Ex Parte Cheng et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 201814754220 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/754,220 06/29/2015 27820 7590 06/01/2018 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. 106 Pinedale Springs Way Cary, NC 27511 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jung-Fu Cheng 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. 3000-283 3503 EXAMINER HANNAN,BMM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2644 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2018 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): patents@wt-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUNG-FU CHENG, JUNAID ANSARI, LAETITIA F ALCONETTI, ANDERS FURUSKAR, BRUHTESF A GO DANA, DU HO KANG, and HA VISH KOORAPATY Appeal2017-011102 1 Application 14/754,220 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final rejection of claims 1-11 and 20-23. See Final Act. 1. Claims 12-19 are objected to and indicated as containing allowable subject matter. See Final Act. 19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) is identified as the real party in interest. See App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-011102 Application 14/7 54,220 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' disclosure relates to "dynamic Licensed Assisted Access (LAA) Secondary Cell (SCell) operations, and more particularly, to LAA SCell operations with an early tum-off credit application." Spec. 2. Claims 1 and 20 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with emphasis added): I. A method of operation of a network node in a cellular communications network to dynamically control ON/OFF operation of a Secondary Cell, SCell, of the cellular communications network, comprising: measuring activity of other wireless systems on a channel utilized by a SCell while the SCell is in an OFF state; determining whether to transition the SCell to an ON state based on the activity of the other wireless systems measured on the channel; turning the SCell ON upon determining that the SCell is to be transitioned to the ON state; and keeping the SCell in the OFF state upon determining that the SCell is not to be transitioned to the ON state. The Examiner's Rejections Claims 1 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2014/0233409 Al; Aug. 21, 2014) and Sadek (US 2015/0065152 Al; Mar. 5, 2015). Final Act. 4. Claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Sadek, and Tabet (US 2015/02223243 Al; Aug. 6, 2015). Final Act. 7-8. 2 Appeal 2017-011102 Application 14/7 54,220 Claims 9 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Sadek, Tabet, and Sadek II2 (US 2015/0163801 Al; June 11, 2015). Final Act. 12-13. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Sadek, Tabet, and You (US 2015/0208372 Al; July 23, 2015). Final Act. 14. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Sadek, Tabet, and Suemitsu (US 2008/0227475 Al; Sept. 18, 2008). Final Act. 15. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Sadek, Tabet, and Gupta (US 2013/0083661 Al; Apr. 4, 2013). Final Act. 16. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Sadek, Tabet, and Bach (US 2013/0250908 Al; Sept. 26, 2013). Final Act. 18. ANALYSIS Claim 1 Appellants argue the Examiner erred, because Lee "teaches an action to be performed by a wireless device, not a network node" and "it would not be obvious to take the teachings of Lee with regard to a wireless device and apply them to a network node since these are not truly reciprocal actions 2 The Examiner refers to US 2015/0163801 as "Ahmed" in the Final Action (see Final Act. 12) and as "Sadek II" in the Answer (see Ans. 6), whereas Appellants refer to this reference as "Sadek II" (see App. Br. 13). Throughout this Decision we refer to the reference as Sadek II. 3 Appeal 2017-011102 Application 14/7 54,220 being performed at different locations; these are completely different processes." App. Br. 12. Appellants contend the recited "network node" in the preamble "is essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body" and thus "the preamble limits claim scope." Reply Br. 3, quoting Catalina Marketing International, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). that We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified Lee with the teaching of Sadek to keep [the SCell] deactivate[d] when the bandwidth usage by the primary cell or other nodes using the back haul is above the high threshold in order to reduce interference. Final Act. 6; see also Lee ,r,r 14, 32, 33, and 59; Sadek ,r 65. First, we note the claim preamble recites "[a] method of operation of a network node in a cellular communications network to dynamically control ON/OFF operation of a Secondary Cell, SCell, of the cellular communications network." The recited steps themselves do not reference either the network node or the cellular communications network. As written, the recited steps could be performed by the "network node" or could be performed somewhere else in the "cellular communications network" containing the node. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 55 ("concepts disclosed herein are equally applicable to, e.g., other network architectures"), see also Spec. ,r,r 56-57 (describing steps performed by "the network"). Thus, we agree with 4 Appeal 2017-011102 Application 14/7 54,220 the Examiner that the cited references teach or suggest the method steps, within the meaning of the claim. 3 See Final Act. 5---6. Second, even when the recited steps are performed by the "network node," we find one of ordinary skill, consistent with the Specification, would understand a "network node" includes Lee's terminals and Sadek's neighborhood small cells, as these devices transmit and receive network signals as nodes. 4 See Final Act. 5---6; Lee ,r,r 14, 33; Sadek ,r 65; see also Spec. ,r,r 54 ("the LAA SCell 16 may alternatively be controlled by another radio access node ( e.g., a low power base station such as, e.g., a pico eNB) or be provided by a remote radio access node ( e.g., a Remote Radio Head (RHH) controlled by the base station."); ,r 66 ("This process is performed by, e.g., a network node such as, e.g., the base station 12, but is not limited thereto.") ( emphasis added). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the cited references teach or suggest the limitations recited by claim 1. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claim 20 not separately argued (see App. Br. 13), as well as claims 2-8, 10, 11, 21, and 22 not separately argued (see App. Br. 13-16). 3 Although Appellants and the Examiner dispute whether the "network node" appearing in the preamble needs to be given patentable weight (see Reply Br. 3 and Ans. 3), we do not reach that issue. 4 A node is defined as "[i]n a local area network (LAN), a connection point that can create, receive, or repeat a message." In B. Pfaffenberger, Webster's new World Computer Dictionary (10th ed.), Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 5 Appeal 2017-011102 Application 14/7 54,220 Claim 9 Claim 9 recites "wherein the dynamic maximum OFF duration is a function of whether an immediately preceding ON duration of the SCell was ended prior to a maximum ON duration." Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Sadek II has "no discussion of a 'maximum ON duration' or that 'an immediately preceding ON duration of the SCell was ended prior to a maximum ON duration."' App. Br. 14. Appellants contend "[t]here is further no teaching in Sadek II that a 'dynamic maximum OFF duration is a function of whether an immediately preceding ON duration of the SCell was ended prior to a maximum ON duration."' Id. that We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, the prior art Sadek II (US 2015/0163801) teaches in Fig. 14, Para. [0103], "the small cell base station may stop scheduling grants in advance of the end of the CSAT ON ( activated) period", which means [the SCell] is deactivate[d] before completion of [the] scheduled duration for SCell ON), similar as the claim limitations, "wherein dynamic maximum OFF duration is a function of whether an immediately preceding ON duration of the SCell was ended prior to a maximum ON duration." Ans. 5. We agree with the Examiner that the periods of Sadek II teach or suggest the maximum durations of claim 9. See Id. Further, Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument in the Reply to challenge the Examiner's findings in the Answer. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9, and claim 23 commensurate in scope. See App. Br. 14. 6 Appeal 2017-011102 Application 14/7 54,220 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-23 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation