Ex Parte YANG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 2018

15139154 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 15/139, 154 04/26/2016 15055 7590 09/26/2018 Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P. Qualcomm 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77046 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Yue YANG 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. 161325US 8449 EXAMINER DEAN, RAYMOND S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2018 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): qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com P AIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.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 YUE YANG, AZIZ GHOLMIEH, ARVIND VARDARAJAN SANTHANAM, SRINIVASAN BALASUBRAMANIAN, FRANK XIAOYU HU, HUILIN XU, XU HAN, and RANJAN MOHANTY Appeal2018-002056 Application 15/139,154 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-26, which constitute all the pending claims in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants identify QUALCOMM Incorporated as the real party in interest (App. Br. 3). Appeal2018-002056 Application 15/139,154 THE INVENTION Appellants' claimed invention is directed to "enhanced procedures for search, measurement, and positioning with aid of motion detection information" of wireless communication systems (Spec. ,r 1 ). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method for wireless communications by a user equipment (UE), comprising: determining one or more parameters of the UE; dynamically adjusting a periodicity of at least one of cell search and measurements or global positioning system (GPS) signal acquisition based, at least in part, on the one or more parameters, wherein the one or more parameters comprise at least an amount of battery life associated with the UE and a mobility state of the UE; and performing at least one of the cell search and measurements or GPS signal acquisition according to the adjusted periodicity. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is the following: Sih Kupfer Harju Damji US 6,608,858 B 1 US 2010/0328154 Al US 2012/0258755 Al US 2013/0258876 Al 2 Aug. 19, 2003 Dec. 30, 2010 Oct. 11, 2012 Oct. 3, 2013 Appeal2018-002056 Application 15/139,154 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 13, 14, 19, 22, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Damji. Final Act. 3. Claims 3 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Damji, in view of Kupfer. Final Act. 6. Claims 4--6, 8, 9, 16-18, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Damji, in view of Harju. Final Act. 7. Claims 11, 12, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Damji, in view of Sih. Final Act. 10. ISSUES The issues are whether the Examiner erred: 1. in finding Damji discloses "the one or more parameters comprise at least an amount of battery life associated with the UE and a mobility state of the UE," as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 13, 25, and 26; 2. in finding Damji discloses "reducing the periodicity of cell search and measurements when the amount of battery life associated with the UE fails to satisfy a threshold," as recited in claim 7, and similarly recited in claim 19; 3. in finding the combination of Damji and Kupfer teaches or suggests "the adjusting comprises disabling GPS signal acquisition when the mobility state indicates that the UE is in a stationary state for a duration," as recited in claim 3, and similarly recited in claim 15; 3 Appeal2018-002056 Application 15/139,154 4. in finding the combination of Damji and Harju teaches or suggests "wherein for longer durations of the stationary state, lower periodicities are selected for the cell search and measurements," as recited in claim 9, and similarly recited in claim 21 ; and 5. in finding the combination of Damji and Harju teaches or suggests (a) "the mobility state of the UE is determined further based on the measured filtered frequency error," as recited in claim 11, and similarly recited in claim 23, and (b) "determining the UE is in a stationary state when the filtered frequency error satisfies a threshold value," as recited in claim 12, and similarly recited in claim 24. ANALYSIS Claim 1 Appellants argue that "Damji is silent regarding dynamically adjusting the periodicity2 of cell search and measurements or GPS signal acquisition based on the mobility state of the UE and an amount of battery life associated with the UE" (App. Br. 9 (footnote added)). Appellants contend that "[a]lthough the determinations in Damji may result in the battery life of the UE being conserved, this still does not correspond to dynamically adjusting the periodicity based on the amount of battery life associated with the UE" (App. Br. 10). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that "Sections 0046 and 0059 of Damji show that the periodicity is based on battery life or battery power" (Adv. Act. 2). 2 Appellants appear to define "periodicity" to be synonymous with "frequency" (see Spec. ,r 60), and our decision follows their definition. 4 Appeal2018-002056 Application 15/139,154 Specifically, the cited portions of Damji state that "[p ]erforming the required measurements for neighbor cell searching may consume non-trivial amounts of power, thereby impacting the battery life ofUE 106" and the period for neighbor cell searching "may change in [response] to changes to the environment in which UE 106 is operating" (Damji ,r 46). Further, "neighbor cell searching may be performed less frequently to conserve battery life" (Damji ,r 59, emphasis added). Taken together, the portions establish a change in period for neighbor cell searching based on the battery life, which itself is part of the environment in which the UE is operating. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claims 13, 25, and 26 commensurate in scope, as well claims 2, 10, 14, and 22 not separately argued. See App. Br. 10-16. 3 Claim 7 Appellants argue that "Damji neither expressly nor inherently describes reducing the periodicity when the battery life fails to satisfy a threshold" (App. Br. 11-12). We agree with Appellants. The Examiner finds that "periodicity is determined based on battery life thus rendering a scenario wherein there is a determination if the battery life satisfies some kind of threshold" (Final Act. 5 (citing Damji ,r 46); see also Ans. 12-13). Although Damji discloses 3 Should there be further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider an indefiniteness rejection of claim 1, as the claim requires "the one or more parameters comprise at least an amount of battery life associated with the UE and a mobility state of the UE" which appears self-contradictory as it does not appear one parameter could comprise both an amount of battery life and a mobility state. 5 Appeal2018-002056 Application 15/139,154 adjustment of periodicity based on battery life, the cited portion of Damji does not establish a threshold is used. A periodicity calculation could be a function of battery life that does not involve a threshold, as in an example in which the periodicity equals a constant multiplied by the percentage of remaining battery life. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the anticipation rejection of claim 7, and claim 19 commensurate in scope. 4 Claim 3 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 3 because Kupfer fails "to overcome the deficiencies of Damji with respect to the independent claims 1 and 13" and "claims 3 and 15 are believed allowable at least due to their dependency from an allowable base claim" (App. Br. 12). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that "Kupfer teaches the substituted step of disabling GPS signal acquisition when the mobility state indicates that the UE is in a stationary state for a duration" which "is known in the art as means for prolonging the battery life" (Final Act. 6). Appellants do not address and challenge the Examiner's findings. Accordingly, we affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 3, and claim 15 commensurate in scope. 4 Should there be further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider a rejection of claim 7 based on obviousness. 6 Appeal2018-002056 Application 15/139,154 Claim 9 Appellants argue that "Harju fails to disclose or suggest 'for longer duration of the stationary state, lower periodicities are selected for the cell search and measurements"' because "the determining in Harju is based on [ finding] new cells for a number of searches-not based on the duration of the stationary state" (App. Br. 14 (citing Harju ,r 34)). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that "Harju teaches in Section 0034 and Figure 3 that if no new cells are found due to the UE being stationary for a duration such as a long duration then no new cell search will be conducted as frequently, which is an adjustment or reduction in periodicity" (Ans. 13). Harju teaches that a new search takes place when a recent previous search found a new cell, whereas otherwise the new search may be delayed, thus lowering the frequency (or selecting a lower frequency) of new searches when the UE is stationary and thus no new cells have been recently found. Appellants' argument regarding the "determining in Harju" is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, which requires that lower periodicities "are selected," which is the natural outcome in Harju's method when no new cells have been recently found because the UE has been stationary for the last N searches. See Harju Fig. 3. Accordingly, we affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 9, and claim 21 commensurate in scope, as well as claims 4--6, 8, 16-18, and 20 not separately argued. See App. Br. 13-14. 7 Appeal2018-002056 Application 15/139,154 Claims 11 and 12 Appellants argue that "[ a ]lthough Sih merely describes frequency error due to Doppler, Sih is silent regarding 'the mobility state of the UE is determined further based on the measured filtered frequency error' as recited in dependent claim 11 and dependent claim 23" (App. Br. 15 (underline omitted)), and "Sih fails to disclose or suggest determining the UE is in a stationary state based on the filtered frequency error, much less if the filtered frequency error satisfies a threshold" (App. Br. 15-16). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the "mobility state of the UE" can be determined by "the Doppler effects due to the movement of the UE" (Final Act. 11 ( citing Sih 2:46-57, 4:50-53, 5: 14--16)). As indicated in the final cited portion, Sih teaches using "the independent frequency error for each finger directly by filtering it" (Sih 5: 14--15) in which the "frequency errors, now doppler adjusted, are then weighted and averaged, the result of which is filtered" (Sih 5: 18-20). Thus, Sih teaches a combination of filtered frequency measurements subject to Doppler effects, in which deviations from the carrier frequency indicate "a relative velocity between the transmitter and receiver" (Sih 2:50- 51 ). One skilled in the art at the time of Appellants' invention would recognize that as no Doppler error occurs when the transmitter and receiver are stationary, larger filtered frequency error values, such as those over a threshold, would indicate the UE is not stationary. Accordingly, we affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 11 and 12, and claims 23 and 24 commensurate in scope. 8 Appeal2018-002056 Application 15/139,154 CONCLUSIONS The Examiner: 1. did not err in finding Damji discloses "the one or more parameters comprise at least an amount of battery life associated with the UE and a mobility state of the UE," as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 13, 25, and 26; 2. erred in finding Damji discloses "reducing the periodicity of cell search and measurements when the amount of battery life associated with the UE fails to satisfy a threshold," as recited in claim 7, and similarly recited in claim 19; 3. did not err in finding the combination of Damji and Kupfer teaches or suggests "the adjusting comprises disabling GPS signal acquisition when the mobility state indicates that the UE is in a stationary state for a duration," as recited in claim 3, and similarly recited in claim 15; 4. did not err in finding the combination of Damji and Harju teaches or suggests "wherein for longer durations of the stationary state, lower periodicities are selected for the cell search and measurements," as recited in claim 9, and similarly recited in claim 21; and 5. did not err in finding the combination of Damji and Harju teaches or suggests (a) "the mobility state of the UE is determined further based on the measured filtered frequency error," as recited in claim 11, and similarly recited in claim 23, and (b) "determining the UE is in a stationary state when the filtered frequency error satisfies a threshold value," as recited in claim 12, and similarly recited in claim 24. 9 Appeal2018-002056 Application 15/139,154 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 10, 13, 14, 22, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l) is affirmed. The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 7 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l) is reversed. The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 3-6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15-18, 20, 21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 is affirmed. 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 10