Zhijun Cai et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2020

12341948 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2020)

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.
12/341,948 12/22/2008 Zhijun CAI 4602-00200 1786
30652 7590 03/27/2020
CONLEY ROSE, P.C.
5601 GRANITE PARKWAY, SUITE 500
PLANO, TX 75024
EXAMINER
PHUNG, LUAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2020 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):
DallasPatents@dfw.conleyrose.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ZHIJUN CAI, SEAN BARTHOLOMEW SIMMONS,
JAMES EARL WOMACK, TAKASHI SUZUKI, and YI YU
____________

Appeal 2018-004753
Application 12/341,948
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before BETH Z. SHAW, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–15, and 17–21. Claims 3, 7, 16, and 22 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies Hilco Patent Acquisition 55
LLC as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2018-004753
Application 12/341,948

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to uplink
resource reuse in a wireless telecommunications system. (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for uplink resource reuse by a user equipment
(UE), the method comprising:
receiving, by the UE, a semi-persistent uplink resource
allocation for a first data type session, the semi-persistent
uplink resource allocation comprising a plurality of individual
uplink resource allocations spaced in time and the first data type
session being a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) session;
determining, by the UE, that an amount of data to be sent
for the VoIP session is less than an individual uplink resource
allocation; and
after determining, assigning, by the UE, an unused
portion of the individual uplink resource allocation for the VoIP
session to send data for a second data type session of the UE
during a transient period in which the amount of data to be sent
for the VoIP session is less than a maximum and greater than
zero; and
using, by the UE, a portion of the individual uplink
resource allocation to send the amount of data for the VoIP
session and using the unused portion of the individual uplink
resource allocation to send data for the second data type
session.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–15, and 17–21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2007/0097936 A1,
pub. May 3, 2007). (Final Act. 4–8.)

Appeal 2018-004753
Application 12/341,948

3
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue:2
Whether Lee discloses the limitations of independent claims 1, 5, and
17. (Appeal Br. 11–14.)
ANALYSIS
In a previous appeal in this matter, we considered, inter alia, then-
pending claim 1, set forth below:
1. A method for uplink resource reuse by a user equipment (UE),
the method comprising:
receiving, by the UE, an uplink resource allocation for a
first data type session;
determining, by the UE, that an amount of data to be sent
for the first data type session is less than the uplink resource
allocation; and
after determining, assigning, by the UE, an unused
portion of the uplink resource allocation to a second data type
session of the UE during a transient period in which a payload
size associated with the first data type session is less than a
maximum and greater than zero.
(Ex parte Zhijun Cai, et al., Appeal 2014-004983, p. 2 (PTAB April 28,
2016) (hereafter, “2016 Decision”).) Before that appeal, the Examiner had
rejected claim 1, as well as the other pending claims, as anticipated by Lee.
(Id.) The Examiner relied on the disclosure in Lee of switching from the
uplink of voice data packets (e.g., “UGS packets”) to other types of packets

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Oct. 19, 2017), Reply Brief
(filed Apr. 4, 2018), Final Office Action (mailed May 19, 2017), and the
Examiner’s Answer (mailed Feb. 5, 2018) for the respective details.
Appeal 2018-004753
Application 12/341,948

4
when the voice input is in a muted state. (June 21, 2013 Non-Final Act. 3;
Lee, Fig. 6, ¶¶ 16, 112–115, 120.)
Appellant argued that Lee “makes no mention of a UE [user
equipment] assigning an unused portion of an uplink allocation (1) during a
transient period, or (2) when there is a payload associated with a first data
type.” (Nov. 20, 2013 Appeal Br. 10.) Appellant argued Lee only switches
to alternative packets “when there is no first packet to be sent,” and
therefore “no part of the uplink bandwidth can be allocated to the second
packet in Lee during a transient period in which a payload size associated
with the first data packet is less than a maximum and greater than
zero.” (Id. at 11.)
In our previous Decision, we were not persuaded by this argument,
agreeing with the Examiner’s interpretation of “transient period” as
encompassing the disclosure in Lee of multiple intervals whereby some
intervals consist of voice packets and other intervals consist of other types of
packets:
[T]he examiner notes the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the claims in light of Appellant’s specification. In this case, the
claimed transient period corresponds to multiple of such
intervals in Lee, for example, five (5), in which case a first
transient period consists of three intervals of UGS packet
(“UGS interval”) and two intervals of “other packet” (“other
interval”) (fig. 6), wherein the UGS intervals carrying voice
information, i.e., first data type, correspond to the claimed
payload, and the other intervals are allocated to non-UGS
packets such as rtPS, nrtPS and BE, i.e., the second data type.
(2016 Decision, 4 (citing Jan. 17, 2014 Ans. 4–5).)
Appeal 2018-004753
Application 12/341,948

5
In the present Appeal, Appellant’s and the Examiner’s arguments
track those of the previous Appeal in substantial respects. (Appeal Br. 11–
14; Final Act. 2–6.) However, the present claim 1 has been amended in
significant respects:
(i) It specifies that the user equipment receive “a semi-persistent
uplink resource allocation . . . comprising a plurality of
individual uplink resource allocations spaced in time,” as
compared to previously only requiring receipt of “an uplink
resource allocation.”
(ii) The claim requires “determining . . . that an amount of data to
be sent . . . is less than an individual uplink resource
allocation,” as compared to such determination merely be “less
than the uplink resource allocation.”
(iii) The claim requires assigning an “unused portion of the
individual uplink resource allocation” to send the second type
of data “during a transient period in which the amount of data
to be sent for the VoIP session is less than a maximum and
greater than zero,” rather than assigning an “unused portion of
the uplink resource allocation” to send the second type of data
“during a transient period in which a payload size associated
with the first data type session is less than a maximum and
greater than zero.”
(Cf. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims Appendix) with 2016 Decision, 2) (emphasis
added). Independent claims 5 and 17 have been commensurately amended.
(Appeal Br. 22, 25.)
Appeal 2018-004753
Application 12/341,948

6
With these amendments, the Examiner’s broader interpretation of
“transient period” is no longer sustainable. As is apparent from Figure 3 of
the Specification, in light of the present claims, the transient period is the
period during which individual resource allocations are only partially used
for VoIP data, and the claims require the unused portions of those
allocations to be used for other types of data. (Appeal Br. 12, 16.) In
contrast, Lee does not disclose this capability, but rather is limited to
sending other data only in totally unused individual resource allocations.
(Id. at 11–12, 17.)
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 5, and 17 as anticipated by Lee. We also do not
sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, 6, 8–15, and 18–21, which depend from
claims 1, 5, or 17.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–6, 8–
15, 17–21
102(e) Lee 1, 2, 4–6,
8–15, 17–
21

REVERSED