Ex Parte NORY et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 27, 2016

13050743 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 13/050,743 124192 GOOGLE 7590 FILING DATE 03/17/2011 06/29/2016 C/O Faegre Baker Daniels LLP 311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4300 Chicago, IL 60606 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ravikiran NORY 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. GP-101610-00-US 3188 EXAMINER HENSON, JAMAAL R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2411 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/29/2016 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): googleusinternal@faegrebd.com inteas@faegrebd.com michelle.davis@faegrebd.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RA VIK.IRAN NORY, RA VI KUCHIBHOTLA, and ROBERT T. LOVE 1 Appeal2015-000830 Application 13/050,743 Technology Center 2400 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JOHN F. HORVATH, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12. Claims 13-20 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Motorola Mobility LLC. See Appeal Brief 2. 2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellants' Specification filed March 17, 2011 (Spec.); (2) the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed September 26, 2013; (3) the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed May 9, 2014; (4) the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed August 28, 2014; and (5) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) mailed October 15, 2014. Appeal2015-000830 Application 13/050,743 BACKGROUND According to Appellants, the application relates to a method of reporting power headroom of user equipment in an L TE wireless communications network. Spec. 1, if 2. In the method, the user equipment sends a composite report for a subframe including two different maximum transmit power values to a base station. Spec. 10, if 25. Claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitation emphasized: 1. A method in a wireless communication device, the method comprising: determining a first configured maximum transmit power (PcMAX) value corresponding to a first set of resource blocks (RBs) in a carrier for a subframe, the first set of RBs including less than a complete set of RBs constituting the carrier; determining a second P cMAX value corresponding to a second set of RBs in the carrier for the subframe, the first and second sets of RBs containing RBs of a common type, the second set of RBs different from the first set of RBs and the second set of RBs including less than the complete set of RBs constituting the carrier; and sending a composite report for the subframe including at least the first P cMAX value and the second P cMAX value to a base station. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal: Heo et al. (hereinafter "Heo") US 2010/0296471 Al REJECTIONS Nov. 25, 2010 Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph. 2 Appeal2015-000830 Application 13/050,743 Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Heo. Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and issues raised by the Appellants. We have not considered other possible issues that have not been raised by Appellants and which are, therefore, not before us. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding the limitations "a first set of resource blocks (RBs) in a carrier for a subframe, the first set of RBs including less than a complete set of RBs constituting the carrier" and "a second set of resource blocks," recited in claim 1, render the claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding Heo anticipates claim 1? DISCUSSION Rejection of Claims 1-12 under 35 US.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph The Examiner determined that the language "a first set of resource blocks (RBs) in a carrier for a subframe, the first set of RBs including less than a complete set of RBs constituting the carrier" in claim 1 renders this claim and its dependent claims indefinite because the term "resource blocks" is used in a manner contrary to the term's ordinary meaning and the written description does not clearly redefine the claim term to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicants intended to so redefine that claim term. See Final Act. 2-3 (citing Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Specifically, the Examiner 3 Appeal2015-000830 Application 13/050,743 states he "believes that the applicant[ s] intended to recite 'resource elements' instead of 'resource blocks' in the claims" because each 0.5 ms slot of a subframe can include only 1 resource block of 0.5 ms duration. Final Act. 3. Appellants contend the Examiner errs because in LTE "[ e Jach 0.5 ms slot can contain a plurality of resource blocks in the frequency domain." Appeal Br. 8 (citingÂ§Â§ 4 and 5.2.1 of the LTE specification 3GPP TS 36.211 v8.9.0. ("LTE Specification")). Specifically, Appellants contend: in L TE, a radio frame is 10 ms in the time domain and is composed of 1 ms subframes. Each subframe contains two 0.5 ms slots in the time domain (and not two 0.05 ms resource blocks as stated by the Office Action). Each 0.5 ms slot can contain a plurality of resource blocks in the frequency domain. The number of resource blocks depends on the bandwidth of an L TE carrier. Appeal Br. 8 (citing L TE Specification and Telesystem Innovations Inc., LTE in a Nutshell: The Physical Layer ("LTE in a Nutshell"), pg. 6 (2010)). Appellants' contentions are persuasive. We agree with Appellants that "[e]ach 0.5 ms slot can contain a plurality of resource blocks in the frequency domain." Appeal Br. 8. For example, Appellants correctly point out that the number of resource blocks depends on the allocated bandwidth. Id. The minimum allocated transmission bandwidth is 180 kHz, which results in a single resource block per slot. L TE in a Nutshell, pg. 6. Increasing the transmission bandwidth, however, results in multiple resource blocks per slot, where each additional resource block increases the occupied bandwidth by an additional 180 kHz. See Anritsu Company, L TE Resource Guide, pg. 7, FIGS. 7 and 8 (2009) (submitted by Appellants) (illustrating that each additional resource block per slot increases bandwidth by 180 kHz 4 Appeal2015-000830 Application 13/050,743 (Fig. 7) and noting that the number of resource blocks can range between 6 and 100 as the maximum occupied bandwidth varies from 1.08 to 18 MHz (Fig. 8)). Accordingly, the Examiner fails to establish that each 0.5 ms slot of a subframe can only include a single resource block, thereby indicating confusion between the terms "resource blocks" and "resource elements." We disagree, therefore, with the Examiner's finding that claim 1 is indefinite. We, likewise, reverse the indefiniteness rejection of dependent claims 2-12. Rejection of Claims 1-12 under 35 USCÂ§ 102 Appellants assert their invention is not anticipated by Heo. App. Br. 9. Specifically, Appellants state "Heo does not teach a composite report with two PCMAX values for two sets of resource blocks of the same type within the same carrier. (Please refer to the other elements of the presently pending independent claim 1 ). " Id. Such a conclusory statement, however, amounting to little more than a paraphrasing of the claim language and a general denial, is unpersuasive to rebut the prima facie case produced by the Examiner. Cf 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.3 7 ( c )(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim."); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art."); cf In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater 5 Appeal2015-000830 Application 13/050,743 detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art."). We accordingly sustain the Examiner'sÂ§ 102(e) rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Heo. Appellants do not make any other substantive argument regarding the rejection of dependent claims 2-12. See Appeal Br. 9-10. Therefore, we likewise sustain the rejection of these dependent claims. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph. We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102( e) as being anticipated by Heo. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ l.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6