Ex Parte CILI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

13856168 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 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.
13/856,168 04/03/2013 Gencer CILI P17315US1/16710US.1 2801
47743 7590 06/02/2017
DOWNEY RR AND T T P
EXAMINER
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. BOX 569
SONG, REBECCA E
Cupertino, CA 95015 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2414
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2017 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):
IPDocketing @ Downey Brand, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GENCER CILI and PRADEEP SURYANATH SHARMA
Appeal 2017-001122
Application 13/856,168
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 17—19, 22—24, and 26-36.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Claims 3—5, 7—16, 20, 21, and 25 were canceled.
Appeal 2017-001122
Application 13/856,168
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
The invention is directed to scheduling application-generated data
requests in discontinuous reception (DRX) mode. Spec. 11. Claim 1 is
illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method for managing
application-generated data requests within a wireless
communication device comprising a baseband component
operating in a discontinuous reception (DRX) mode, the
method comprising:
receiving a data request from an application;
tagging the data request as a low-priority data request or
a high-priority data request based on a frequency at which the
application is used;
forwarding the tagged data request to the baseband
component;
determining whether the tagged data request is tagged as
a low-priority data request;
determining a next-scheduled active time for the
baseband component based on parameters associated with the
DRX mode;
and
causing a scheduling request to be issued for the next-
scheduled active time, when the tagged data request is tagged as
a low-priority data request.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1,2, 17, 22—24, 28—30, 33, and 34 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ehsan et al. (US
2013/0021995 Al; pub. Jan. 24, 2013 (“Ehsan”)) and Varney (US
2014/0293848 Al; pub. Oct. 2, 2014). Final Act. 5-23.
2
Appeal 2017-001122
Application 13/856,168
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ehsan, Varney, and Kashikar et al. (US 2011/0268000
Al; pub. Nov. 3, 2011 (“Kashikar”)). Final Act. 23—25.
Claims 18, 26, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ehsan, Varney, and Loehr et al. (US 2015/0117342
Al; pub. Apr. 30, 2015 (“Loehr”)). Final Act. 26—27.
Claims 19, 27, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ehsan et al., Varney, and Damnjanovic (US
2013/0258919 Al; pub. Oct. 3, 2013). Final Act. 27-28.
Claims 35 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ehsan, Varney, and Comsa et al. (US 2012/0207040 Al;
pub. Aug. 16, 2012 (“Comsa”)). Final Act. 29—30.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Ehsan and
Varney teaches or suggests “tagging the data request. . . based on a
frequency at which the application is used1'’ as recited in claim 1 (emphasis
added)?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Ehsan and
Varney teaches or suggests “the data request is tagged . . . when the
application is executing as a background application that is frequently
accessed by a user of the wireless communication device” as recited in
claim 23 (emphasis added)?
3
Appeal 2017-001122
Application 13/856,168
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. With respect to independent claims 1,
17, and 30, as well as dependent claims 2, 6, 18, 19, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, and
31—36, we agree with the Examiner’s finding and conclusions and adopt
them as our own. However, regarding claims 23 and 28, we are persuaded
by Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner erred.
Independent Claims 1, 17, and 30
Based on Appellants’ arguments (see App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 2), we
decide the appeal of claims 1,17, and 30 on the basis of representative claim
1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants contend that “Varney does not explicitly disclose the claim
1 feature [of] ‘a frequency at which the application is used.’” App. Br. 16
(emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 3. Specifically, Appellants argue that
“Varney learns from past data channel (not application) events” and “states
a frequency at which a data channel module 250 is used by application 232
not the claimed ‘tagging the data request. . . based on a frequency at which
the application is used.’” App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 4. Appellants contend the
claimed “frequency at which the application is used” means “the frequency
at which the application is used by a user (e.g., every day, once a week,
biweekly, monthly, rarely).” App. Br. 19 (citing Spec. 140).
We conclude Appellants are attempting to interpret claim 1 to
impermissibly import the “frequency at which the application is used by a
user” from the Specification into the claim (emphasis added). See Phillips v.
AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (enbanc) (cautioning
4
Appeal 2017-001122
Application 13/856,168
against reading limitations from the Specification into the claims); In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Although the claims are
“interpreted in light of the specification^] . . . limitations are not to be read
into the claims from the specification.”). As such, we find Appellants’
argument unpersuasive and we decline to find Examiner error based on
Appellants’ proposed importation of limitations from the Specification.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
Appellants’ disclosure, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that “a
frequency at which the application is used” does not preclude “the frequency
of data usage which is used by an application.” Ans. 33; see In re Am. Acad.
ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he PTO is
obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during
examination.”). The Examiner finds Varney teaches a method of managing
data requests “based on a retrieved data transfer history of data channel
requests from the application 232, such as their frequency of data usage,”
which we agree teaches “the frequency of data usage which is used by an
application.” Ans. 33 (emphasis added); Final Act. 8—9 (citing Varney 1
29).
For the above reasons we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 1,17, and 30.
Dependent Claims 2, 6, 18, 19, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, and 31—36
Appellants have provided no separate arguments towards patentability
for dependent claims 2, 6, 18, 19, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, and 31—36. Therefore,
the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of dependent claims 2, 6, 18, 19, 22, 24, 26,
27, 29, and 31—36 are sustained for similar reasons as noted supra.
5
Appeal 2017-001122
Application 13/856,168
Dependent Claims 23 and 28
The Examiner finds that “Varney teaches making determination as to
whether the application is being frequently used by a user” because “the
retrieved data transfer history can indicate how frequently the application is
being used by a user through an application,” and determining whether the
request is deferrable, and that this teaches that “the data request is tagged as
a high-priority data request. . . when the application is executing as a
background application that is frequently accessed by a user of the wireless
communication device” as recited in claim 23. Ans. 37. However, we agree
with Appellants’ contention that Varney does not explicitly teach an
application that is “frequently accessed by a user,” as required by claim 23.
App. Br. 23; Reply Br. 6—8.
Varney describes allowing a “user of the wireless communication
device 200 to set a preference for a selected application for the
determination of whether to defer the access to the data channel.” Varney |
29. However, Varney’s disclosure, at best, suggests and application used by
a user and a user’s preferences to defer a request, but fails to teach
determining deferability and priority of a request based on whether the
application “is frequently accessed by a user.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23
and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ehsan and Varney.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 1,17, and 30, as well as the 35 U.S.C.
6
Appeal 2017-001122
Application 13/856,168
§ 103(a) rejections of dependent claims 2, 6, 18, 19, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, and
31—36. We, however, do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claims 23 and 28.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 6, 17—19, 22, 24, 26,
27, and 29-36 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 23 and 28 is reversed.
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-IN-PART
7