Ex Parte Razdan

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 26, 2017

12751657 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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. 12/751,657 03/31/2010 ASHU RAZDAN QC090126 1022 12371 7590 10/30/2017 Mnnrv rre.issle.r Olrk & T owe P P /OT TAT POMM EXAMINER 4000 Legato Road, Suite 310 Fairfax, VA 22033 SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2642 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/30/2017 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): meo.docket@mg-ip.com meo@mg-ip.com ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ASHU RAZDAN Appeal 2017-0048121 Application 12/751,657 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—54. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellant identifies QUALCOMM Incorporated as the real party in interest. See App. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-004812 Application 12/751,657 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s disclosure “relates to dynamically adjusting paging cycles of a network at an access terminal based on service availability of another network within a wireless communications system.” Spec. 12. Claims 1, 21,31, and 41 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with emphasis added): 1. A method of determining whether a given access terminal is being paged within a wireless communications system, comprising: periodically monitoring, while a first network has a first service availability state, a second network in accordance with a first paging cycle of a plurality of paging cycles; determining that the first service availability state of the first network has changed to a second service availability state; selecting a second paging cycle of the plurality of paging cycles for page monitoring on the second network based on the determination that the first service availability state of the first network has changed to the second service availability state, the second paging cycle having a different frequency than the first paging cycle; and periodically monitoring the second network for pages in accordance with the second paging cycle. The Examiner’s Rejections2 Claims 1, 4, 5, 21, 24, 31, 34, 41, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2010/0081454 Al; Apr. 1, 2010) and Gill (US 2007/0197234 Al; Aug. 23, 2007). Final Act. 4. Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16-18, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 42, 43, 45, 47, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 2 The rejections of claims 21—30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs, have been withdrawn. Ans. 3. 2 Appeal 2017-004812 Application 12/751,657 being unpatentable over Wang, Gill, and Kang (US 7,346,361 B2; Mar. 18, 2008). Final Act. 8. Claims 8, 11, 15, 19, 20, 26, 29, 30, 36, 39, 40, 46, 49, and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang, Gill, Kang, and Xie (US 2007/0160049 Al; July 12, 2007). Final Act. 17. Claims 51—53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang, Gill, and Hidaka (US 2008/0117876 Al; May 22, 2008). Final Act. 24. Claim 54 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang, Gill, and Chin (US 8,611,933 B2; Dec. 17, 2013). Final Act. 25. ANALYSIS Appellant states that “independent claim 1 does not recite periodic monitoring of different networks with different paging cycles. Instead, independent claim 1 recites periodic monitoring of the same network (‘second network’) with different paging cycles.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues the Examiner, thus, erred in the rejection of claim 1, because “there is no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion in Wang of a ‘plurality of paging cycles’ or ‘a second paging cycle of the plurality of paging cycles’” (App. Br. 9 (emphasis omitted)) and “Gill has not been shown to disclose, teach, or suggest that the ‘second network’ allegedly disclosed in Wang would be periodically monitored using two different paging cycles” (App. Br. 12 (citing Gill 140) (emphasis omitted)). We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner offers citations to Wang to support the finding that a network in Wang may use 3 Appeal 2017-004812 Application 12/751,657 different paging timings; however, we agree with Appellant that the cited portions relate to different paging groups in a network, and are silent regarding paging cycling frequencies. See Ans. 6; Wang || 4, 36—37, 44, 50-51, 56; see also App. Br. 10—11. Although Wang also teaches a “paging offset” (see, e.g., Wang | 56), this is not a frequency change but rather is used to identify “a location or resources of a paging message associated with the anchor paging group ID.” Wang 19. The Examiner also finds that Gill “was relied upon to disclose that there are paging cycles of different lengths.” Ans. 8. These “paging intervals]” (Gill 140), however, occur in different networks, and Gill does not teach or suggest a single network having paging cycles of different frequencies. Thus, we do not find the combination of Wang and Gill teach or suggest the claimed “selecting a second paging cycle of the plurality of paging cycles for page monitoring on the second network” with “the second paging cycle having a different frequency than the first paging cycle.” Independent claims 21,31, and 41 recite similar limitations which we also do not find to be taught or suggested by the combination of Wang and Gill. Thus, we are constrained by the record to reverse the rejection of independent claims 1,21,31, and 41, and the rejections of the claims that depend therefrom. 4 Appeal 2017-004812 Application 12/751,657 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—54 is reversed. REVERSED 5