Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 2, 2021

2020000759 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2021)

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