Ex Parte Terry

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

12494715 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/494,715 0613012009
24374 7590 05/03/2016
VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C.
DEPT. ICC
UNITED PLAZA
30 SOUTH 17TH STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephen E. Terry
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.
I-2-0 l 60US04 1578
EXAMINER
BARON, HENRY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 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):
eoffice@volpe-koenig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN E. TERRY
Appeal2014-003354 1
Application 12/494,715
Technology Center 2400
Before KEN B. BARRETT, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We heard oral
argument on March 24, 2016.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1, reproduced below with some formatting added and a key
disputed limitation emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus for wireless communication comprising:
1 Appellant's Brief identifies the real party in interest as Inter Digital
Technology Corporation. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-003354
Application 12/494,715
a transmitter configured to transmit selectively formatted
communication data to mobile terminals within system radio
frames;
a receiver configured to receive communication data from
mobile terminals within system radio frames;
a controller configured to measure timing deviation of
received mobile terminal transmissions in identified radio frames
in which communication data is received from a selected mobile
terminal;
the transmitter configured to transmit timing advance
command signals which include:
timing advance data which is calculated based upon
measured timing deviation in an identified radio frame for
a selected mobile terminal, and
information specifying a particular radio frame for
effectuating a timing adjustment by the selected mobile
terminal; and
the controller configured to measure the timing deviation
for communication data received from a selected mobile
terminal to which a timing advance command signal had been
transmitted in the particular radio frame specified by the
transmitted timing advance command signal.
REJECTION
Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Upadrasta (US 5,872,820; issued Feb. 16, 1999) and Scott
(US 6,094,421; issued July 25, 2000). Final Act. 3-7.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found Upadrasta teaches the claimed "timing advance
command signals" including "timing advance data" and "information
specifying a particular radio frame for effectuating a timing adjustment by
the selected mobile terminal" and found Scott teaches "measur[ing] the
2
Appeal2014-003354
Application 12/494,715
timing deviation for communication data received from a selected mobile
terminal." Final Act. 2-5. The Examiner concluded it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of
Upadrasta with the teachings of Scott "to proactively correct for time lag
once a measurement has been made." Id. at 5. We adopt as our own, the
Examiner's conclusion and findings regarding the combined teachings of
Upadrasta and Scott, which we emphasize below.
The Examiner interpreted the claimed "timing advance data" as
encompassing Upadrasta's TIME_ LAG that adjusts a mobile station's frame
number counter, which is derived by synchronization with a corresponding
counter of a base station sub-system. Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 4-5. Appellant
conceded Upadrasta's TIME_ LAG is due to transmission and processing
delays. Oral Hearing Transcript 8-9. Nevertheless, Appellant argued
Upadrasta does not teach adjusting (i.e., retarding or advancing)
transmissions between the base station and the mobile station. Br. 1 O; see
also Oral Hearing Transcript 8. More particularly, Appellant argued that
Upadrasta teaches synchronizing reference frame numbers but fails to effect
any change in an uplink transmission timeslot. Br. 12.
However, none of claims 1, 7, and 17 specify that the "timing advance
data" is associated with a time slot, nor do these claims specify that the
"timing advance data" is related to a transmission or signaling from the
"selected mobile station." Appellant did not point us to a portion of the
Specification, nor are we able to ascertain such portion, that uses the term
"timing advance data," let alone that defines the term as Appellant argued, in
a manner that conforms to the strict "words or expressions of manifest
exclusion or restriction" requirement articulated by the Federal Circuit in
3
Appeal2014-003354
Application 12/494,715
Telejlex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1327 (Fed. Circ.
2002). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner's interpretation of
"timing advance data" is overbroad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the
Specification.
The Examiner further cited Upadrasta's TIME_LAG as teaching the
claimed "information specifying a particular radio frame for effectuating a
timing adjustment by the selected mobile terminal." Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 4-
5. Upadrasta describes how, "[i]n transmitting the frame number, there may
be an inherent time lag in transmitting that causes the frame number value
produced by mobile frame number counter 280 to progress (increment) itself
before the controller 220 receives the frame number of the message as
decoded by DSP 260." Upadrasta, col. 3, 11. 55-60. Upadrasta further
describes listening for a synchronization burst, obtaining a second message
frame number ("FN2"), and calculating a TIME_LAG value as the
difference between FN2 and a temporarily buffered value of the mobile
frame number counter value ("MFN"). Id. at col. 5, 11. 30-50. The
calculated value is represented in frames and is used to synchronize the
mobile frame number counter. See id. at col. 5, 11. 50-53 (describing how
adding the calculated value to the mobile frame number counter "accounts
for the internal delay of the mobile station in decoding and sending the
frame number to the controller.")
During the Oral Hearing, Appellant argued that the "timing advance
data" and the "information specifying a particular radio frame for
effectuating a timing adjustment by the selected mobile terminal" are
distinct from each other; the timing advance data specifying "how much you
should advance your transmission" such that the transmission is received "at
4
Appeal2014-003354
Application 12/494,715
the beginning of the time slot in a particular radio frame" and the
"information specifying the radio frame for effectuating the time adjustment
by the mobile phone" is "to identify a particular time slot when you should
make that change." Oral Hearing Transcript 10.
However, the distinction argued by Appellant is not reflected in the
claims, nor does Appellant point us to a portion of the Specification that
requires us to construe the claims in the manner argued. See Teleflex, 299
F.3d at 1327. Appellant's arguments are not commensurate in scope with
the claims and, therefore, are not persuasive to show nonobviousness. See In
re Self, 671F.2d1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner's interpretation of "information specifying a
particular radio frame for effectuating a timing adjustment by the selected
mobile terminal" is overbroad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the
Specification.
Furthermore, Appellant's arguments set forth above, which address
Upadrasta individually, do not address what the combined teachings of
Upadrasta and Scott would have suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan
and, therefore, are not persuasive to show nonobviousness. In re Merck, 800
F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d413 (CCPA 1981). In the
teachings cited by the Examiner, Scott describes how the base station
"compares the actual time of receiving the user transmission with the
expected time of reception" and "may command the user station to advance
or retard its timing as necessary." Scott, col. 4, 11. 58-59, 62-63. Appellant
conceded the lack of significant difference between the claimed "timing
advance data" and Scott's teaching of timing advancement, and contended
that
5
Appeal2014-003354
Application 12/494,715
it is the combination of utilizing the timing advance data and in
specifying ... when the timing advance data is to be effectuated
in a particular radio frame, which . . . was taught by neither the
prior art described in our application nor in the references cited
by the Examiner.
Oral Hearing Transcript 12. However, Appellant did not explain why
combining Upadrasta' s teaching of adjusting frame counters that are out of
sync due to a time lag with Scott's teaching of advancing a transmission
from a mobile station would have been would have been beyond the skill of
the ordinary artisan.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Upadrasta and Scott teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations as recited in independent claim 1, commensurate
limitations of independent claims 7 and 17, and limitations of dependent
claims 3-6 and 9-16, not separately argued.
Dependent claims 2, 8, and 18 recite "the controller is configured to
generate timing advance command signals that include a Connect Frame
Number as the information specifying a particular radio frame." Appellant
presents substantially similar arguments for these claims as for claims 1, 7,
and 1 7 from which these claims depend. For the reasons discussed above,
we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments the combination set forth by
the Examiner does not teach or suggest "information specifying a particular
radio frame" and in particular, a Connect Frame Number. See Upadrasta,
col. 5, 11. 46-52 ("the value TIME_LAG is added to the mobile frame
number counter. TIME_represents the amount of time, in frames, that it
takes to decode and send the message frame numbers from the DSP to the
controller" and "accounts for the internal delay of the mobile station,"
emphasis added).
6
Appeal2014-003354
Application 12/494,715
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Upadrasta and Scott.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-18 is affirmed.
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.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7