Ex Parte Wong

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 24, 2017

13814828 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 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. 13/814,828 04/16/2013 Shin Horng Wong LUTZ 201614US01 2343 48116 7590 08/28/2017 FAY STTARPF/T TTf’F.NT EXAMINER 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor YOUNG, STEVE R The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2477 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/28/2017 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): docketing @ faysharpe.com ipsnarocp @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHIN HORNG WONG Appeal 2017-001847 Application 13/814,82s1 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 5—10, and 12—15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “evaluating transmission power for transmission of a message between a first network node and a second network node in a multicarrier wireless communications system.” 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Alcatel Lucent. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-001847 Application 13/814,828 See Spec. 1,11. 5—7. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A method of evaluating transmission power for transmission of a primary carrier radio link failure warning message from a user equipment to a base station in a multicarrier wireless communications system in which a predetermined set of a plurality of carriers are utilised to support communication between said base station and said user equipment, said predetermined set of said plurality of carriers comprising a primary carrier and at least one secondary carrier, said method comprising: at the user equipment: determining an initial indication of appropriate power setting to enable a message to be transmitted from said user equipment to base station on said primary carrier by determining an initial user equipment transmit power, that initial transmit power having been set by a feedback loop power control message sent from said base station to user equipment; determining that there is a primary carrier radio link failure warning message to be sent from said user equipment to base station at a transmission time after receipt of said initial indication; evaluating, based on said initial indication, an appropriate power setting to enable said primary carrier radio link failure warning message to be transmitted from said user equipment to base station on said primary carrier at said transmission time; wherein evaluating comprises setting transmission power for transmission of a message from the user equipment to the base station to a substantially maximum available level; wherein evaluating further comprises estimating a likely change in path loss between said user equipment and base station which has occurred between receipt of said initial indication and said transmission time. 2 Appeal 2017-001847 Application 13/814,828 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5, 6, and 12—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhang et al. (US 2010/0238825 Al; published Sept. 23, 2010), Zeira et al. (US 2008/0049710 Al; published Feb. 28, 2008) (hereinafter “Zeira”), and Adkins et al. (US 2004/0001464 Al; published Jan. 1, 2004) (hereinafter “Adkins”). (2) The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhang, Zeira, Adkins, and Lee et al. (US 2003/0058821 Al; published Mar. 27, 2003) (hereinafter “Lee”). (3) The Examiner rejected claims 8—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhang, Zeira, Adkins, and Englund et al. (US 2010/0285830 Al; published Nov. 11, 2010) (hereinafter “Englund”). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the (1) February 12, 2016 Final Office Action (“Final Act.” 2— 13), (2) June 3, 2016 Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.” 2), and (3) September 23, 2016 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” 2—16), except as otherwise noted. We highlight and address, however, specific findings and arguments below for emphasis. 3 Appeal 2017-001847 Application 13/814,828 Change in path loss Appellant argues the combination of Zhang, Zeira, and Adkins fails to teach or suggest “estimating a likely change in path loss between said user equipment and base station which has occurred between receipt of said initial indication and said transmission time,” as recited in claims 1 and 14. App. Br. 7—9. Appellant argues Adkins instead teaches (i) estimating path loss, but not estimating path loss “change” (Adkins 36, 55—56) and (ii) taking actual measurements of path loss change, rather than “estimating” path loss change (Adkins 143). App. Br. 7—8; Reply Br. 4—6. Appellant also argues “‘measurement’ and ‘estimation’ are not synonymous terms[, and]... [a] ‘measurement’ is generally understood to denote a directly ascertained quantity, whereas an ‘estimate’ denotes an approximation such as where direct measurement is not available.” App. Br. 9. Appellant further asserts “[e]ven when considered together the cited passages do no teach that path loss change is estimated.” App. Br. 8. The Examiner finds that the combination of Zhang, Zeira, and Adkins teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 14—15; Adv. Act. 2. More specifically, the Examiner finds Adkins teaches or suggests “estimating a change in path loss when estimating for power control adjustments.” Final Act. 5 (citing Adkins Tflf 36, 43, 55—56); Adv. Act. 2 (citing Adkins 143). The Examiner finds “measurement can be construed to be just a more accurate form of estimation.” Ans. 14; see also Adv. Act. 2. The Examiner also finds that Adkin’s teachings, as well as the claims, are directed to estimating path loss and path loss change for adjusting power outputs for future communications, and thus, “even Adkin’s 4 Appeal 2017-001847 Application 13/814,828 ‘measurements’ are still an ‘estimation’ from the view point of the future transmissions,” under Appellant’s distinction. Ans. 15. We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner that the combination, and Adkins in particular, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Adkins teaches (i) estimating path loss (Adkins 36, 55—56) and (ii) measuring path loss change (Adkins 143). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine these teachings from Adkins to estimate a likely change in path loss. EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“A reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is describing and attempting to protect.”). We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s conclusory argument (App. Br. 8) that when the passages (Adkins H 36, 43, 55—56) are “considered together” that they “do no teach that path loss chanse is estimatedIn re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “estimating” includes “measuring” in the context of Adkin’s teachings and the claim language, because (i) measurements are imprecise and (ii) the estimated or measured value is applied for future communications. Fastly, we find the Examiner’s findings as they relate to claim 5 inapposite to our analysis of claim 1, and we do not adopt those findings. CONCEUSION Based on our findings and reasoning above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 14, as well as claims 5, 6, 5 Appeal 2017-001847 Application 13/814,828 12, 13, and 15, as Appellant does not provide separate arguments for their patentability. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8—10 because Appellant does not provide separate arguments for their patentability. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 5—10, and 12— 15. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6