Ex Parte CAI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2016

12341948 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/341,948 12/22/2008
82313 7590 04/28/2016
Conley Rose - BlackBerry Files
Attn: J. Robert Brown
5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Zhijun CAI
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.
33136-US-PAT
4214-05501
1786
EXAMINER
PHUNG,LUAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2016 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):
ConleyRoseReporting@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
Appeal2014-004983
Application 12/341,948
Technology Center 2400
Before ELINI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. 1 We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants identify Research In Motion Limited as the
real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal2014-004983
Application 12/341,948
THE INVENTION
Appellants' 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, 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.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2007 /0097936 Al, pub. May 3, 2007). (Non-
Final Act. 3-5.)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issues: 2
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 20, 2013), Reply Brief
(filed Mar. 18, 2014), Non-Final Office Action (mailed June 21, 2013), and
the Examiner's Answer (mailed Jan. 17, 2014) for the respective details.
2
Appeal2014-004983
Application 12/341,948
Issue One: Whether Lee discloses the independent claim 1 limitation,
"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," and similar limitations recited in
independent claims 5 and 17. (App. Br. 9-11.)
Issue Two: Whether Lee discloses the claim 10 limitation, "wherein a
modulation and coding scheme is used for the first data type session and the
second data type session, and wherein the modulation and coding scheme is
the same for the first data type session and the second data type session,"
and similar limitation recited in claims 14 and 18. (App. Br. 12.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments
and we adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-5); and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-7). We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and emphasize the following.
Issue One
Appellants argue 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."
(App. Br. 10.) The Examiner's rejection relies on the disclosure in Lee of
3
Appeal2014-004983
Application 12/341,948
switching from the uplink of voice data packets (e.g., "UGS packets") to
other types of packets when the voice input is in a muted state. (Non-Final
Act. 3; Lee Fig. 6, i-fi-f 16, 112-115, 120.) Appellants argue 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." (App. Br. 11.)
This argument is not persuasive- as the Examiner correctly finds,
the broadest reasonable interpretation of "transient period" encompasses the
disclosure in Lee of multiple intervals whereby some intervals consist of
voice packets and other intervals consist of other types of packets. (Ans. 4--
5.) As the Examiner finds:
[T]he examiner notes the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the claims in light of 1A .. ppellant'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 ofUGS 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.
(Ans. 4--5.) In such case, the payload size associated with the first data type
is less than a maximum and greater that zero.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue the Examiner's construction of
"transient period," as encompassing multiple intervals, is overly broad, as
inconsistent with the Specification, and the interpretation of "period" that
4
Appeal2014-004983
Application 12/341,948
those skilled in the art would reach. (Reply Br. 2.) To the contrary,
however, Figure 3 of the Specification depicts a transient period as spanning
multiple intervals. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1, 5 and 1 7.
Issue Two
For the rejection of claims 10, 14, and 18, Appellants argue that no
part of Lee provide any "suggestion as to a modulation and coding scheme
(MCS) being used." (App. Br. 12.) However, we are not persuaded the
Examiner errs in relying, for this limitation, on the disclosure in Lee of
encapsulating the alternative data packets into the payload field of the UGS
packets, necessitating a uniform modulation and coding scheme for different
packet types. (Non-Final Act. 5; Ans. 6-7; Lee Fig. 3, i-f 115.)
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the anticipation rejection
of claims 1, 5, 10, 14, 17, and 18. We also sustain the anticipation rejection
of claims 2--4, 6-9, 11-13, 15, 16, 19, and 20, which claims are not argued
separately with particularity.
5
Appeal2014-004983
Application 12/341,948
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20.
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
6