findings showing that it would
have been obvious to modify the Discovery Procedure step of 3GPP to
include an identifier of the MEMS in a broadcast peer discovery signal in
the manner claimed.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection, based on 3GPP, of claim 1, and claims 2---6, 8-17, 19-28, and 30-
36, which contain the same or similar recitations. The Examiner also does
not show that WiMAX cures the noted deficiency of 3GPP. Therefore, we
also do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection, based on the
combination of 3GPP and WiMAX, of claims 7, 18, and 29.
SECOND GROUNDS
Findings and Contentions
In alternatively rejecting claim 1 as being obvious over HTC and
Oprescu-Surcobe, the Examiner finds that the HTC relay discovery function
teaches or suggests broadcasting a peer discovery signal. Final Act. 6
( citing HTC 1 ). The Examiner relies on inclusion of a TMGI ( which
includes an MBMS Service ID) in RRCConnectionRequest message 412 in
Oprescu-Surcobe to teach or suggest use of a TMGI. Final Act. 6 ( citing
Oprescu-Surcobe ,r 46). The Examiner concludes "it would have been
obvious to ... one [ of] ordinary skill in the art ... to use the teaching of
Oprescu in[] the method/apparatus of HTC for the purpose of at least
6
Appeal2018-002312
Application 13/954,764
identifying the correct MBMS for relaying." Final Act. 6-7; see also Ans.
19.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Oprescu-Surcobe
"does not indicate that 'request [ 412]' is a signal that is broadcast, sent, or
otherwise communicated for peer discovery. Rather, Oprescu's 'request
[412] for an LTE [long term evolution] connection' is to set up an LTE
connection for an upcoming new MBMS media transmission from one UE
to another UE." Appeal Br. 16 ([412] alterations in original) (citing
Oprescu-Surcobe ,r,r 50, 53, 54).
Analysis
We agree with Appellant, the Examiner's findings do not show that
the combination of HTC and Oprescu-Surcobe teaches or suggests
broadcasting a peer discovery signal comprising an identifier of the MEMS.
The Examiner relies on HTC to teach or suggest broadcasting a peer
discovery signal and on the contents of Oprescu-Surcobe's
RRCConnectionRequest message 412 to teach or suggest a message
comprising an identifier of the MEMS. Final Act. 6 ( citing HTC 1; Oprescu-
Surcobe ,r 46). However, the Examiner's proffered reason for why it would
have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to modify HTC's teaching
or suggestion of broadcasting a peer discovery signal to include contents
from Oprescu-Surcobe's RRCConnectionRequest message 412 is
conclusory. See Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 19. In particular, the Examiner fails to
provide persuasive findings or explanation showing the relevance of
Oprescu-Surcobe's RRCConnectionRequest, or the contents thereof, to peer
discovery.
7
Appeal2018-002312
Application 13/954,764
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection, based on the combination of HTC and Oprescu-Surcobe, of claim
1, and claims 2---6, 8-17, 19-28, and 30-36, which contain the same or
similar recitations. The Examiner also does not show that WiMAX cures the
noted deficiency of HTC and Oprescu-Surcobe. Therefore, we also do not
sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection, based on the
combination of HTC, Oprescu-Surcobe, and WiMAX, of claims 7, 18, and
29.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-36.
REVERSED
8