Ex Parte Johnson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 27, 2014

11615326 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/615,326 12/22/2006 Phillip Marc Johnson 2002-415 / PU06 0555US1 1737 54472 7590 08/27/2014 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON 1400 CRESCENT GREEN SUITE 300 CARY, NC 27518 EXAMINER SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2642 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/27/2014 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 PHILLIP MARC JOHNSON, RAMANATHAN ASOKAN, and WILLIAM O. CAMP, JR. ____________________ Appeal 2012-003420 Application 11/615,326 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOHN G. NEW, and JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-003420 Application 11/615,326 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1–13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The claims are directed toward methods of reducing power consumption in mobile communications systems by operating in compressed mode. In compressed mode, mobile terminals “transmit intermittently with a desired duty factor rather than continuously, and increase their transmit power during the ‘on’ periods . . . .” Spec. ¶ 03. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of reducing power consumption in a mobile communication system, said method comprising: determining uplink load at a base station; and sending a control signal to selectively enable one or more mobile terminals to operate in a compressed mode for uplink transmission based on said uplink load. ISSUES ON APPEAL I. Whether the examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–13 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) in view of Brouwer1 and Pecen.2 A. Whether Pecen teaches sending a control signal to selectively enable a mobile terminal to operate in compressed mode. 1 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0157618 A1 published Aug. 12, 2004 2 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0128978 A1 published June 16, 2005 Appeal 2012-003420 Application 11/615,326 3 B. Whether a person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Pecen and Brouwer. ANALYSIS I. WHETHER THE EXAMINER ERRED IN REJECTING CLAIMS 1–13 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §103(A) IN VIEW OF BROUWER AND PECEN. We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections, and Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Brouwer and Pecen. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments, and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken. (Ans. 5, 8–10). In particular, we affirm the Examiner for the reasons detailed below. A. WHETHER PECEN TEACHES SENDING A CONTROL SIGNAL TO SELECTIVELY ENABLE A MOBILE TERMINAL TO OPERATE IN COMPRESSED MODE. Appellants argue that neither Brouwer nor Pecen teaches or suggests sending a control signal to selectively enable a mobile terminal to operate in compressed mode based on a measured uplink load. App. Br. 4. Appellants first argue that Pecen does not measure the uplink load, and that the compressed mode signal Pecen sends to a mobile terminal is to assign a transmission pattern to a mobile terminal that is already in compressed mode rather than to enable the terminal to operate in compressed mode. Id. at 5. Appellants further argue that sending a signal granting time slots in a Appeal 2012-003420 Application 11/615,326 4 compressed mode transmission pattern is not the same as sending a signal enabling a terminal to operate in compressed mode. Id. at 7, 9. In the absence of an explicit definition of a claim term or limitation in a Specification, the Examiner adopts the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner has therefore interpreted the limitation “sending a control signal to selectively enable one or more mobile terminals to operate in a compressed mode,” to include sending a signal granting time slots to a mobile terminal to transmit information in compressed mode. Ans. 10. We agree with the Examiner’s interpretation. Appellants’ Specification neither explicitly defines the meaning of “sending a control signal to selectively enable one or more mobile terminals to operate in a compressed mode,” nor have Appellants explained why it is unreasonable for the Examiner to interpret this limitation to include sending a time slotted compressed mode transmission pattern to a mobile terminal. Pecen teaches sending the transmission pattern as part of a compressed mode information element (IE). Pecen ¶ 41. Pecen further teaches that, in addition to the transmission pattern, the compressed mode IE contains a starting frame that indicates when the mobile terminal can begin transmitting in compressed mode, and a maximum number of repetitions that indicates how long the mobile terminal can continue transmitting in compressed mode. Id. Thus, Pecen teaches that when the mobile terminal requests compressed mode operation it is neither currently in compressed mode nor does it automatically begin transmitting in compressed mode. Rather, it Appeal 2012-003420 Application 11/615,326 5 waits for the base station to grant its request to enter into compressed mode, and only remains in compressed mode for the duration specified by the base station. Given this disclosure, we do not find it unreasonable for the Examiner to interpret Pecen’s teaching of sending a transmission pattern in a compressed mode IE as meeting the limitation of sending a control signal that selectively enables the mobile terminal to operate in compressed mode. B. WHETHER A PERSON SKILLED IN THE ART WOULD HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO COMBINE PECEN AND BROUWER. Appellants argue that a person of skill in the art would not have been prompted to combine Brouwer and Pecen to arrive at the invention recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6. In particular, Appellants argue that Brouwer teaches controlling the uplink transmission power of mobile terminals based on a measured uplink load, while Pecen teaches assigning transmission patterns to mobile terminals to avoid scheduling conflicts or to reduce interference while operating in compressed mode. Id. Appellants further argue that a person of skill in the art would have no reason to combine Pecen and Brouwer, and that the Examiner has not explained how Pecen’s sending of transmission patterns addresses the problem of fluctuating or overloaded uplinks due to too many mobile terminals operating in compressed mode. Id. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds Brouwer teaches measuring and balancing uplink loads by sending power control signals to mobile terminals. Ans. 9. The Examiner finds Pecen teaches balancing uplink loads by sending different transmission patterns to different mobile terminals so that they operate in Appeal 2012-003420 Application 11/615,326 6 compressed mode in different portions of an uplink frame. Id. Therefore, the Examiner finds that a person of skill in the art, concerned with uplink load balancing, would have looked to combine Brouwer and Pecen to achieve load balancing in order to maximize the number of mobile terminals that the system could simultaneously accomodate. Id. We agree. In Figure 9, Pecen illustrates a method for assigning transmission pattern timeslots to mobile terminals upon granting the mobile terminals’ requests to operate in compressed mode. Pecen teaches: [A]s user equipment is added to compressed mode, the network first determines how many user equipment devices are operating in compressed mode and transmitting in portion 1of the frame (time slots TS0–TS6) for frames 1 and 2, as indicated in step 902. The network then determines how many user equipment devices are operating in compressed mode and communicating [in] the second portion of the frame (time slots TS8–TS14) for frames 1 and 2, in step 904. The newest addition to compressed mode operation in frames 1 and 2 is then assigned by the network to the time slots having the fewest number of user equipment devices operating in compressed mode, in step 906. The assignment is stored in the network and communicated to the user equipment in step 908. Pecen ¶ 42 (emphasis added). We find this portion of Pecen not only teaches that it is the network or base station that adds or enables a mobile terminal (i.e., user equipment device) to operate in compressed mode, but that the network assigns the mobile terminal to transmit in that portion of an uplink frame having the fewest number of mobile terminals currently transmitting in compressed mode. Thus, we find Pecen teaches minimizing fluctuations and surges in Appeal 2012-003420 Application 11/615,326 7 the uplink power load by distributing the compressed mode transmission power evenly across the uplink frame. In view of the above, we agree with the Examiner and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants’ invention would have been motivated to combine Brouwer and Pecen to achieve uplink load balancing in a system of mobile terminals capable of operating in compressed mode. We find Brouwer and Pecen teach familiar elements known in the art, whose combination would have yielded predictable results. As such, we find the combination to have been obvious, and to render the invention recited in claim 1 obvious. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). FINDINGS 1. We find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–13 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) in view of Brouwer and Pecen. 2. We find Pecen teaches sending a control signal to selectively enable a mobile terminal to operate in compressed mode. 3. We find a person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Pecen and Brouwer to achieve uplink load balancing in a system of mobile terminals capable of operating in compressed mode. Appeal 2012-003420 Application 11/615,326 8 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–13 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) in view of Brouwer and Pecen. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2009). AFFIRMED cam