Ex Parte Maheshwari et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 11, 2016

12124541 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/124,541 05/21/2008 23696 7590 10/13/2016 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 5775 MOREHOUSE DR. SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Shailesh Maheshwari 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 071694 2898 EXAMINER LIU, TIJNG-JEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2473 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/13/2016 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 SHAILESH MAHESHW ARI, THOMAS KLINGENBRUNN, TIM T. LIOU, SURESH SHARMA GANNAMARAJU, VIKAS GULATI, and SITARAMANJANEYULU KANAMARLAPUDI Appeal2014-007062 Application 12/124,541 Technology Center 2400 Before HUNG H. BUI, JOHN F. HORVATH, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek review, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), of the Examiner's Final rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17-19, 21, 23-25, 27-29, 31, 33-35, 37-39, 41, 43--45, 47--49, and 71-74, which constitute all pending claims. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants and the Examiner address claims 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 in the Briefs and Answer. However, Appellants cancelled these claims in an amendment filed Oct. 1, 2013. See App. Br. 20-27 (Claims App'x). Appeal2014-007062 Application 12/124,541 SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The invention is directed to tracking successful transmission of a control protocol data unit. Spec. i-f 8. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for tracking success of a control protocol data unit transmission, comprising: identifying an occurrence of a transmission of a control protocol data unit from a transmitter; incrementing a counter at the transmitter as a direct correlation of the identified occurrence of the transmission of the control protocol data unit, wherein the counter functions for both the control protocol data unit and a related protocol data unit; receiving a notice from a receiver indicating that the transmission of the control protocol data unit is successful; and forcing the counter to reset in response to the notice that the transmission is successful. Rajala Olsson Lee Michel REFERENCES WO 01/22645 Al US 2006/0067238 Al US 2007 /0268932 Al US 2008/0101403 Al REJECTIONS Mar. 29, 2001 Mar. 30, 2006 Nov. 22, 2007 May 1, 2008 Claims 1, 11, 21, 31, 41, and 71-74 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Olsson, Lee, and Michel. Final Act. 11. Claims 3-5, 7-9, 13-15, 17-19, 23-25, 27-29, 33-35, 37-39, 43--45, and 47--49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Olsson, Lee, Michel, and Rajala. Final Act. 33. 2 Appeal2014-007062 Application 12/124,541 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' contentions, and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We highlight the following for emphasis. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17-19, 21, 23-25, 27-29, 31, 33-35, 37-39, 41, 43-45, 47-49, and 71-74 Independent claims 1, 11, 21, 31, and 41 require a counter to be incremented when a CPDU (control protocol data unit) is transmitted, and to be reset when a notice is received indicating the CPDU transmission was successfully received. See App. Br. 10, 20. Appellants argue all pending claims are patentable over the combination of Olsson, Lee, and iviichel because the combination fails to teach or suggest resetting the counter upon receiving a notice indicating the transmission of a CPDU was successful. Id. at 9-16. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds Lee teaches incrementing a counter (VT(DAT)) upon transmitting a radio link control (RLC) protocol data unit (PDU). Final Act. 13 (citing Lee i-f 33; Figs. 1-12). The Examiner finds Olsson teaches an RLC protocol in which a receiver transmits an acknowledgement (ACK) message to a transmitter upon successfully receiving transmitted data. Id. at 12 (citing Olsson i-fi-18, 59, Figs. 4--5, 8-9). The Examiner finds Michel teaches incrementing a retransmission counter (RSN) when a data packet is retransmitted, and setting the retransmission counter to zero when a new 3 Appeal2014-007062 Application 12/124,541 data packet is transmitted. Id. at 14 (citing Michel i-fi-14, 7-8, 12). Lastly, the Examiner finds setting the RSN counter to zero when the new data packet is transmitted "implies that the previous transmission or retransmission is successful .... That is, [Michel] reset[s] his counter when [the] previous transmission is successful and start[ s] a new transmission." Ans. 58. Appellants have not persuasively shown any error in these findings, with which we agree, and which we adopt as our own. Appellants argue that each of Olsson, Michel, and Lee, when considered separately, does not teach or suggest both incrementing a counter upon transmission of a CPDU and resetting the counter upon receiving notice that the CPDU was successfully transmitted. See App. Br. 11-14. However, "[ n ]on-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references." In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Rather, the test for obviousness "is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Regarding Michel, Appellants argue the reference teaches resetting the RSN counter "if a new packet is being transmitted ... [but] does not describe resetting [the RSN] counter in response to receiving an ACK or NACK signal, as alleged in the Final Office Action." App. Br. 14. We disagree. As the Examiner correctly finds, Michel discloses a Hybrid Automated Retransmission reQuest (HARQ) protocol, in which a receiver sends ACK and NACK signals to a transmitter to indicate whether a data 4 Appeal2014-007062 Application 12/124,541 transmission was successful (ACK) or unsuccessful (NACK). 2 See Final Act. 14; Michel i-fi-14, 7-8, 12. When a data packet transmission is not successful, Michel retransmits the data packet and increments the RSN counter. Id. When the data packet transmission is successful, Michel resets the RSN counter to zero, and transmits a new data packet. Id. Thus, as the Examiner correctly finds, Michel's transmitter resets the RSN counter when a data packet is successfully transmitted. In the HARQ protocol, used by Michel, the transmitter knows the data packet was successfully transmitted when it receives an ACK message from the receiver. Final Act. 14; Ans. 58. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 11, 21, 31, and 41, and their respective dependent claims 3, 5, 7-9, 13-15, 17-19, 23-25, 27-29, 33-35, 37-39, 43- 45, 47--49, and 71-74, which Appellants do not separately argue. See App. Br. 9-16. Claim 4 As noted supra, independent claim 1 requires a counter to be incremented when a CPDU is transmitted. App. Br. 20. Claim 4, which depends from claim 1 via claim 3, requires triggering a radio link protocol reset based upon a comparison of the incremented counter to a threshold. Id. The Specification does not define the term "radio link protocol reset" or explain how a radio link protocol is reset. Rather, the Specification simply discloses that a transmitter triggers a "radio link protocol res[ e ]t 2 We take Official Notice that HARQ schemes utilize ACK/NACK signaling. See, e.g., Uplink signaling for Hybrid ARQ, available at http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WGl_RL1/TSGR1_20/docs/PDFs/Rl-01- 0571.pdf 5 Appeal2014-007062 Application 12/124,541 based upon the result of the comparison" of a counter to a threshold, and "reset[ s] the counter to a base value upon the trigger of the reset." Spec. i-f 50. The Specification similarly discloses comparing the counter to a threshold "to determine if a reset should take place," and if so, "an appropriate reset can occur ... that can include resetting the counter to a base value." Id. i-f 63 (emphases added). The Examiner finds Rajala teaches triggering a radio link protocol reset in response to comparing an incremented counter to a threshold. Final Act. 33-34 (citing Rajala 10:1-9; Figs. 2, 4). Appellants argue the passage of Rajala cited by the Examiner "does not trigger a reset of a radio link protocol, but instead merely updates existing data within [a knowledge] state array." App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 12. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, which fails to address the Examiner's finding that Figure 4 of Rajala teaches triggering the radio link protocol reset. ivioreover, we agree with the Examiner that Figure 4 of Rajala teaches, under a broad, but reasonable interpretation, triggering a radio link protocol reset by incrementing a counter based upon transmission of a packet (S203), comparing the counter to a threshold (S205), and resetting the counter when the threshold is exceeded (S207). See Final Act. 33-34; Rajala, Fig. 4. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4. 6 Appeal2014-007062 Application 12/124,541 DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 11, 21, 31, 41, and 71-7 4 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Olsson, Lee, and Michel is affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 3-5, 7-9, 13-15, 17-19, 23-25, 27-29, 33-35, 37-39, 43--45, and 47--49 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Olsson, Lee, Michel, and Rajala is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7