Ex Parte Vashi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 2018

14273656 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/273,656 05/09/2014 81310 7590 04/03/2018 Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & G (Apple) P.O. BOX 398 Austin, TX 78767-0398 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Prashant H. Vashi 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. 8888-25401 9093 EXAMINER CHEN, PETER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2462 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/03/2018 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): patent_docketing@intprop.com ptomhkkg@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PRASHANT H. V ASHI, VIKRAM B. YERRABOMMANAHALLI and TECK YANG LEE Appeal2017-007146 Application No. 14/273,656 1 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF and JASON M. REPKO Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. Appellants' invention is a method for operating user equipment (UE) having a radio configured to communicate using at least a first radio access technology (RAT) and a second radio access technology. In the method, the UE determines whether current path loss for the first RAT exceeds a maximum path loss. If so, the UE may determine whether to operate in the 1 The real party in interest is Apple, Inc. Appeal2017-007146 Application No. 14/273,656 single RAT mode or a dual RAT mode. The radio is switched from single RAT mode to dual RAT mode based upon this determination. See Abstract. Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal: 1. A method for operating a user equipment (UE) having a radio configured to communicate using at least a first radio access technology (RAT) and a second RAT, the method comprising: while operating the radio in a single RAT mode using the first RAT: determining, by the UE, if current path loss for the first RAT exceeds a first maximum path loss threshold; based on the current path loss exceeding the first maximum path loss threshold, determining, by the UE, to operate the radio in a dual RAT mode; and switching, by the UE, from operating the radio in the single RAT mode to the dual RAT mode based on the determination to operate in the dual RAT mode. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Siomina et al. Shen et al. Mahe et al. US 2014/0056165 Al Published: Feb. 27, 2014 US 2015/0117360 Al Published: Apr. 30, 2015 US 2012/0115553 Al Published: May 10, 2012 Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 15-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Siomina and Shen. Claims 3-5, 10-14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Siomina, Shen, and Mahe. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Oct. 31, 2016]) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Feb. 22, 2017) for their respective details. 2 Appeal2017-007146 Application No. 14/273,656 ISSUE Does the combination of Siomina and Shen disclose or fairly suggest user equipment having a single radio configured to communicate using at least a first radio access technology and a second radio access technology? ANALYSIS CLAIMS 1, 2, 6-9, 15-18, AND 20 Each of the independent claims ( 1, 9, and 16) recite, inter alia, user equipment having a radio configured to communicate using at least a first RAT and a second RAT. Each claim thus recites a radio (singular), configured to communicate using at least two radio access technologies. The Examiner finds that Siomina discloses the claimed user equipment. Ans. 3; Siomina i-f 98, 99, 111. Paragraph 98 describes "user equipment" as "any wireless device or radio node equipped with a radio interface allowing at least for receiving and measuring signals." Siomina discloses that said UE may be "operating in single- or multi-RAT or multi- standard mode." Siomina i-f 98. Paragraph 99 describes a "radio node." Paragraph 111 gives examples of radio access technologies. We agree with Appellants that none of the paragraphs cited by the Examiner disclose a (single) radio configured to communicate using at least two radio access technologies. App. Br. 7. Although the Examiner points to disclosure in Siomina that a single radio node may be capable of using multiple RATs, such as WiFi and LTE, Appellants' argument that "different radios must be used for WiFi and L TE" is not contested by the Examiner. See App. Br. 7. We do not agree with the Examiner that "the features upon 3 Appeal2017-007146 Application No. 14/273,656 which applicant relies (i.e., single radio) are not recited in the rejected claim(s )." Ans. 4. Appellants further assert that "Shen also fails to address the claims." App. Br. 8. We agree with Appellants that Shen does not relate to "the modes of a radio of the UE." Id. We further agree with Appellants that "Shen does not relate to operating dual or single RAT modes of a radio of a UE as recited." Accordingly, we find that Shen does not remedy the deficiencies of Siomina, discussed supra. We find that neither Siomina nor Shen disclose operating user equipment having a single radio configured to communicate using at least a first RAT and a second RAT. Accordingly, we do not sustain theÂ§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 16 over Siomina and Shen, or the Â§ 103(a) rejection of claims 2, 6-8, 15, 17, 18, and 20, dependent therefrom. CLAIMS 3-5, 10-14, AND 19 These claims variously depend from independent claims 1, 9, and 16. As discussed supra, we find that the combination of Siomina and Shen does not disclose or suggest the independent claim limitations. We find that Mahe does not remedy the deficiencies of Siomina and Shen. Therefore, we do not sustain theÂ§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 3-5, 10-14, and 19 over Siomina, Shen, and Mahe, for the same reasons expressed supra with respect to independent claims 1, 9, and 16. CONCLUSION The combination of Siomina and Shen does not disclose or fairly suggest user equipment having a radio configured to communicate using at least a first radio access technology and a second radio access technology. 4 Appeal2017-007146 Application No. 14/273,656 ORDER The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 5