Ex Parte Irnich et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 19, 201814110365 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 14/110,365 10/07/2013 Tim Irnich 1009-0711 /P33442 US1 2463 7590 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson 1255 Crescent Green Suite 200 Cary, NC 27518 EXAMINER HOUSHMAND, HOOMAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2465 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/23/2018 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): official@mbhiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TIM IRNICH, JONAS KRONANDER, and YNGVE SELEN Appeal 2017-007897 Application 14/110,365 Technology Center 2400 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 15—28, which are all of the claims pending in this application. Claims 1—14 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-007897 Application 14/110,365 INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a “white space device transmission.” Spec. 1. Claim 15 reads as follows, with the disputed limitations shown in italics: 15. A method in a white space device of a secondary wireless system, for transmitting a first signal on a channel available for secondary usage allocated to a primary wireless system, the method comprising: determining a further channel used by the primary wireless system, that would be interfered by a transmission of the first signal on the channel available for secondary usage, retrieving signal information associated with the determined further channel from the primary wireless system, transmitting the first signal on the channel available for secondary usage, and transmitting a second signal on the determined further channel based on the retrieved signal information, simultaneously with the first signal on the channel available for secondary usage, such that an interference generated in the primary wireless system by the first signal transmission is compensated for by the second signal transmission. REJECTION Claims 15—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Agnew (US 2010/0255794 Al, publ. Oct. 7, 2010) and Qin et al. (US 2008/0134271 Al, publ. June 5, 2008) (“Qin”). Final Act. 5. ANALYSIS Rejection of Claims 15—28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Claims 15—19 and 22—26 Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the combination of Agnew and Qin does not teach or suggest the limitation 2 Appeal 2017-007897 Application 14/110,365 transmitting a second signal on the determined further channel based on the retrieved signal information, simultaneously with the first signal on the channel available for secondary usage, such that an interference generated in the primary wireless system by the first signal transmission is compensated for by the second signal transmission, as recited in claim 15. App. Br. 10—11; Reply Br. 5. The Examiner relied on the combination of Agnew and Qin as teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation. Final Act. 6. Appellants do not dispute Agnew teaches transmitting a “first signal.” App. Br. 10. Instead, Appellants argue the alleged “second signal” teachings in Qin have no relevance to the transmission of a “second signal” by a white space device to compensate for interference caused by the device’s transmission of a first signal. Id.', see Ans. 4. In particular, Appellants argue the Examiner has not sufficiently shown simultaneous transmission of a second signal, by a white space device, to compensate for interference caused by its first-signal transmission. Id. at 11. Appellants also argue Qin’s relay node 520 does not operate as a “white space” device, and the transmission of uncompressed A/V data to a targeted TV receiver does not require white-space operation. Id. Appellants further argue Qin does not teach or suggest one signal compensating for interference caused by another signal’s transmission, and, thus, the limitation “transmitting a second signal on the determined further channel based on the retrieved signal information,” as recited in claim 15, is not taught. Id., see also Reply Br. 4—5. We agree with Appellants that, on the record before us, the Examiner has not shown the combined teachings of Agnew and Qin teach or suggest transmitting a second signal to compensate for interference caused by the 3 Appeal 2017-007897 Application 14/110,365 transmission of a first signal, as claim 15 requires. The Examiner found Qin discloses transmitting a second signal on the determined further channel based on the retrieved signal information because a RelayRequest control message is transmitted to the candidate station by the portable device, making a request to the candidate station to become the relay node for the A/V data communication between the portable device and an intended receiver, e.g., a coordinator DTV. Final Act. 6 (citing Qin 147). In the Answer, the Examiner further explained “[interference ... is a fact of physics” (Ans. 7), and white space device technology is a “rather new technology . . . that is being integrated into all electronic devices, e.g.[,] the re-transmitter of Qin.” Ans. 8. The Examiner’s findings as a whole are insufficient to show the combined teachings of Agnew and Qin teach or suggest the disputed limitation. In particular, the Examiner has not clearly articulated how Qin’s teachings in paragraph 47 of portable device 530 establishing communications with the relay station 520 maps to the disputed limitation in claim 15, which requires simultaneous transmission of a second signal for interference compensation, in light of the Examiner’s findings based on Agnew. For these reasons, on the record before us,2 we agree with Appellants the Examiner erred with respect to the obviousness rejection of independent claims 15 and 22, and of dependent claims 16—19, and 23—26, which depend therefrom. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 15 and 22, as well as dependent claims 16— 19 and 23-26. 2 Appellants raise additional arguments in the Appeal Brief. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments. 4 Appeal 2017-007897 Application 14/110,365 Claims 20, 21, 27, and 28 With regard to the rejection of claims 20 and 27, Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Agnew’s control station evaluates mutual interference arising between geographically proximate white space devices operating on the same channel whereas claim 20’s control unit determines interference caused on a “further channel” used by a primary wireless system. App. Br. 15. The Examiner found that, although Agnew teaches some of the limitations of claim 20, Agnew does not teach “the combination of all the limitations.” Ans. 13 (citing Final Act. 9—10). The Examiner relied on paragraph 47 of Qin, discussed above, as teaching the missing elements. Final Act. 10. In the Answer, the Examiner explained that Agnew’s multiple white space devices teach multiple channels. Ans. 14. The Examiner concluded: The claimed invention, is an oversimplification of what actually happens in the physical world. There would be many white space devices, which would be interfering with each other, and the TV channels. The claimed invention only treats one, simplified, case, wherein only one white space device is present. The claimed invention, only, has this one white space device, transmitting in an un-utilized TV channel, and interfering in the adjacent TV channel(s). Agnew goes a step further, and treats a real, physical world, scenario, with many white space devices, and all TV channels. Id. at 14—15. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred because claim 20, as the Examiner observed, recites only one white space device. The Examiner has not sufficiently developed the record by explaining how 5 Appeal 2017-007897 Application 14/110,365 multiple channels used by multiple white space devices, in light of the cited teachings of Agnew and Gusler, would satisfy the claim language. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 20 and 27, as well as dependent claims 21 and 28. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15—28. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation