Ex Parte ChoiDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 12, 201712409398 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2017) 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. 12/409,398 03/23/2009 Hyung-Nam Choi 30134/02201 (P7266US1) 1306 114746 7590 Apple Inc. — FKM 150 Broadway Suite 702 New York, NY 10038 05/12/2017 EXAMINER MAPA, MICHAEL Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2645 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/12/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HYUNG-NAM CHOI Appeal 2016-003403 Application 12/409,3981 Technology Center 2600 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’ Final Rejection of claims 1—12 and 14—31, all of the pending claims in the Application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellant indicates the real party-in-interest is Apple Inc. App. Br. 2. 2 Claim 13 has been cancelled. Appeal 2016-003403 Application 12/409,398 BACKGROUND The disclosed invention relates to methods and an apparatus to enable a wireless network to dynamically implement paging mode operations based on one or more network parameters. Spec. 3:22-4:2, Abstract. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, reads as follows (disputed limitations in italics)'. 1. A method of providing paging channel access for a cellular network, the paging channel access being optimized for utilization of network resources: allocating one or more resources for paging channel access based at least in part on a ratio of enhanced devices to legacy devices on the cellular network, providing a schedule for paging channel access to a plurality of user devices, the schedule identifying the allocated one or more resources; and transmitting the schedule, the transmission enabling at least one of the one of the plurality of user devices to configure its modem to receive the allocated one or more resources. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL AND APPLIED PRIOR ART Claims 1—3 and 5—7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2010/0130218 Al; May 27, 2010) (“Zhang”) and Kohlmann et al. (US 2007/0109987 Al; May 17, 2007) (“Kohlmann”). Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhang, Kohlmann, and Alanara et al. (US 2010/0279715 Al; Nov. 4, 2010) (“Alanara”). 2 Appeal 2016-003403 Application 12/409,398 Claims 83—10, 12, 24, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhang, Kohlmann, and Asghar et al. (US 2005/0181731 Al; Aug. 18, 2005) (“Asghar”). Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhang, Kohlmann, Asghar, and Alanara. Claims 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhang, Kohlmann, Asghar, and Chan et al. (US 2009/0219846 Al; Sept. 3, 2009) (“Chan”). Claims 27 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhang, Kohlmann, Asghar, and Proctor et al. (US 2008/0261628 Al; Oct. 23, 2008) (“Proctor”). Claims 14—21 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhang and Fodor et al. (US 2010/0184458 Al; July 22, 2010) (“Fodor”). Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhang, Fodor, and Choi et al. (US 2009/0176514 Al; July, 9, 2009). Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhang, Fodor, and Damnjanovic et al. (US 2006/0280142 Al; Dec. 14, 2006) (“Damnjanovic”). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s Answer, and Appellant’s arguments in the Reply Brief. We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. 3 Claim 8, line 7, includes a typographical error reciting a “modem interface” in place of a “modem interface.” 3 Appeal 2016-003403 Application 12/409,398 We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below for emphasis. The Examiner finds that Zhang teaches “allocating one or more resources for paging channel access based at least in part on a ratio of enhanced devices to legacy devices on the cellular network,” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 8—9 (citing Zhang || 17, 32, 43, 48); Ans. 6—10 (citing Zhang || 17, 32, 43, 48). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Zhang discloses that “LTE [(long term evolution)] cell configuration and operation takes precedence and the LTE-A [(LTE-Advanced)] data carrier operations are limited to the radio resources that do not affect the LTE, [and] therefore optimizes the bandwidth by allocating the bandwidth used for DRX [(Discontinuous Reception)] and paging occasion for the LTE cell operation and allocating the remaining bandwidth not taken by the LTE cell operation to the DRX and paging occasion for the LTE-A operation.” Id. at 9 (citing Zhang 148). The Examiner finds that “by giving more priority to the legacy LTE cell operation for its plurality of LTE devices (more weight to a number of legacy devices) and the remaining resources are allocated to the LTE-A cell operation for its plurality of LTE-A devices,” Zhang teaches “the paging channel access being optimized for utilization of network resources: allocating one or more resources for paging channel access based at least in part on a ratio of enhanced devices to legacy devices.” Ans. 10. The Examiner further explains: One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the allocation of resources is based on a ratio and is proportional to the amount of resources available and furthermore even if all the resources were allocated for the LTE cell operation for its devices, the allocation would still be based on a ratio such as 100 percent to LTE devices cell operation and 0 percent for 4 Appeal 2016-003403 Application 12/409,398 LTE-A devices cell operation. For example, [o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the allocation of the available resources of the system of Zhang would be a proportional ratio of the allocated resources to the LTE cell operation and LTE-A cell operation to the available resources of the system seen below: 100% resources of system = 90% to LTE cell operation / devices : 10% to LTE-A cell operation / devices. 80% to LTE cell operation / devices : 20% to LTE-A cell operation / devices. 70% to LTE cell operation / devices : 30% to LTE-A cell operation / devices. 100% to LTE cell operation / devices : 0 % to LTE-A cell operation / devices. Ans. 10-11. Appellant contends that Zhang’s disclosure that if a component carrier is accessible by both the LTE Wireless Transmit Receive Unit (WTRU) and the LTE-A WTRU, the LTE takes precedence over the LTE-A in order to make them compatible is not the same as allocating resources based on a ratio of enhanced devices to legacy devices. See App. Br. 6. Appellant argues that “[gjiving precedence means that priority is always given to the LTE over LTE-A . . . .” Id. at 6. Appellant further contends that allocating bandwidth to the LTE cell operation and then allocating the remaining bandwidth not taken by the LTE operation to the LTE-A operation does not create a ratio. See id. at 7. Appellant asserts a ratio is a proportional relation. See id. at 7; Reply Br. 4. Appellant contends that “a ratio, as is understood by those in the art, is a ‘relationship that exists between the size, number or amount of two things and that is often represented by two 5 Appeal 2016-003403 Application 12/409,398 numbers,’ such as the ratio of 5 to 2 (5:2 or 5/2).” Reply Br. 4. Appellant argues that, according to the claim, the method “looks at the ratio of enhanced device to legacy devices, and, based on the ratio, whether it’s 2:5, 2:100 or any other combination, allocates the resources. Id. We agree with Appellant’s arguments. Although Appellant’s Specification does not include the term “ratio,” consistent with Appellant’s assertions, the ordinary and customary meaning of ratio is “the relationship in quantity, amount, or size, between two or more things.” Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/ratio (last accessed April 27, 2017). The Examiner’s examples of allocating certain percentages of LTE cell operation and LTE-A cell operation that equal 100% (see Ans. 10-11) do not address the relationship in quantity, amount, or size between legacy devices and enhanced devices. The Examiner’s examples also are based incorrectly on the assumption that the allocation of system resources is proportional to the quantity of LTE and LTE-A devices. However, Zhang discloses “the LTE- A data carrier operations may be limited to the radio resources that do not affect the LTE cell operations,” (Zhang 148), suggesting that LTE—A operations may be allocated insufficient resources compared to LTE operations. Utilizing one of the Examiner’s examples, if 90% of the resources are allocated to LTE operations, such as operations for 90 LTE devices on the network, and 10% of the resources are allocated to LTE-A operations, the 10% of the resources allocated to LTE-A operations does not necessarily equate to operation of 10 LTE-A devices on the network. Instead, it is possible that any number of LTE-A devices, for example 45 LTE-A devices, are operating on the network, and are allocated 10% of the 6 Appeal 2016-003403 Application 12/409,398 resources, while 90 LTE devices operating on the network are allocated 90% of the resources. In the case of 45 LTE-A devices and 90 LTE devices operating on the network, the 45 LTE—A devices represent 33% of the total devices and 90 LTE devices represent 67% of the total devices. For these reasons, the Examiner’s findings and examples do not demonstrate that Zhang teaches or suggests allocation of resources based on a ratio of LTE to LTE-A devices (i.e., relationship in quantity, amount, or size between LTE and LTE-A devices) on the network. As applied by the Examiner, the teachings of Kohlmann do not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies of Zhang. See Final Act. 7—12. Therefore, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and dependent claims 2, 3, and 5—7 as unpatentable over Zhang and Kohlmann. The remaining independent claims 8, 14, 24, and 31, recite similar limitations to claim 1, requiring a paging schedule “based at least in part on a ratio of enhanced devices to legacy devices on the cellular network.” As applied by the Examiner, the teachings of Kohlmann, Asghar, and Fodor, do not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies of Zhang. See Final Act. 14—25. Therefore, for the same reasons as those addressing claim 1, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8—10, 12, 24, 29, and 30 as unpatentable over Zhang, Kohlmann, and Asghar and claims 14—21 and 31 as unpatentable over Zhang and Fodor. In addressing the remaining dependent claims, the teachings of Alanara, Chan, Proctor, Choi, and Damnjanovic, as applied by the Examiner, do not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies of Zhang. See Final Act. 12—13, 26—30, 39-42. Accordingly, for the same reasons as those addressing claim 1, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 4, 11, 22, 23, 7 Appeal 2016-003403 Application 12/409,398 and 25—28 as unpatentable over Zhang in combination with additional applied prior art. DECISION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1—12, and 14—31. REVERSED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation