Ex Parte NUKALA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2019

14708476 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/708,476
114746 7590
Apple Inc. -- FKM
150 Broadway
Suite 702
FILING DATE
05/11/2015
02/04/2019
New York, NY 10038
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gaurav R. NUKALA
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.
30134/01204
(Pl 1993USC1)
CONFIRMATION NO.
9511
EXAMINER
HUNT, KENNETH P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2019 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):
mmarcin@fkmiplaw.com
preisch@fkmiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GAVRA V R. NUKALA,
VENKATASUBRAMANIAN RAMASAMY, and
GIRI PRASSAD DEIV ASIGAMANI
Appeal2018-003892
Application 14/708,476 1
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 24--44, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to "increasing capacity of a control channel
between a radio access portion of a wireless network a[ nd] multiple mobile
wireless devices using multi-user multiple-input multiple-output
communication." Spec. ,r 1.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003892
Application 14/708,476
Illustrative Claim
Claims 24--44 are pending. Claim 24 is illustrative and reproduced
below with the limitations at issue emphasized:
24. A method, comprising:
at a base station:
estimating a received downlink signal quality for
each mobile wireless device of a plurality of mobile
wireless devices connected to the base station;
determining a number of control channel elements
to be transmitted to each mobile wireless device based on
the received downlink signal quality of each mobile
wireless device;
grouping a portion of the plurality of mobile
wireless devices into a first group based on a first distance
of each mobile wireless device from the base station and
at least one of the received downlink signal quality of each
mobile wireless device and a number of receive antennas
for each mobile wireless device;
grouping a portion of the plurality of mobile
wireless devices into a second group based on a second
distance of each mobile wireless device from the base
station and at least one of the received downlink signal
quality of each mobile wireless device and the number of
receive antennas for each mobile wireless device; and
transmitting control channel information
comprising the number of control channel elements to
each of the first group of mobile wireless devices, wherein
the control channel information is simultaneously
transmitted to each of the first group of mobile wireless
devices using the same frequency and time resource
elements based on multi-user multiple-input multiple-
output (MU-MIMO) transmissions.
2
Appeal2018-003892
Application 14/708,476
References and Re} ections2
Claims 24--30, 32-35, 39--41, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Sampath (US 2011/0002227 Al, Jan. 6, 2011),
Marks (US 2011/0068981 Al, Mar. 24, 2011), Kwak (US 2008/0273479
Al, Nov. 6, 2008), and Lindh (US 2012/0207099 Al, Aug. 16, 2012). Final
Act. 5-14.
Claims 31 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Sampath, Marks, Kwak, Lindh, and DiRenzo
(US 2005/0271174 Al, Dec. 8, 2005). Final Act. 14--15.
Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Sampath, Marks, Kwak, Lindh, and Pan (US 2006/0146755 Al, July 6,
2006). Final Act. 15-16.
Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Sampath, Marks, Kwak, Lindh, and Teikari (US 2011/0065400 Al,
Mar. 17, 2011 ). Final Act. 16.
Claims 42 and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Sampath, Marks, Kwak, Lindh, and Zhou
(US 2010/0103832 Al, Apr. 29, 2010). Final Act. 16-17.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief filed September
20, 2017 ("App. Br."), as well as the following documents for their
respective details: the Final Action mailed April 20, 2017 ("Final Act."), the
Examiner's Answer mailed December 28, 2017 ("Ans."), and Appellants'
Reply Brief filed February 28, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal2018-003892
Application 14/708,476
ISSUE3
This appeal turns on a single issue: whether the combination of
Sampath, Marks, Kwak, and Lindh teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders
obvious the limitations emphasized above in claim 24.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We adopt the Examiner's findings
and conclusions as our own, to the extent consistent with our analysis herein.
Appellants argue in the Appeal Brief that "because Sampath [merely]
discloses path loss, which is the reduction in power density (e.g.,
attenuation) and, as will be explained in greater detail below, path loss is not
analogous to grouping mobile devices based on a distance of the mobile
devices from a base station." App. Br. 5.
Appellants' argument here overlooks that the Examiner cited Marks
for "a given path loss corresponds to a distance." See Final Act. 7 ( citing
Marks ,r 25); Ans. 2. Accordingly, Appellants' Appeal Brief arguments are
unpersuasive at least because Appellants failed to address Marks, which
contributes to the basis of the Examiner's rejection.
3 Appellants argue the rejection of claims 24--30, 32-35, 39--41, and 44
based on claim 24 and do not argue the additional rejections except to say
that the additional references fail to cure the deficiencies argued with respect
to the rejection of claim 24. App. Br. 4--9; Reply Br. 2-5. Thus, the
rejection of claim 24 is dispositive, and, except for our ultimate Decision, we
do not further address the remaining claims.
4
Appeal2018-003892
Application 14/708,476
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that "distance," as used in the
claim, should be based on "measured" distance. Reply Br. 3. Appellants
state that "[t]he present Specification discloses that the measured distances
are used to group wireless devices with comparable signal strength and/or
signal quality." Id. (citing Spec. ,r 44). We are not persuaded that
Appellants' Specification discloses that "distance" should be construed as
"measured distance." Paragraph 44 of Appellants' Specification describes
mobile wireless devices with "relatively high signal strength and/or high
signal quality" for which "a minimum of only one CCE can be used for the
control channel information." Spec. ,r 44. The Specification uses "location"
merely as exemplary of a factor that can result in relatively high signal
strength and/or high signal quality." Id. ("e.g. located in a near region 802
relatively close to the radio access subsystem 106"). We are not persuaded
that this disclosure requires "distance" to be construed as "measured
distance," or "actual distance," as Appellants subsequently argue. Reply Br.
4 ("The present claims do not recite an estimation of distance, but an actual
distance.").
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection.
We note, but do not reach, Appellants' belatedly presented argument
that "in addition, claim 1 recites a grouping based on two criteria: distance
and 'at least one of the received downlink signal quality ... and a number of
receive antennas." Id. at 3. This argument is newly presented in the Reply
Brief. As this argument is not responsive to an argument presented for the
first time in the Examiner's Answer, and good cause has not been shown as
to why the argument was not earlier presented, the argument will not be
considered for the purposes of this appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.4I(b)(2).
5
Appeal2018-003892
Application 14/708,476
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 24--44.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6