Ex Parte Doetsch et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 201814241621 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/241,621 02/27/2014 48116 7590 FAY SHARPE/NOKIA 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 09/21/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Uwe Doetsch 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. LUTZ 201749US01 4927 EXAMINER ELMEJJARMI, ABDELILLAH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2462 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/21/2018 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): docketing@faysharpe.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte UWE DOETSCH, ANDREAS WEBER, and THORSTEN WILD 1 Appeal2017-005878 Application 14/241,621 Technology Center 2400 Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-14, which are all the claims pending in this application. Final Act. 1. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Alcatel Lucent as the real party in interest. 2 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed Feb. 27, 2014 (claiming benefit of PCT/EP2012/063479, filed July 10, 2012); Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed Sept. 19, 2016; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed Feb. 24, 2017. We also refer to the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed Mar. 25, 2016; and Answer ("Ans.") mailed Dec. 30, 2016. Appeal2017-005878 Application 14/241, 621 Appellants 'Invention The invention at issue on appeal "relates to radio communication and, more particularly ... to coordinating at least one first transmission from a multipoint transmitter or to a multipoint receiver and at least one second transmission from a single-point transmitter to a single-point receiver in a radio communication system" (Spec. 1:9-13). The invention further concerns apparatuses and methods for coordinating a first uplink transmission from mobile stations to a multipoint receiver comprising at least two antenna systems and at least one second uplink transmission from said mobile stations to a single-point receiver being a single antenna system. The coordinating process reserves a first radio resource for the first uplink transmission for at least two serving areas of the radio communication system and reserves a second radio resource for the second uplink transmission for at least two serving areas. The coordinating process also transmits and stores on one or more mobile stations a predefined first power control parameter and a predefined second power control parameter, transmits an indication to the mobile station( s) that indicates the first radio resource or the second radio resource, and applies the predefined first power control parameter for the one first radio resource or the predefined second power control parameter for the second radio resource based on the received indication. See Spec. 2:24---6:27; Abstract. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 1. A method for coordinating at least one first uplink transmission from mobile stations to a multipoint receiver comprising at least two antenna systems of a radio 2 Appeal2017-005878 Application 14/241, 621 communication system and at least one second uplink transmission from said mobile stations to a single-point receiver being a single antenna system of said radio communication system, said method comprising reserving at least one first radio resource for said at least one first uplink transmission for at least two serving areas of said radio communication system and further reserving at least one second radio resource for said at least one second uplink transmission for said at least two serving areas, wherein said method further comprises: - predefining at least one first power control parameter for said at least one first uplink transmission, - predefining at least one second power control parameter for said at least one second uplink transmission, - transmitting said predefined at least one first power control parameter and said predefined at least one second power control parameter to at least one of said mobile stations, - storing said predefined at least one first power control parameter and said predefined at least one second power control parameter at said at least one of said mobile stations, - transmitting an indication indicating said at least one first radio resource or said at least one second radio resource to said at least one of said mobile stations, and - applying at said at least one of said mobile stations said predefined at least one first power control parameter for said at least one first radio resource or said predefined at least one second power control parameter for said at least one second radio resource based on said received indication. Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-8, and 11-14 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Irmer et al. (US 2011/0195735 Al, published Aug. 11, 2011) ("Irmer") and Koo et al. (US 2010/0273514 Al, published Oct. 28, 2010) ("Koo '514"). 3 Appeal2017-005878 Application 14/241, 621 2. The Examiner rejects claim 9 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Irmer, Koo '514, and Jappila et al. (WO 2013/029660 Al, published Mar. 7, 2013 (filed Aug. 30, 2011)) ("Jappila"). 3. The Examiner rejects claim 10 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Irmer, Koo '514, and Koo et al. (US 2011/0269459 Al, published Nov. 3, 2011) ("Koo '459"). ISSUE Based upon our review of the record, Appellants' contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the dispositive issue before us follows: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Irmer and Koo '514 would have taught or suggested: coordinating at least one first uplink transmission from mobile stations to a multipoint receiver comprising at least two antenna systems of a radio communication system and at least one second uplink transmission from said mobile stations to a single-point receiver being a single antenna system of said radio communication system, said method comprising reserving at least one first radio resource for said at least one first uplink transmission for at least two serving areas of said radio communication system and further reserving at least one second radio resource for said at least one second uplink transmission for said at least two serving areas ( claim 1 ), within the meaning of Appellants' claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 11 and 13? ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (and independent claims 11 and 13) as being obvious in view ofirmer and Koo '514. See Final Act. 4-- 6; Ans. 3-5. Appellants contend that Irmer and Koo '514 do not teach the 4 Appeal2017-005878 Application 14/241, 621 disputed limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8-14; Reply Br. 3-11. Specifically, Appellants contend, inter alia, that the method comprises reserving at least one first radio resource for said at least one first uplink transmission for at least two serving areas of said radio communication system and further reserving at least one second radio resource for said at least one second uplink transmission for said at least two serving areas. The Examiner has still not shown wherein this feature is taught by Koo, on which the Examiner relies. As noted several times during the prosecution of this application, the cited portions of Koo merely mention a method for performing Coordinated Multi-Point (CoMP) operation and transmitting feedback information in a wireless communication system. There neither mention in Koo of reserving radio resources for uplink transmission in the manner set forth in the subject claim, nor of the particular antenna arrangements nor the multipoint and single point receivers set forth in the subject claim. Accordingly, Koo fails to overcome the deficiencies of Irmer noted by the Examiner. Thus, the cited combination of references as applied by the Examiner fails to teach or suggest every feature of the subject claim. (Reply Br. 10-11; see Appeal Br. 11-14; Reply Br. 9-11). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner-cited portions of Irmer and Koo '514 do not clearly describe the disputed limitations of "coordinating at least one first uplink transmission from mobile stations to a multipoint receiver comprising at least two antenna systems ... and at least one second uplink transmission from said mobile stations to a single-point receiver being a single antenna system" and "reserving at least one first radio resource for said at least one first uplink transmission/or at least two serving areas of said radio communication system and further reserving at least one second radio resource for said at least one second uplink transmission for said at least two serving areas" ( claim 1, emphases added). 5 Appeal2017-005878 Application 14/241, 621 The Examiner relies on Koo '514 and Irmer for teaching reserving resources. See Final Act. 4---6; Advisory Action dated Aug. 9, 2016 at 2; Ans. 2-5 ( citing Koo '514 ,r,r 4, 43; Fig. 1; and Irmer ,r 41 ). The Examiner does not sufficiently explain how the cited portions of Koo '514 (or Irmer) teach or suggest these features. See Reply Br. 9-11. As pointed out by Appellants (supra), the Examiner-cited portions of Koo '514 (i1i1 4, 43) do not describe reserving resources for multiple cells (serving areas) and the Examiner-cited portion of Irmer (i-f 41) also does not describe reserving resources for multiple cells. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Irmer and Koo '514 renders obvious Appellants' claim 1. Independent claims 11 and 13 include limitations of commensurate scope. Dependent claims 2-8, 12, and 14 depend on and stand with claims 1, 11, and 13, respectively. The Examiner rejects dependent claim 9 as being obvious in view of Irmer, Koo '514, and Jappila. See Final Act. 10-11. The Examiner rejects dependent claim 10 as being obvious in view ofirmer, Koo '514, and Koo '459. See Final Act. 11-12. The Examiner relies on the same reasoning as claim 1 (supra) for rejecting claims 9 and 10. See Final Act. 10-12. The Examiner does not suggest, and has not established on this record, that the additionally cited Jappila and Koo '459 references overcome the aforementioned deficiencies of Irmer and Koo '514. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 9 and 10. CONCLUSION Appellants have persuasively shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 6 Appeal2017-005878 Application 14/241, 621 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-14. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation