Bengt Lindoff et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 22, 2019

14400588 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2019)

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.
14/400,588 11/12/2014 Bengt Lindoff 1009-1159 / P37286 US2 3671
102721 7590 08/22/2019
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
TACSIK, ERNEST G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2019 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BENGT LINDOFF, LEIF WILHELMSSON, MUHAMMAD
KAZMI, and GABOR FODOR
____________

Appeal 2018-005640
Application 14/400,588
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, DENISE M. POTHIER, and JENNIFER S. BISK,
Administrative Patent Judges.

POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1,2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 32, 34–50, and 52–62. Appeal Br. 2. Claims 1–31, 33,
and 51 have been canceled. February 27, 2017 Response to Office Action 2,
9. We affirm.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Action (Final Act.) mailed
May 30, 2017, the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed November 22, 2017, the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed March 8, 2018, and the Reply Brief
(Reply Br.) filed May 8, 2018.
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Telefonaktiebolaget LM
Ericsson. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-005640
Application 14/400,588

2
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to Device-to-Device (D2D)
communications, such as direct communications between devices that are
not relayed through a cellular network (e.g., Bluetooth and WLAN). Spec.
1:10–14. “Device/peer discovery in D2D communication is typically based
on the devices transmitting (e.g.[,] broadcasting) and/or detecting beacon
signals respectively.” Id. at 2:21–22. For example, a master device
transmits beacon signals, and a listening device acknowledges detection. Id.
at 3:10–15. A network “may assist the devices by allocating beacon
resources and providing information that the devices can use to construct
and detect the beacon signals used for the discovery.” Id. at 2:23–25. The
present invention is an approach to allocating beacon resources that includes
monitoring D2D beacon signaling (e.g., signal strength or signal quality) and
performing an operation based on beacon signaling (e.g., sending a beacon
measurement report or selecting a second device for D2D communications).
Id. at 3:27–31, 4:16–20, 4:26–5:16.
Claims 32, 42, 48–50, 57–59, and 62 are independent. Independent
claims 32 and 48 exemplify the claims at issue and read as follows:
32. A method by a first wireless communication device
configured to perform device-to-device communication,
comprising:
transmitting an indication of device-to-device
communication capability to a network node configured to
provide assistance for device-to-device communication;
receiving, from the network node, one or more beacon
parameters allocated to one or more second wireless
communication devices configured to perform device-to-device
communication;
Appeal 2018-005640
Application 14/400,588

3
monitoring device-to-device communication beacon
signaling based on the received one or more beacon parameters
of the one or more second wireless communication devices; and
performing at least one radio operation task based on
measurements of the monitored device-to-device
communication beacon signaling, wherein performing the at
least one radio operation task comprises using measurements of
the monitored device-to-device communication beacon
signaling to perform at least one of:
selecting one of the one or more second wireless
communication devices for device-to-device
communication; and
re-selecting one of the one or more second wireless
communication devices for device-to-device
communication.

48. A method by a first wireless communication device
configured to perform device-to-device communication,
comprising:
transmitting an indication of device-to-device
communication capability of the first wireless communication
device to a network node configured to provide assistance for
device-to-device communication;
receiving, from the network node, one or more beacon
parameters allocated to the first wireless communication
device;
transmitting device-to-device communication beacon
signaling based on the received one or more beacon parameters
of the first wireless communication device; and
receiving a beacon measurement report from the network
node indicating detection of the transmitted beacon by one or
more second wireless communication devices.

Appeal Br. 26, 31 (Claims App’x).

Appeal 2018-005640
Application 14/400,588

4
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER MALLIK AND LIM
Claims 32, 34–39, 42–44, 47–50, 52–54, and 57–62 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mallik (US 2011/0258313 A1, pub.
Oct. 20, 2011) and Lim (US 2014/0057670 A1, pub. Feb. 27, 2014). Final
Act. 9–41.
Claims 32, 34–39, 49, 50, 52–54, and 58
Appellants argue independent claims 32, 49, 50, and 58 as a group
(Appeal Br. 13–18) and do not argue their dependent claims separately (see
generally Appeal Br.). We select claim 32 as representative for claims 32,
34–39, 49, 50, 52–54, and 58. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner found Mallik teaches many of claim 32’s recitations.
Final Act. 10–13. The Examiner turned to Lim and proposed to combine
Lim with Mallik to teach the recited step of “performing at least one radio
operation task based on measurements of the monitored device-to-device
communication beacon signaling” in claim 32. Id. at 13–14.
Appellants argue Lim describes a first device selecting a second
device for P2P communication (e.g., D2D communication) based on
receiving measurement information from other devices but that the first
device’s selection is not based on its own measurements of monitored
beacon signals as claim 32 requires. Appeal Br. 15–16 (citing Lim ¶¶ 127–
128). Rather, Appellants contend Lim teaches the measurements occur at
the other devices. Id. at 16. Appellants further contend the proposed
combination would not have been obvious because (1) there is no evidence
that modifying Mallik with Lim’s teaching would make Mallik more
efficient and (2) the proposed modification would change Mallik’s principle
of operation. Id. at 16–17.
Appeal 2018-005640
Application 14/400,588

5
ISSUE
(I) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 32 by
finding that Mallik and Lim collectively would have taught or suggested
A method by a first wireless communication device configured
to perform device-to-device communication, comprising:
. . .
performing at least one radio operation task based on
measurements of the monitored device-to-device
communication beacon signaling, wherein performing the at
least one radio operation task comprises using measurements of
the monitored device-to-device communication beacon
signaling to perform at least one of:
selecting one of the one or more second wireless
communication devices for device-to-device communication[?]

(II) Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of these
references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

ANALYSIS
I.
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s construction of claim 32. Appeal
Br. 15 (quoting Final Act. 4). More specifically, Appellants argue that
“there is no reasonable reading of claim 32 . . . that encompasses a wireless
device that performs the claimed selection/re-selection based on receiving a
beacon-related report from another device.” Appeal Br. 15. We thus begin
by construing the disputed “performing step” in claim 32.

Claim 32 recites “[a] method by a first wireless communication device
. . . comprising” the steps of “transmitting,” “receiving,” “monitoring,” and
Appeal 2018-005640
Application 14/400,588

6
“performing” steps. Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added). This
preambular language recites that claim 32’s method is performed by a first
wireless communication device. See id. We thus agree with Appellants that
the first wireless communication device performs both the recited
“monitoring” step and the “performing” step in claim 32. See id. at 15.
Claim 32 further requires the “performing at least one radio operation task”
step to be “based on measurements of the monitored” D2D “communication
beacon signaling” and comprises “using measurements of the monitored”
D2D “communication beacon signaling” to perform the “selecting” sub-step
within the “performing” step. Id. at 26 (Claims App’x) (emphases added).
The recited “monitoring device-to-device communication beacon signaling
based on the received one or more beacon parameters of the one or more
second wireless communication devices” in claim 32 therefore involves
measurements of the monitored beacon signaling. Id.
The Specification also support this understanding. See Spec. 4:26–27
(stating “[m]onitoring device-to-device communication beacon signalling
may refer to performing one or more measurements on the beacon
signaling.”) On the other hand, the Specification describes:
Such measurements may include, for example, one or more of
identification and/or detection of a beacon sent by a second
wireless communication device, and signal measurement on an
identified beacon signal. Examples of signal measurements are
signal strength (e.g.[,] RSRP, path loss, path gain[,] etc[.]), and
signal quality (e.g.[,] SINR, SNR, RSRQ, BLER, BER[,]
etc[.]).

Spec. 4:27–5:2 (emphasis added). As such, the broadest, reasonable
construction of “measurements of the monitored” D2D “communication
beacon signaling” in claim 32 in light of the disclosure includes identifying a
Appeal 2018-005640
Application 14/400,588

7
beacon sent by another wireless communication device, detecting a beacon
sent by another wireless communication device, or signal measurements,
such as path gain and SNR, on the identified beacon signal. See id.
Turning to the rejection, the Examiner relied on Mallik—not Lim—to
teach the “monitoring” step. Final Act. 12 (citing Mallik ¶¶ 40–41, 73); see
Ans. 5–6 (same). The Examiner quoted from portions of Mallik that teach a
first wireless communication device (e.g., 120x in Figure 3) detecting
proximity detection signals from other wireless devices (e.g., a beacon sent
by device 120y). Mallik ¶¶ 40–41, quoted in part in Final Act. 12. The
Examiner further discussed Mallik teaches measuring signals, such as
Mallik’s device 120x may measure the received signal strength of the
proximity detection signals from 120y, and identifying a beacon sent by
another wireless communication device by obtaining a device ID of the other
wireless device based on the proximity detection signal from the other
wireless device. Id. ¶ 42, quoted in part in Final Act. 12–13; id. ¶ 73, Fig. 6
(block 616), quoted in part in Final Act 12. Mallik at least suggests the first
device monitors D2D communication beacon signaling, including taking
“measurements of the monitored” D2D “communication beacon signaling”
as claim 32 broadly recites.
Thus, although the Examiner indicates Lim was relied upon to
disclose the “based on measurements of the monitored device-to-device
communication beacon signaling” in the “performing” step (Ans. 7), the
Examiner also states “MALLIK's device is – in some way – participating in
the ‘performing at least one radio operation task based on measurements’ . .
. as per the claim.” Id. at 6. For these reasons, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument directed exclusively at Lim’s teaching. See Appeal
Appeal 2018-005640
Application 14/400,588

8
Br. 14–16 (focusing on Lim’s teachings). Rather, we consider what Mallik
and Lim collectively teach or suggest to an ordinary skilled artisan.
The Examiner essentially relies on Lim in combination with Mallik to
demonstrate a first wireless device selecting a second wireless device for
D2D communication (e.g., a radio operation task) using monitored beacon
signaling measurements would have been known to one skilled in the art.
See Final Act. 13–14 (citing Lim ¶¶ 127–128); Ans. 5–8 (citing Lim ¶¶ 5,
127–128). More specifically, similar to Mallik, Lim teaches a first device
(e.g., Device 1) receiving link information (e.g., power ratio, interference
level, channel status, channel quality, and channel information) from devices
and additionally using this information to select a second device (e.g.,
Device 2) with which to communicate. Lim ¶¶ 5, 126–128. Thus, when
combined with Mallik’s teaching, the combination predictably yields no
more than “performing at least one radio task based on measurements of the
monitored device-to-device communication beacon signaling” (e.g., Mallik’s
measured signal strength or obtained a device ID), including “selecting one
or more second wireless communication devices for” D2D communication
“using measurements of the monitored” D2D “communication beacon
signaling” as claim 32 recites.
That Lim discloses the received, measured link information is
measured by a second device is not fatal to the rejection as argued. See
Appeal Br. 15–16. As discussed above, Mallik teaches a technique where
the first device can measure the monitored D2D communication beacon
signaling, and the rejection does not propose to change or substitute this
technique with Lim’s approach that measures monitored communications at
another device. See Final Act. 13–14. Instead, the Examiner relies on Lim
Appeal 2018-005640
Application 14/400,588

9
for the limited purpose to teach that one skill in the art would have recognize
using the first device to select a second wireless device for D2D
communication using measurements of the monitored D2D communication
beacon signaling as taught by Mallik and Lim collectively. See Final Act.
14 (citing Lim ¶¶ 127–128 and proposing to combine Mallik’s and Lim’s
teachings); see also Ans. 12 (discussing Lim teaches performing selection
based on measurements of the monitored D2D communication beacon
signaling). Lim additionally teaches a first device setting a power level for
the link communication between the first device and a second device (e.g.,
selecting a second wireless communication device for D2D communication)
using the received information from other device. Lim ¶ 127. Thus, Lim
teaches an alternative embodiment for selecting a second wireless
communication device for D2D communication using measurements of the
monitored D2D communication beacon signaling as claim 32 broadly
recites.
For the above reasons, we disagree Mallik and Lim fail to teach the
recited “performing” step in claim 32.
II.
Appellants also contend the proposed combination would not have
been obvious to an ordinary skilled artisan because there is no evidence that
modifying Mallik with Lim’s teaching would make Mallik more efficient.
Appeal Br. 16–17 (citing Lim ¶ 13); Reply Br. 2–3. We are not persuaded.
The Examiner proposed the combination results in “an efficient
communication environment.” Final Act. 14 (citing Lim ¶ 13). The
Examiner elaborates in the Answer that both Mallik and Lim concern
techniques for performing P2P (e.g., D2D) communications. Ans. 8
Appeal 2018-005640
Application 14/400,588

10
(quoting Mallik, Abstract and Lim, ¶ 1). The Examiner further explains that
applying Lim to Mallik would broaden and improve on Mallik’s D2D
communication techniques. Ans. 9. That is, a person skilled in the art
would have recognized using Lim’s approach, which involves a first device
using monitored D2D communication beacon signaling to select a second
device for D2D communication, with Mallik would have improved on
Mallik’s approach. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007). For example, the Examiner discusses the combination would reduce
signaling between the devices by off-loading radio operation tasks to the
first device (e.g., selecting a device for D2D communications as taught by
Lim using its measured and monitored D2D communication beacon
signaling as taught by Mallik). See Ans. 9 (stating “further participation . . .
would create a more ‘efficient communication environment’ through, e.g.,
reduced signaling.”).
Appellants further argue the proposed modification would change
Mallik’s principle of operation. Appeal Br. 17; Reply Br. 2–4. Appellants
contend Mallik teaches centralizing D2D communication decisions using
directory agent 140 to match or select a first and second device (e.g., 120x
and 120y) for D2D communication and that moving this decision to a first
device would destroy Mallik’s operation. Appeal Br. 17; Reply Br. 2–4.
We are not persuaded.
Mallik’s principle of operation is to “support[] peer-to-peer (P2P)
communication.” Mallik ¶ 3. From this perspective, Lim also teaches
supporting D2D communications (Lim, Abstract) and including its teachings
would not destroy Mallik’s principle of operation to support P2P
communication. Additionally, Mallik states directory agent 140 “may
Appeal 2018-005640
Application 14/400,588

11
perform request matching” (id. ¶ 35 (emphasis added)) and base station 110a
may send a scheduling decisions to devices 120x and 120y (id. ¶ 44). Thus,
contrary to Appellants’ assertions, Mallik does not discourage or lead one
skilled in the art away from using Lim’s technique involving a first device,
instead of a base station, to select a second device for D2D communications.
For the first time in the Reply Brief, Appellants argue Mallik teaches
away from the proposed rejection in the Appeal Brief. Reply Br. 4–5. This
argument is waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(a)(2) (stating “[a]ny argument
raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not
responsive to an argument raised in the examiner’s answer . . . will not be
considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good
cause is shown.”) In any event, to the extent Appellants are responding to
an argument raised in the Examiner’s Answer (see Ans. 9), we are not
persuaded for the above-stated reasons.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of independent claim 32 and claims 34–39, 49, 50, 52–54,
and 58, which are not argued separately.
Claims 48 and 57
Appellants argue independent claims 48 and 57 together. Appeal Br.
18–20. We select claim 48 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 48 differs in scope from claim 32. Although reciting a method
by a first wireless communication device, claim 48 does not recite the
“performing” step in claim 32 and instead recites “receiving a beacon
measurement report from the network node indicating detection of the
Appeal 2018-005640
Application 14/400,588

12
transmitted beacon by one or more second3 wireless communication
devices.” Appeal Br. 31 (Claims App’x). The Examiner indicates Mallik
does not explicitly disclose this latter step, turning to Lim. Final Act. 31–32
(citing Lim ¶¶ 125–128); Ans. 10–11 (citing Lim ¶¶ 127–130).
Appellants argue Lim does not teach a base station or other network
node providing a measurement report but rather teaches a second device
transmits its measurements to the first device. Appeal Br. 19–20 (citing Lim
¶¶ 125–128). For this reason, Appellants contend Lim cannot teach
“receiving a beacon measurement report” step which comes from the
network node as recited in claim 48. See id. This argument is unavailing.
Although discussing “a beacon measurement report,” the
Specification does not define this phrase. See Spec. 26:11–30. Nor do
Appellants demonstrate this phrase is a term of art. See Appeal Br. 19–20.
The disclosure describes a beacon report may contain various types of
information, including a beacon signature, corresponding LDID, signal-to-
interference ratios, which devices may cause interference, and identities of a
particular device. See id. Furthermore, although claim 48 recites the report
“indicat[es] detection of the transmitted beacon” (emphasis added), this
broad recitation does not place further limits on how the report indicates
(e.g., implies or suggests) beacon detection from a second device.
Notably, Mallik teaches a first device sending a measurement report
to base station 110a (step 7) and further teaches base station 110a sending a
scheduling decision (step 9a-b), including resources for use in P2P
communications, back to a first device so that devices 120x and 120y can

3 Notably, the second “transmitting” step in claim 48 involves the first
wireless communication device transmitting beacon signaling.
Appeal 2018-005640
Application 14/400,588

13
communicate. Mallik ¶ 44, Fig. 3. Mallik suggests the scheduling decision
sent back to the first device is a type of “beacon measurement report,”
consistent with the disclosure, because this scheduling decision includes
resources that permit a first and second device to communicate and, thus,
indicates or implies—albeit indirectly—a transmitted beacon from the
second device was detected by the base station. See id.
Furthermore, in the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner quotes from
Lim. Ans. 10–11 (quoting Lim ¶¶ 127–130). Of particular interest, Lim
discusses a P2P device transmits a P2P (e.g., D2D) request signal to a base
station at S511 after receiving beacon parameters (e.g., link information at
S509), and in response, base station sends a response signal containing
parameters (e.g., power level, P2P grouping/identifier, and grouping/paring
ID) to a first and second device (e.g., Device 1 and Device 2) at S513. Lim
¶¶ 129–130, Fig. 5. Given the variety of information in Lim’s response
signal (e.g., identity information) and consistent with the Specification, this
signal reasonably maps to the broadly recited “beacon measurement report
from the network node indicating detection of the transmitted beacon by” a
second wireless device in claim 48. The P2P grouping/identifier and paring
ID also indicates or implies indirectly a transmitted beacon from the second
device was detected by the base station. See id.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of independent claims 48 and 57, which is not argued
separately.
Claims 42–44, 47, and 59–62
Appellants argue independent claims 42, 59, and 62 as a group
(Appeal Br. 20–22) and do not argue their dependent claims separately (see
Appeal 2018-005640
Application 14/400,588

14
generally Appeal Br.). We select claim 42 as representative for claims
42–44, 47, and 59–62. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claim 42 is “[a]
method by a network node . . . comprising” limitations similar to the
“performing” step in claim 32. Appeal Br. 28–29 (Claims App’x). Claim
42 also recites “receiving . . . a beacon measurement report related to at least
one of the one or more second wireless communication devices,” but unlike
claim 48, claim 42 recites this report is “from the first wireless
communication device.” Id. at 29–30 (Claims App’x).
Appellants’ arguments for claim 42 are similar to those discussed
above for claim 32, namely Appellants dispute the Examiner’s motivation
for combining Mallik with Lim. Appeal Br. 21. We are not persuaded for
reasons discussed when addressing claim 32. Additionally, to the extent
argued and recited in claim 42 (id. at 21–22), Mallik in combination with
Lim teach or suggest providing beacon parameters to the first device (see
Final Act. 21 (citing Mallik ¶ 64)) and selecting a second wireless
communication device for D2D communication by using measurements of
the monitored D2D communication beacon signaling (see Final Act. 22–24).
We refer above for details.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of independent claim 42 and claims 43, 44, 47, and 59–62,
which are not argued separately.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON MALLIK, LIM,
SONG, AND TANG

Claims 41, 45, and 56 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mallik, Lim, Song (US 2014/0169279 A1, pub.
Appeal 2018-005640
Application 14/400,588

15
June 19, 2014), and Tang (US 2011/0070897 A1, pub. Mar. 24, 2011). Final
Act. 43–50. Appellants argue claims 41 and 46 as a group and do not
separately address claim 45. We select claim 41 as representative.
For claim 41, the Examiner found Mallik teaches many of its
limitations. Final Act. 43–46. The Examiner turns to Song in combination
with Mallik and Lim to teach the “receiving” step in claim 41 (id. at 46–50)
and Tang in combination with Mallik and Lim to teach “the beacon
measurement report comprises a cell identity indication” in claim 41 (id. at
47–48).
Appellants argue the cited portions of Song do not relate to D2D
communications or a D2D device receiving beacon parameters. Appeal Br.
22–23. To the extent Appellants contend Song is non-analogous art, we note
Appellants’ invention addresses “network assisted” D2D communication
(Spec. 1:5) and “methods of a network node . . . as well as corresponding
arrangements, wireless communication devices and network nodes.” Spec.,
Abstract. Song similarly addressing cellular/network communications (see
Song ¶¶ 24, 38) as well as addressing establishing communications with a
client node in a network, including a peer-to-peer or overlay network (id.
¶¶ 27, 36–37). Thus, as the Examiner indicates (see Ans. 14), Song is within
Appellants’ field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the problem with
which Appellants were concerned.
Moreover, as the Examiner states, Mallik and Lim are relied upon to
teach the D2D communications/beacon parameter recitations in the claims,
including claim 41, and Song is introduced to teach extending this concept
“to a broader range of network node(s) making allocations.” See Ans.
13–14. Thus, Song is not relied upon to teach its signals sent by its network
Appeal 2018-005640
Application 14/400,588

16
nodes (e.g., eNB 804 or a base station) are D2D beacon signals as argued.
Appeal Br. 23. Additionally, Mallik recognizes that the resources and
proximity detection signals from D2D communication devices can be shared
by different base stations with network assistance, suggesting that network
nodes of one base station may send resource/proximity detection signals
(e.g., beacon parameters allocated by a neighboring network node) related to
its wireless communication devices to neighboring base stations. See Mallik
¶ 48, quoted in Ans. 14. Song further teaches sharing specific parameters
(e.g., those related to interference (see Spec. 26:15–16)) between
neighboring base stations or cells to determine nodes causing significant
interference. See Final Act. 46–47 (citing Song ¶¶ 27, 120).
Appellants next argue “the Final Action recognizes that the reporting
detailed in claim 41 is not found in Mallik and Lim, and instead is attributed
to Song.” Appeal Br. 23. We disagree. The Examiner found Mallik teaches
transmitting a beacon measurement report (Final Act. 44–45, 47 (citing
Mallik ¶ 42)) but that the report does not “comprise[] a cell identity
indication” (id. at 47). The Examiner turned to Tang—not Song—to teach
the “cell identity indication” limitation and provided a reason to include with
Mallik/Lim/Song process. Id. at 47–48 (citing Tang ¶ 8). Thus, any
concerns Appellants discuss related to Song’s reporting or how Tang would
be included with Song’s reporting (see Appeal Br. 23) do not address the
proposed rejection.
Appellants assert Tang’s general teaching of cell identification
provides no motivation for making the modification proposed by the
Examiner related to claim 41. Appeal Br. 23. This argument is unavailing.
Appellants fail to specify what proposed modifications lack a motivation.
Appeal 2018-005640
Application 14/400,588

17
See id. In any event, the Examiner provides a reason to combine Tang with
Mallik, Lim, and Song—to derive cell global identity information (CGI)
(Final Act. 47–48 (citing Tang ¶¶ 8, 37)) as well as including such
information in a measurement report would be recognized by an ordinary
skilled artisan to assist in identifying positional information of users within a
cell and neighbor relationships (see Ans. 15 (citing Tang ¶ 3). See Tang
¶¶ 4–5, 8.
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the
rejection of claim 41 and claims 45 and 56, which are not argued separately.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON MALLIK, LIM,
AND KOSKELA

Claim 46 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mallik, Lim, Song, Tang,4 and Koskela (US
2013/0102314 A1, pub. April 25, 2013). Final Act. 50–52 (citing Koskela
¶¶ 23, 31). Claim 46 depends claim 45, which further depends on claim 42.
Appellants argue Koskela does not teach cell changes as recited in
claim 46 based on (D2D) beacon measurement reports. Appeal Br. 25. We
disagree. The rejection does not rely only on Koskela alone but Koskela in
combination with Mallik and Lim, which, as previously discussed, teach or
suggest “the beacon measurement report” recited in claims 42 and 45. As
the Examiner notes, Koskela teaches triggering a handover (e.g., a change)
of user equipment (e.g., a first wireless communication device) to a target

4 Claim 46 depends from claim 45, which was rejected based on Mallik,
Lim, Song, and Tang as already discussed. Although the Final Action omits
Song and Tang, we include here for completeness.
Appeal 2018-005640
Application 14/400,588

18
cell based on a measurement report. Koskela ¶ 31, quoted in Ans. 16–17
and cited in Final Act. 51–52. The Examiner proposes to include Koskela’s
teaching to use a measurement report to perform a cell change within the
Mallik/Lim process, including the taught beacon measurement report, to
avoid multi-cell D2D configuration. Final Act. 51–52 (citing Koskela ¶ 23).
Thus, the proposed combination teaches or suggests “performing a cell
change” based on the beacon measurement report as claim 46 recites
contrary to Appellants’ assertions.
For the above reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of claim 46.

THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Claims 40 and 55 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mallik, Lim, and Wijting (W02013068788 A1, pub.
2013). This rejection is not separately argued. We thus sustain the rejection
for the reasons discussed above for claims 32 and 50, from which claims 40
and 55 respectively and depend.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 32, 34–50, and 52–62
under § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED