Ex Parte Gorokhov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2017

12484624 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 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.
12/484,624 06/15/2009 Alexei Y. Gorokhov 081424 1695
23696 7590 08/31/2017
OTTAT mMM TNmRPORATFD
EXAMINER
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
RENNER, BRANDON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2478
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2017 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXEI Y. GOROKHOV,
RAVI PALANKI, and AAMOD KHANDEKAR
Appeal 2015-005675
Application 12/484,624
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1—33 and 36—103. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2015-005675
Application 12/484,624
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 26, 44, 67, and 83 are independent claims. The claims
relate generally to “blanking control resources in heterogeneous network
deployments.” Spec. 12. Specifically, the claims relate to transmitting a
control blanking request from a subscriber device to an interfering device.
Id. 1 8. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method, comprising:
transmitting, from a subscriber device to one or
more interfering devices, a control blanking request for
blanking a set of control resources; and
communicating control information with a disparate
device over the set of control resources.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 8-10, 13, 2A-27, 32, 33, 36, 43^15, 51-53, 65-68, 73-
75, 82—84, 89—91, and 98—103 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable in view of Zhang (US 2007/0082619 Al; Apr. 12, 2007) and
Teague (US 2006/0291393 Al; Dec. 28, 2006) (“Teague”). Final Act. 3-9.
Claims 3—7, 14, 15, 28—31, 38, 46—50, 56, 69—72, and 85—88 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of Zhang, Teague,
and Miki (US 2010/0296459 Al; Nov. 25, 2010). Final Act. 9-12.
Claims 11, 37, 54, 76, and 92 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable in view of Zhang, Teague, and Teague (US 2005/0254555
Al; Nov. 17, 2005) (“Teague ’555”). Final Act. 13.
Claims 12 and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable in view of Zhang, Teague, Teague ’555, and Tong (US
2007/0053282 Al; Mar. 8, 2007). Final Act. 13-14.
2
Appeal 2015-005675
Application 12/484,624
Claims 16-19, 23, 39-42, 57-60, 64, 77-81,1 and 93-97 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of Zhang,2 Teague
and Matsuo (US 2007/0060057 Al; Mar. 15, 2007). Final Act. 14-17.
Claims 20 and 61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable in view of Zhang, Teague, Matsuo, and Miki. Final Act. 17—
18.
Claims 21 and 62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable in view of Zhang, Teague, Matsuo, and Teague ’555. Final
Act. 18-19.
Claims 22 and 63 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable in view of Zhang, Teague, Matsuo, Teague ’555, and Tong.
Final Act. 19—20.
OPINION
The Examiner rejects independent claims 1, 26, 44, 67, and 83 as
obvious in view of the combined teachings of Zhang and Teague. The
Examiner finds Zhang teaches every aspect of the independent claims,
except that a subscriber device performs the transmitting step. Final Act. 3.
The Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute, Teague teaches
transmitting non-sticky assignments to an access terminal, such that the
access terminal that has a sticky assignment of those resources may
1 The Examiner additionally indicates claim 81 is rejected in view of the
combined teachings of Zhang, Teague (inadvertently omitted in many of the
explanations of rejection, even though used in the rejection of each
independent claim), Matsuo, and Tong. Final Act. 20—21. However, the
statement of rejection relies on Tong for teaching a limitation not recited in
claim 81.
2 The Examiner inadvertently omits reference to Zhang in the heading of the
rejection of these claims, but references Zhang in the body of the rejection.
3
Appeal 2015-005675
Application 12/484,624
relinquish control over those resources for the duration of the non-sticky
assignment. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Teague 37, 38, 50); See Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner further finds Teague teaches a subscriber device sending the
blanking request for resources (i.e., the non-sticky assignment) to another
device. Final Act. 3^4. In support of this finding, the Examiner states
Teague discloses an access terminal may detect a non-sticky assignment
indicator signal, and the access terminal includes a transmitter “that
transmits the signal to . . . another user device.” Adv. Act. 2 (citing Teague
56, 57); Ans. 6—8 (citing Teague H 56, 57, Fig. 8). Thus, the Examiner
finds that because the only signal disclosed in paragraph 56 of Teague is the
non-sticky assignment indicator signal, Teague teaches re-transmitting that
same signal (i.e., the received non-sticky assignment indicator signal) to
another user device. Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 7—8.
Appellants argue paragraphs 56 and 57 of Teague do not indicate the
source of the received non-sticky assignment, but that paragraphs 38, 58,
and 59 make it clear that the base station generates and transmits the non-
sticky assignment to the user device(s). App. Br. 6—8. With respect to
Teague’s disclosure of transmitting “the signal” from one access terminal to
another user device, Appellants argue “the signal” is referring to any signal
output from modulator 814, whereas nothing in Teague indicates relaying or
re-transmitting a signal processed by an access terminal’s RX data processor
to another receiver. Id. at 9 (citing Teague H 57, 63). Accordingly,
Appellants contend the Examiner’s reading of “the signal” in paragraph 57
of Teague is mere conjecture and the result of impermissible hindsight based
on Appellants’ claims. Id. at 10; Reply Br. 2—3.
4
Appeal 2015-005675
Application 12/484,624
On this record, we find the preponderance of the evidence supports
Appellants. Specifically, we agree with Appellants that Figure 8 and the
accompanying description merely teach that signals generated by modulator
814, in response to commands from processor 806, are transmitted by access
terminal 800. Notwithstanding the Examiner’s findings to the contrary, we
do not find the simple reference of transmitting “the signal” in paragraph 57
of Teague teaches or suggests retransmission or relay of signals received by
an access terminal. As pointed out by Appellants, paragraphs 62 and 63 of
Teague disclose an access terminal’s transmit data processor “receives
traffic data from a data source 1072 and signaling and other information
from controller 1060,” and that data is then “coded and modulated by TX
data processor 1074” to eventually be transmitted. See App. Br. 9; Reply
Br. 3.
Therefore, on this record, we find the Examiner has not provided clear
evidence that Teague teaches or suggests a subscriber device transmitting
the control blanking request, within the meaning of each independent claim
on appeal. For us to sustain the Examiner’s rejections, we would need to
resort to impermissible speculation or unfounded assumptions to cure the
aforementioned deficiency in the factual bases of the rejections. See In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). Each rejection on appeal
relies on Teague for teaching or suggesting the contested claim limitation.
We decline to engage in such speculation.
Constrained by this record, Appellants have persuaded us the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, as well as independent
claims 26, 44, 67, and 83, which each recite a commensurate limitation,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of the combined teachings of
5
Appeal 2015-005675
Application 12/484,624
Zhang and Teague. Dependent claims 2—25, 27—33, 36-43, 45—66, 68—82,
and 84—103 ultimately depend from, and incorporate the limitations recited
in, one of independent claims 1, 26, 44, 67, and 83. Although the rejections
of some of the dependent claims rely on one or more additional references,
the additional references were not relied on to cure the deficiency with
respect to a subscriber device transmitting the control blanking request.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed with respect to the independent
claims, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims
2-25, 27-33, 36-43, 45-66, 68-82, and 8^103 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
For the reasons discussed above, we reverse the Examiner’s decision
to reject claims 1—33 and 36—103.
REVERSED
6