Ex Parte Choi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 12, 2017

12409398 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2017)

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