Ex Parte Zhou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 10, 2017

12914059 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 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.
12/914,059 10/28/2010 Yuefeng Zhou 017071.0177 5095
5073 7590 02/14/2017
RAKFR ROTTST T P
EXAMINER
2001 ROSS AVENUE LINDENBAUM, ALAN LOUIS
SUITE 600
DALLAS, TX 75201-2980 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/14/2017 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):
ptomaill @bakerbotts.com
ptomai!2 @ bakerbotts .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUEFENG ZHOU and MICHAEL JOHN BEEMS HART
Appeal 2016-003551
Application 12/914,0591
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1 and 4—12, which are the only claims pending in
the application. Claims 2 and 3 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Fujitsu Limited as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-003551
Application 12/914,059
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
timing adjustments for use in a multi-hop communication system in which
communication signals are sent from a source apparatus (such as a base
station), to a destination apparatus (such as a mobile station), via one or
more intermediate apparatuses (such as a relay node or station). Abstract,
Spec. 3:7—22.2
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below (with the disputed
limitations emphasized)'.
1. A signalling method for use in sleep-mode signalling in a
wireless communication system, the system comprising a base
station, a mobile station and at least one relay station, the
method comprising:
transmitting a control signal relating to a sleep mode of
the mobile station from the base station indirectly to the mobile
station in a first transmission, wherein the sleep mode of the
mobile station provides sleep windows and listening windows
of the mobile station; and
transmitting the said control signal from the base station
to the or at least one of the relay stations also in said first
transmission such that said relay station is able to configure its
operation in accordance with said control signal by allocating
relay resources on time for the mobile station to transmit on the
uplink in a listening window, wherein the control signal
includes a start frame number for a first sleep window of the
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed Jan. 28, 2015 (“Final
Act.”); Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed Aug. 14, 2015 (“App. Br.”) and Reply
Brief filed Feb. 17, 2016 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed Dec.
17, 2015 (“Ans.”); and the original Specification filed Oct. 28, 2010
(“Spec.”).
2
Appeal 2016-003551
Application 12/914,059
mobile station and said relay station is configured to introduce a
delay in the start frame number corresponding to a latency
introduced by relaying.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1 and 4—12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Saifullah et al. (US 2008/0031174 Al; published Feb. 7,
2008) (“Saifullah”), Son et al. (US 2005/0266896 Al; published Dec. 1,
2005) (“Son”), Saito (US 2006/0153132 Al; published July 13, 2006), and
the Background Section of Appellants’ Specification (“AAPA”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Briefs and are not persuaded the Examiner has erred.
Unless otherwise noted, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 2—11) and in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 11—14), and we
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we
consider and highlight specific arguments as presented in the Briefs.
Rejection of Claims 1 and 4—12 under § 103(a)3
Appellants argue the embodiments of Figures 3 and 6 of Saifullah,
which are relied on by the Examiner, are different embodiments that “are not
properly combined, and the Examiner has provided no rationale for doing
so.” App. Br. 7, 9; Reply Br. 2. Appellants further argue a combination of
3 Claim 1 is the only claim separately argued by Appellants. See App. Br.
7—10. Thus, we decide the rejection of claims 1 and 4—12 on the basis of
representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2016-003551
Application 12/914,059
Figures 3 and 6 “is not feasible, as they relate to completely different
processes.” App. Br. 9.
Appellants argue Figure 6 of Saifullah does not teach or suggest
“transmitting a control signal relating to a sleep mode of the mobile station,”
but relates to the start of communication with the base station because the
DCD (downlink channel descriptor) and UCD (uplink channel descriptor)
enable the user to use the channel to communicate with the base station.
App. Br. 8. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue Figure 6 refers to an idle
mode, which does not require sleep and listening windows for the mobile
station, and therefore “there is no need to configure operation of the relay
station to allow for a listening window.” Reply Br. 3.
Appellants argue Figure 3 of Saifullah does not teach:
transmitting the said control signal from the base station to the
or at least one of the relay stations also in said first transmission
such that said relay station is able to configure its operation in
accordance with said control signal by allocating relay
resources on time for the mobile station to transmit on the
uplink in a listening window,
as recited in claim 1, because the control signal in step 217 is not transmitted
‘“in said first transmission’ which is indirectly [transmitted] to the mobile
station.” App. Br. 8—9. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue there is no
mention in paragraphs 97—100 of Saifullah, which describe the Figure 3
embodiment, “of a control signal allowing uplink transmission from the UE
in a listening window as required by the claim wording.” Reply Br. 3^4.
According to Appellants, even if the embodiments of Figures 3 and 6
Saifullah were combined, “neither embodiment discloses a control signal
from the base station which allows the relay station to configure its
operation in accordance with the control signal by allocating relay resources
4
Appeal 2016-003551
Application 12/914,059
on time for the mobile station to transmit on the uplink in a listening
window.” Reply Br. 4.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has
erred. First, Appellants’ arguments that the embodiments of Figures 3 and 6
of Saifullah are not properly combined by the Examiner are not persuasive.
See App. Br. 7, 9; Reply Br. 2. In determining obviousness under § 103(a),
“[cjombining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior
art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Scientific
Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “If a
person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely
bars its patentability.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007). Although Appellants argue that a combination of the embodiments
of Figures 3 and 6 is not feasible, we agree with the Examiner that
Appellants provide no support for this assertion. Ans. 14. Mere attorney
arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual
evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The Examiner finds:
a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention,
would have understood that the concepts disclosed with
reference to the “idle mode” of Figure 6 and paragraph [0113],
and the concepts disclosed with reference to the “sleep mode”
of Figure 3 and paragraph [0097] are both equally applicable to
messaging regarding the scheduling of powered-down states of
the mobile station and the relay station in Saifullah’s invention.
Ans. 13—14. For the reasons stated by the Examiner, we agree with this
finding and, therefore, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to combine the embodiments of Figures 3 and 6
5
Appeal 2016-003551
Application 12/914,059
because they both relate to the scheduling of powered-down states of the
mobile station and the relay station.
Second, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the
embodiments of Figures 3 and 6 of Saifullah fail to teach the disputed
limitations of claim 1 because Appellants do not address the Examiner’s
rejection based on the combination of these embodiments, but instead attack
the embodiments individually. Cf. with In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references.”). The relevant inquiry is whether
the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary
skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of the references. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). This rationale with respect to two
different references is equally applicable here with respect to the two
embodiments of Saifullah because it “does not require a leap of
inventiveness.” Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., 554 F.3d at 991.
As noted by the Examiner, although Appellants criticize Figure 6 of
Saifullah for not teaching “sleep mode,” the Examiner relies on Figure 3 and
paragraphs 97 and 100 of Saifullah for teaching the claimed sleep mode.
Ans. 12; see also Final Act. 3 (citing Fig. 3, steps 205 and 207, and 1100,11.
1—5 (“sleep/wake-up window”). As also noted by the Examiner, Appellants
criticize Figure 3 of Saifullah for not teaching transmitting the control signal
to at least one of the relay stations such that the relay station “is able to
configure its operation in accordance with the said control signal,” but the
Examiner relies on Figure 6 and paragraph 113 of Saifullah as teaching “that
the same message may be used to configure the powered-down mode of the
6
Appeal 2016-003551
Application 12/914,059
relay station and also forwarded to the mobile station.” Ans. 13.
Appellants’ further argument that, even if the embodiments of Figure 3 and
6 were combined, “neither embodiment discloses a control signal from the
base station which allows the relay station to configure its operation ... by
allocating relay resources on time for the mobile station to transmit on the
uplink in a listening window” (see Reply Br. 4) is similarly not persuasive as
it focuses on the embodiments individually, rather than the Examiner’s
combination of the teachings and suggestions of both embodiments.
(Emphasis added.) Thus, Appellants’ arguments attacking Saifullah’s
embodiments individually are not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s
findings that the combination of the embodiments teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations of claim 1. See Ans. 12—14.
Our reviewing court guides, “the question under 35 U.S.C. 103 is not
merely what the references expressly teach but what they would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, Inc., 874 F. 2d 804, 807—808
(Fed. Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). This reasoning is applicable here
because we find the collective teachings of the Figure 3 and Figure 6
embodiments of Saifullah at least suggest all that is contested by Appellants.
We note that, in the Reply Brief, Appellants argue each of Figures 3
and 6 fails to teach or suggest the relay station configuring its operation “for
the mobile station to transmit on the uplink in a listening window.” See
Reply Br. 3^4. However, because these arguments are raised by Appellants
for the first time in the Reply Brief not in response to a shift in the
Examiner’s position and without otherwise showing good cause, they are
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); see also Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d
7
Appeal 2016-003551
Application 12/914,059
1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an
opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal
brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”).
Thus, on this record, and given the evidence relied on by the
Examiner (e.g., Saifullah Fig. 3 and ^fl[ 97—100, Fig. 6 and ^fl[ 113—114), we
find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive regarding the disputed limitations
of claim 1 for essentially the same reasons articulated by the Examiner in the
Answer (11—14) and Final Act. (2—3), and for the reasons discussed supra.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1.
For the same reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 6, 8, and 10, as well as dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 9, 11,
and 12, none of which are separately argued. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 4—12 under
35U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
8