Ex Parte Yang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 18, 2016

12866069 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/866,069 08/04/2010
48116 7590
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
08/22/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tao Yang
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.
LUTZ 201165US01 8915
EXAMINER
CHAUDRY,MUJTABAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2112
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2016 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):
docketing@faysharpe.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAO YANG and ANTONELLA F ANIUOLO
Appeal2015-003082
Application 12/866,069
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-10. 1 We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Alcatel Lucent as the real party in interest. (App.
Br. 1.)
Appeal2015-003082
Application 12/866,069
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to operation
of a HARQ buffer. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a Hybrid Automatic Retransmission Request
(HARQ) Acknowledgement (ACK);
maintaining a HARQ buffer in response to the reception
of the HARQ ACK; and
flushing the HARQ buffer in the case of receiving no
Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) message for a
predetermined duration.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over "PRICH and PDCCH Interaction," 3GPP TSG-RAN
WG2 Meeting #60bls, R2-080022 (Jan 14--18, 2008) (hereafter, "Meeting
Notes"). (Final Act. 6-11.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issue:2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the Meeting Notes teach or
suggest the limitations of claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 8. (App. Br. 9-16.)
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Oct. 17, 2014); the Reply Brief
(filed Jan. 9, 2015); the Final Office Action (mailed July 17, 2014); and the
Examiner's Answer (mailed Nov. 10, 2014) for the respective details.
2
Appeal2015-003082
Application 12/866,069
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner errs. We disagree with Appellants' arguments,
and we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 6-11)
and (2) the corresponding reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 8-13).
We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner and
emphasize the following.
In finding the Meeting Notes teach or suggest the claim limitations at
issue, the Examiner relies on a description in the Meeting Notes of user
equipment behavior after receiving a "Hybrid Automatic Retransmission
Request (HARQ) Acknowledgement (ACK)," including either keeping data
in the HARQ retransmission buffer, or clearing the buffer, when the user
equipment does not detect a "Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH)
message." (Final Act. 6-7; Reference Table 1.) The Examiner finds the
disclosed latter alternative of "clearing the buffer" teaches or suggests "to
clear the HARQ buffer after a predetermined time if a PDCCH message is
not received after a predetermined duration." (Id.)
As to claims 1, 3, 5, and 7, Appellants argue the Examiner errs
because the choice of alternatives relied on by the Examiner is designated in
the Meeting Notes as "(FPS)" -which Appellants argue is to be understood
as "For Further Study." (App. Br. 9-16.) This designation, Appellants
argue, establishes nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter, because it
shows that "the meeting participants did not know what the appropriate
solution was." (App. Br. 9.) This argument is unpersuasive. As the
3
Appeal2015-003082
Application 12/866,069
Examiner finds, "Just because [the Meeting Notes] teaches certain concepts
to be FPS ('for further study', as suggested by Appellants) does not mean
that those limitations are not taught or suggested." (Ans. 10, see also Ans.
11-12.) It is well established that teaching an alternative method does not
teach away from the use of a claimed method. In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433,
438 (CCPA 1965); see also, Ex parte Shuping, No. 2008-0394, 2008 WL
336222, at *2 (BPAI 2008) ("[T]eaching a way is not teaching away").
Appellants argue for claim 1, and similarly argue for claim 5, that the
claims require flushing the buffer when no PSCCH message is received "for
a predetermined duration," and argue the Meeting Notes are "silent with
regard to 'a predetermined duration."' (App. Br. 11-12, 14--15.) We are
not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding this aspect of the claims taught or
suggested by the alternative provision of clearing the buffer if no PDCCH
message is received, because "It is inherent for the UE [to] detect the ACK
and no PDCCH in a predetermined duration before reacting and keeping
data in the buffer or flushing the buffer (i.e., Table l)." (Ans. 13.)
Appellants argue the Meeting Notes do not teach or suggest the claim
2 requirement, "maintaining the HARQ buffer until a maximum
retransmission limit is reached or until a PDCCH message is received."
(App. Br. 12.) However, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding
this limitation taught or suggested by the above-discussed provision in the
Meeting Notes for clearing the buffer if no PDCCH message is received -
it follows in such case that the buffer is maintained at the time a PDCHH
message is received, and, as the Examiner correctly concludes, "the claim is
written in the alterative so only one of the two conditions needs to be met."
(Final Act. 7.)
4
Appeal2015-003082
Application 12/866,069
Claim 3 requires, inter alia, "flushing ... the HARQ buffer in
response to the reception of the PDCCH message." Claim 8 requires "flush
the HARQ buffer in response to the reception of the PDCCH message
granting transmission of a new PDU." For claim 3, Appellants again argue
the designation "FPS" in the Meeting Notes negates any teaching or
suggestion of this limitation. (App. Br. 13.) We are unpersuaded by this
argument for the reasons discussed above. Also, for both claims 3 and 8, we
are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding these limitations taught or
suggested by the above-discussed provision in the Meeting Notes for
clearing the buffer if no PDCCH message is received, together with the
disclosure to "start a new transmission according to the PDCCH message."
(Final Act. 8, 10; Meeting Notes, Table 1, lines 1 and 3.)
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the obviousness rejections of
claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 8. We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims
4, 6, 9, and 10, which rejections are not argued separately with particularity.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-10.
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
5