Ex Parte Prakash et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 24, 2016

12953356 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/953,356 11/23/2010 23696 7590 08/26/2016 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 5775 MOREHOUSE DR. SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Rajat Prakash 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. 100517 3337 EXAMINER VU, HOANG-CHUONG Q ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2476 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/26/2016 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 RAJAT PRAKASH, JELENA M.DAMNJANOVIC, PETER GAAL, P ARG ARUN AGASHE, VALENTIN ALEXANDRU GHEORGHIU, MASATO KITAZOE, and RA VI P ALANKI Appeal2014-007025 Application 12/953,356 Technology Center 2400 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JON M. JURGOV AN, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-52. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appeal2014-007025 Application 12/953,356 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to a wireless communications and "configuring multiple carriers for one or more devices" (Spec. i-f 2). Independent claim 1 is reproduced below and is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of wireless communication, comprising: determining modification of an activation state of one or more earners; selecting a portion of one or more time slots for performing bandwidth switching based at least in part on the determining of the modification and on one or more types and/ or purposes of the one or more time slots; and performing bandwidth switching during the portion of the one or more time slots. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS 1 The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 7-9, 11-14, 16-22, 24--26, 28-34, 36-38, 40--47, and 49-51under35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Cave (US 2010/0130219 Al; pub. May 27, 2010) and Lin (US 2002/0093975 Al; pub. July 18, 2002). The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Cave, Lin, and Pelletier (US 2010/0296467 Al; pub. Nov. 25, 2010). The Examiner rejected claims 10, 23, 35, and 48 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Cave, Lin, and Blankenship (US 2011/0080962 Al; pub. April 7, 2011). The Examiner rejected claims 15, 27, 39 and 52 under 35 U.S.C. 1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1-52 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ l 12(a) (Ans. 18; Advisory Act. 2). 2 Appeal2014-007025 Application 12/953,356 Â§ 103(a) over Cave, Lin, and Chun (US 2012/0099464 Al; pub. April 26, 2012). ANALYSIS Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, 16--22, 24-26, 28-34, 36--38, 40--47, and 49-51 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Cave and Lin teach or suggest Appellants' claim limitations as recited in independent claims 1, 16, 28, 40, and 41, particularly the "selecting a portion" step (App. Br. 12- 13). Further, Appellants contend Lin does not teach or suggest "how the timeslots are chosen for allocation" as Lin does not disclose a relationship between allocation of time slots and "'types and/or purposes' of the time slots" (App. Br. 13). We do not agree. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and reasoning with respect to the cited art and the Examiner's reasoning (Ans. 20-21). At the outset, we note there is no specific definition of "bandwidth switching" in Appellants' Specification. Rather, paragraph 6 states the "device can then perform bandwidth switching over the resources, which can include changing a sampling rate, filtering frequencies, modifying a local oscillator of the device, and/or the like." Under a broadest reasonable interpretation the term "bandwidth switching" can include switching data from one bandwidth to another. Further, Appellants appear to overlook the portion of Lin's paragraph 26, cited by the Examiner, which states: "The access device 110 allocates a portion of bandwidth for the interactive purpose of the dynamic timeslot allocation of channels." Lin therefore discloses a relationship, as claimed, between allocating time slots and/or purposes of 3 Appeal2014-007025 Application 12/953,356 time slots, contrary to Appellants' contentions that Lin "has no relationship whatsoever to 'bandwidth switching'" (App. Br. 13). Further, Appellants appear to be arguing the references separately and not the combination of Cave and Lin. The Examiner states Cave does not "explicitly" suggest bandwidth switching as claimed (Ans. 3). We also agree with the Examiner, contrary to Appellants' assertions (App. Br. 13- 14), Cave also discloses selecting a portion of one or more time slots based on a type or purpose of the time slot(s) (Ans. 3, 20-21; Cave i-fi-191-93 and 95). With respect to claims 11, 12, 24, 36, and 49 we agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own (Ans. 22-23). Claim 11 merely recites selecting a portion of one or more subframes is partly determined based on one or more types of signals not being transmitted in the subframes. As the Examiner finds, paragraph 95 of Cave, at a minimum, suggests this limitation in that "data" (a type of signal) is not transmitted, rather "control channels" (not data) are being transmitted (Ans. 23). Appellants' assertion that Cave selects a time for carrier activation is based on a fixed delay, not any particular types of signals transmitted in the subframe, is also not correct (App. Br. 15). Paragraph 95 of Cave states the "activation may take place a certain number of sub-frames after activation of the secondary uplink carrier" (emphasis added), thus, it is not a requirement. Further, as the Examiner points out, Cave's paragraphs 91 and 92 disclose the feature of selecting portions of time slots based on modification of an activation state and selecting a portion of one or more subframes (Ans. 22-23). With respect to claims 13, 25, 37, and 50, Appellants assert Cave's paragraph 98 does not disclose selecting a portion of the subframes by 4 Appeal2014-007025 Application 12/953,356 determining not to transmit control data in the subframes. Appellants are again relying on the Examiner being incorrect in finding the combination of Cave and Lin does not teach or suggest the independent claims on which these claims depend (App. Br. 15-18). Contrary to Appellants' assertions, paragraph 98 states "the WTRU [wireless transmit receive unit] 110 may stop transmission of any associated control channels." Thus, the combination of Cave and Lin suggests the recited limitation of claims 13, 25, 37, and 50. Claims 5 and 6 With respect to claims 5 and 6, the Examiner finds Cave discloses initializing a trigger, based on a timer, indicating a modification to an activation state (Final Act. 14--16; Ans. 13-15; Cave i-f 80; Fig 10; Pelletier ,-r 82). Appellants contend Cave suggests monitoring an inactivity timer can be used to trigger carrier deactivation, which is contrary to the claim language (App. Br. 19). That is, Cave discloses the modification "of the carrier is performed in response to the trigger," and does not teach or suggest a timer initialized based on an event (modification of a carrier) that has not yet occurred (Reply Br. 10). We agree with Appellants. Neither Cave, nor the combination of Cave and Pelletier discloses "initializing a timer upon the [sic] determining modification of the activation state" as claimed. Claims 10, 23, 35, and 48 With respect to claims 10, 23, 35, and 48, Appellants contend Blankenship does not disclose anything about "whether or not such sub- frames are selected for bandwidth switching or for any other use 5 Appeal2014-007025 Application 12/953,356 whatsoever" and does not cure the deficiencies of Cave or Linn (App. Br. 21). We agree with the Examiner that Blankenship discloses "an indication in [a] frame which contains MBSFN subframes [within] one period may be selected" (emphasis omitted) (Ans. 16). We additionally note Appellants are arguing limitations not found in the claims (selected for bandwidth switching). Further we find no deficiencies in Cave or Linn. Claims 15, 27, 39, and 52 Appellants contend Chun fails to cure the deficiencies of Cave and Linn (App. Br. 22). As noted above, we find no deficiencies in Cave or Linn. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4 and 7-52 is affirmed.2 The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 5 and 6 is reversed. 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-IN-PART 2 Upon any further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to separately consider the patentability of claim 28 (Appellants have not clearly stated in the Specification what the various means correspond to (App. Br. 7; Spec. i-f 9), thus the device could conceivably be a single means) and claim 41 (the claim recites and Appellants assert (App. Br. 7-8) claim 41 merely comprises code). 6