Apple Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 2, 20212020000759 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/794,011 07/08/2015 Chiu Ngok E. Wong 8888-45601 2836 81310 7590 08/02/2021 Kowert Hood Munyon Rankin & Goetzel (Apple) 1120 S. Capital of Texas Hwy Building 2, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78746 EXAMINER REDDIVALAM, SRINIVASA R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2477 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2021 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): patent_docketing@intprop.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte CHIU NGOK E. WONG, CHRISTIAAN A. HARTMAN, ZHENG ZENG, JOONSUK KIM, SU KHIONG YONG, and YONG LIU ____________________ Appeal 2020-000759 Application 14/794,011 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 16 and 18 through 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Apple, Inc. is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-000759 Application 14/794,011 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate to a system and method for providing flexible receiver configuration in wireless communication systems, such as 802.11 WLAN systems. Abs. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A method for reconfiguring a receiver in a wireless device, the method comprising: by the wireless device: transmitting a first data frame comprising first configuration information specifying a first configuration of the receiver; receiving a first acknowledgement frame according to a second configuration of the receiver, the first acknowledgement frame confirming the first configuration information; configuring the receiver according to the first configuration in response to the receiving the first acknowledgement frame; and receiving a second data frame according to the first configuration, after the configuring the receiver according to the first configuration. REJECTIONS2 The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(2) 2 The Examiner withdrew the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1, 2, 14, and 15 based upon copending application 15/055,80 because Appellant filed a terminal disclaimer. Ans. 3. However, the Examiner did not address the rejection of claims 8 and 9 over the claims of the same application. We consider this to be a typographical error and the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 8 and 9 over the same application to be withdrawn, as the terminal disclaimer obviates the rejection of claims 8 and 9 also. Appeal 2020-000759 Application 14/794,011 3 as being anticipated by Ozturk (US 2015/0208286 A1; published July 23, 2015). Final Act. 7–8.3 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 14, 16, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ozturk. Final Act. 8–14. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 9, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ozturk and Gauvreau (US 2010/0118720 A1; published May 13, 2010). Final Act. 14–15. The Examiner rejected claims 5, 11, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ozturk and Altmann (US 2011/0029677 A1; published Feb. 3, 2011). Final Act. 15–20. The Examiner rejected claims 6, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ozturk, Altmann, and Gauvreau. Final Act. 20–22. The Examiner rejected claims 7, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ozturk, Altmann, and Wei (US 2015/0327324 Al; published Nov. 12, 2015). Final Act. 22–24. Anticipation Rejection Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 8 is in error as Ozturk does not teach a receiver that is configured to receive a frame according to a second configuration and then in response to receiving an acknowledgement frame, configured according to a first configuration. Appeal Br. 7–8. Appellant argues that the teachings of Ozturk cited by the 3 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed May 13, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed November 06, 2019 (“Reply Br.”) Final Office Action mailed December 31, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 6, 2019 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2020-000759 Application 14/794,011 4 Examiner “teaches handing over communications to an entirely distinct communications device, according to a different RAT. Specifically, rather than reconfiguring a receiver of a radio in the eNB 705-a, the system of Ozturk transfers the bearer from the eNB 705-a to the AP 705-b, which uses a WLAN radio.” Appeal Br. 7–8. Appellant argues that: Ozturk triggers transferring the connection to a different radio (i.e., the AP radio), rather than reconfiguring the eNB radio. With regard to resetting “the RLC layer at the eNB 705-a for the bearer,” even if such resetting were to be interpreted as configuring the eNB receiver, this still could not be interpreted as “configur[ing] the receiver according to the first configuration,” at least because Ozturk does not teach or suggest that any information regarding the resulting configuration of the eNB receiver would be comprised in the “configuration message 808”. Thus, the state of the eNB following transfer of the bearer to the AP cannot be equivalent to the recited “first configuration” of claim 8, at least because no information about that state is comprised in a first data frame, as required by claim 8. Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner finds that Ozturk teaches a communication device (eNB 705-a) with a receiver that transmits a data frame having a header comprising first configuration information of the receiver; receiving an acknowledgement frame according to a second configuration and configuring the receiver according to the first configuration in response to the acknowledgement. Final Act. 7–8 (citing Ozturk, Figs. 8, 11, 12, ¶¶ 112, 179, 215). In the Answer, the Examiner further identifies Ozturk’s transceiver (item 1210 in Figure 12) is equated to the claimed receiver; the first communication link (e.g. First RAT in Figure 11) in Ozturk is equated to the claimed second configuration; and the second communication link Appeal 2020-000759 Application 14/794,011 5 (e.g., second RAT in Figure 11) in Ozturk is equated to the claimed first configuration. Ans. 21 (citing Ozturk, Figs. 8, 11, 12, ¶¶ 112, 179, 212). Based on these findings, the Examiner considers Ozturk to teach “‘a receiver’ that is first configured to ‘receive a ... frame according to a second configuration,’ and is then configured ‘according to the first configuration in response to receiving’ an acknowledgement frame, as recited by claim 8.” Ans. 22. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 8. Claim 8 recites transmitting a header comprising first configuration information of the radio receiver; receiving an acknowledgement according to a second configuration of the receiver, and in response to the acknowledgement, configuring the receiver according to the first configuration. Thus, the claim recites two configurations of the receiver; that the receiver is able to receive a frame according to the second configuration and to be configured according to the first. We have reviewed the cited teachings of Ozturk and do not find that the cited teaching of Ozturk directed to operation of the eNB 705-a (depicted in Figures 11 and 12 and relied upon by the Examiner as the claimed wireless device with a receiver) discloses this claimed feature. As discussed above, the Examiner equates the transceiver (item 1210) of the eNB 705-a (item 1102 Figs. 11, 12) with the claimed receiver and the first and second link (first and second RAT in figure 11) with the claimed second and first configuration. Ans. 22. However, as is clear from Figure 11, the eNB 705-a does not communicate over the second link (second RAT); rather as argued by the Appellant, the eNB 705-a communicates with the user equipment over the first link (first RAT) and the second link (second RAT) is used by the user equipment to Appeal 2020-000759 Application 14/794,011 6 communicate with the access point item 1152. See Ozturk ¶¶ 179, 212, Appeal Br. 8. Thus, applying the Examiner’s mapping of Ozturk’s first link (first RAT) to the claimed second configuration (over which the acknowledgment is received), fails to teach the disputed limitations of claim 8, as Ozturk does not teach that the receiver is configured to the first configuration, which the Examiner equated to the second link (second RAT), as there is no teaching that the receiver is configurable or communicates over the second link (second RAT). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 8 or dependent claim 10. Obviousness Rejections of dependent claims 9, 11, 12, and 13 Claims 9, 11, 12, and 13 depend upon claim 8. The Examiner’s rejections of these claims rely upon Ozturk to teach the limitations of independent claim 8. Final Act. 14–24. The Examiner has not shown that the additional references relied upon in the obviousness rejections teach or suggest the limitation disputed with respect to independent claim 8. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 9, 11, 12, and 13. Obviousness Rejection of independent claim 1 and the claims which depend thereupon Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 is in error as Ozturk does not teach a receiver that is configured to receive a frame according to a second configuration and then in response to receiving an acknowledgement frame, configured according to a first configuration. Appeal Br. 11–14. Thus, Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 present us with an issue similar to that discussed above with respect to claim Appeal 2020-000759 Application 14/794,011 7 8. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 relies upon findings that Ozturk teaches limitations similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 8. Final Act. 9–10 (citing Ozturk, Figs. 8, 11, 12, ¶¶ 112, 179). Further, the Examiner provides a response to Appellant’s arguments, similar to that discussed above with respect to claim 8. We are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. As with claim 8, claim 1 recites limitations directed to the transmitting a header comprising first configuration of the receiver; receiving an acknowledgement according to a second configuration of the receiver, and in response to the acknowledgement configuring the receiver accordingly to the first configuration. Thus, the claim recites two configurations of the receiver, and that the receiver is able to receive a frame according to the second configuration and to be configured according to the first. As discussed above with respect to claim 8, we do not find the Examiner has demonstrated that Ozturk teaches this feature, nor has the Examiner shown that it is suggested by Ozturk. The Examiner has not shown that the additional references relied upon in the obviousness rejections teach or suggest this limitation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 through 7 and 21. Obviousness Rejections of independent claim 14 and the claims which depend thereupon Appellant has not presented separate arguments with respect to independent claim 14. Further, independent claim 14 does not recite two configurations, and as such Appellant’s arguments, in the Briefs, are not Appeal 2020-000759 Application 14/794,011 8 commensurate with the scope of claim 14. Thus, Appellant’s arguments have not identified an error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14. Similarly, Appellant has not presented separate arguments with respect to claim 15, and claims 18 through 20 which depend upon claim 14. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 15, and 18 through 20 as Appellant has not identified an error in the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. With respect to dependent claim 16, which depends upon claim 14, Appellant argues that the claim recites features similar to those argued with respect to claims 1 and 8 and as such the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 is in error. Appeal Br. 14. We are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 16. Claim 16 is dependent upon claim 14 and adds a limitation directed to receiving an acknowledgement according to a second configuration of a receiver. Thus, claim 16 is similar to claims 1 and 8 in that it recites two configurations of the receiver, and that the receiver is able to receive a frame according to the second configuration and to be configured according to the first. As discussed above, we do not find that the Examiner has shown that Ozturk teaches this feature, nor has the Examiner shown that it is suggested by Ozturk. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 16. Appeal 2020-000759 Application 14/794,011 9 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 8, 10 102 Ozturk 8, 10 1, 3, 4, 14, 16, 21 103 Ozturk 14 1, 3, 4, 16, 21 2, 9, 15 103 Ozturk, Gauvreau 15 2, 9 5, 11, 18 103 Ozturk, Altmann 18 5, 11 6, 12, 19 103 Ozturk, Altmann, Gauvreau 19 6, 12 7, 13, 20 103 Ozturk, Altmann, Wei 20 7, 13 Overall Outcome 14, 15, 18–20 1–13, 16, 21 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2018). AFFIRMED IN PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation