Ex Parte KAZMI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2017

13780750 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2017)

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.
13/780,750 02/28/2013 Muhammad KAZMI 3602-410-US4 3623
6449 7590 12/29/2017
ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
607 14th Street, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, DINH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2017 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):
PTO-PAT-Email @rfem. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MUHAMMAD KAZMI and ARNE SIMONSSON
Appeal 2017-005831
Application 13/780,7501
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-32, which are all of the claims pending in the application. 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 2017-005831
Application 13/780,750
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to dynamically
reallocating wireless network resources, such as radio-frequency channels,
between a first cell region and a second cell region based on radio resource-
related data (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for distributing resources in a cellular
communications network, the method comprising:
assigning a first resource to a first cell region;
assigning a second resource to a second cell region;
a first network node directing a second network node
associated with the first cell region to report radio resource-
related data, wherein said radio resource related data comprises
one or more of:
(a) resource activity per channel, wherein resource
activity per channel is defined as the ratio of the time
during which a channel is scheduled to a measurement
period,
(b) aggregate resource activity per channel group,
(c) the number of transmitted power samples that
exceed a threshold over a measurement period, and
(d) the number of channel quality samples that are
above a quality threshold, measured per channel in a
neighbor cell, over a measurement period;
the first network node receiving at least one measurement
report of said radio resource-related data; and
the first network node re-allocating the distribution of
resources among said first cell region and one or more other cell
regions as a function of said radio resource-related data in said
first cell region, wherein the step of re-allocating the distribution
of resources among said first cell region and one or more other
cell regions comprises at least one of: a) re-assigning the first
2
Appeal 2017-005831
Application 13/780,750
resource such that the first resource is assigned to the second cell
region and no longer assigned to the first cell region and b) re­
assigning the second resource such that the second resource is
assigned to the first cell region and no longer assigned to the
second cell region.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bruckert
Malmgren et al.
Hurst
Zeira et al.
Lucidarme et al.
Ji et al.
US 5,038,399
US 6,334,057 B1
US 2003/0087647 Al
US 2004/0092232 Al
US 2004/0196793 Al
US 2005/0096062 Al
Aug. 6, 1991
Dec. 25, 2001
May 8, 2003
May 13, 2004
Oct. 7, 2004
May 5, 2005
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 10-16, 19, 20-24, and 28-32 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lucidarme, Ji, and Zeira (Final
Act. 3-15).
Claims 4, 5, 8, 9, and 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lucidarme, Ji, Zeira, and Hurst {id. at 15-19).
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lucidarme, Ji, Zeira, Hurst, and Bruckert {id. at 19-20).
Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lucidarme, Ji, Zeira, and Malmgren {id. at 20-21).
ISSUE
Appellants contend their invention as recited in claims 1 and 22, is
patentable over Lucidarme, Ji, and Zeira (App. Br. 6-14). The issue
3
Appeal 2017-005831
Application 13/780,750
presented by the arguments is: Has the Examiner shown the combination of
Lucidarme, Ji, and Zeira teaches or suggests
at least one of a) re-assigning the first resource such that the
first resource is assigned to the second cell region and no longer
assigned to the first cell region and b) re-assigning the second
resource such that the second resource is assigned to the first
cell region and no longer assigned to the second cell region,
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 22?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Ji teaches
at least one of a) re-assigning the first resource such that the
first resource is assigned to the second cell region and no longer
assigned to the first cell region and b) re-assigning the second
resource such that the second resource is assigned to the first
cell region and no longer assigned to the second cell region,
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 22 (App. Br. 11-14;
Reply Br. 9-10). Specifically, Appellants argue “nowhere does Ji disclose
taking away (i.e., ‘reassigning’) a resource from one cell region and giving
that resource (i.e., ‘assigning’ the resource) to another cell region” such that
the resource is “no longer assigned to the first cell region” (App. Br. 11;
Reply Br. 9).
We are persuaded. The Examiner finds (Final Act. 6; Ans. 6-7) Ji
teaches the “three sectors in each 3-sector cell may be assigned a different
pair of usable set and forbidden set” frequency subbands, i.e., system
resources (Ji ^ 48; see Ji 9-10). The Examiner further finds (Final Act. 6;
Ans. 6-7) the “usable set for each cell/sector also overlaps the forbidden set
for each neighboring cell/sector” (Ji ^ 10, 48).
4
Appeal 2017-005831
Application 13/780,750
Although Ji teaches that each of its cell sectors is assigned a usable set
and a forbidden set, the Examiner does not explain with sufficient specificity
(see Ans. 6-7; see also Final Act. 2-3, 6) and we do not readily find, where
Ji discloses “re-assigning the first resource such that the first resource is
assigned to the second cell region and no longer assigned to a first cell
region,” as required by the claims. Specifically, Ji teaches that assigned
resources are shared amongst cell sectors (Ji 34, 48). Each sector is
assigned a usable subband set (Ux) and a forbidden or unused subband set
(Fx) (id. U 34, 48). “The usable set and the forbidden set for each sector are
orthogonal or disjoint in that no subband is included in both sets” (id. ^ 34).
Ji further teaches “[t]he usable set for each sector also overlaps the forbidden
set for each neighboring sector” and “[t]he forbidden sets for multiple
neighboring sectors may also overlap” (id.).
In particular, Figure 4 shows the first cell sector’s usable set of
resources overlaps the usable sets of resources for the second and third cell
sectors, i.e., the set of resources exclusive of forbidden sets Fi, F2, and F3
(see Ji 50-55, Figs. 4, 5B-5D). In rejecting the claims, the Examiner
relies on Ji’s disclosure that, when a user who has been allocated resources
(subbands) in one sector (e.g., sector x) causes interference in another sector
(e.g., sector y), the user is then allocated resources in sector x that are in
sector y’s forbidden set (Ji ^ 10 (cited at Final Act. 6, Ans. 6)). This
disclosure of Ji, however, teaches re-assigning a user within the same sector
(e.g., sector x). Although in Ji the user has been re-assigned to particular
subbands that are not available to sector y, the reassignment in Ji does not
appear to be from sector y to sector x but rather within sector x (Ji ^ 10; see
also Ji ^ 55 (explaining that, if a user allocated subbands in sector x causes
5
Appeal 2017-005831
Application 13/780,750
interference with sector y, the user may be allocated subbands from the
intersection of usable set x and forbidden set y; if user further causes
interference with sector z, the user may be allocated subbands from the
intersection of usable set x, forbidden set y, and forbidden set z)). In light of
Ji’s teaching, the Examiner does not explain with particularity, why an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood Ji to teach re-assigning a
first resource to a second cell region such that the first resource is no longer
assigned to a first cell region.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments
(see App. Br. 6-10). It follows, Appellants have shown the Examiner erred
in concluding the combination of Lucidarme, Ji, and Zeira renders
independent claims 1 and 22 unpatentable. Dependent claims 2-21 and 23-
32 stand with their respective independent claims. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejections of claims 1-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 10-16, 19, 20-24, and 28-32
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lucidarme, Ji, and
Zeira is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, 8, 9, and 25-27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lucidarme, Ji, Zeira, and Hurst
is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lucidarme, Ji, Zeira, Hurst, and Bruckert is
reversed.
6
Appeal 2017-005831
Application 13/780,750
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lucidarme, Ji, Zeira, and Malmgren is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
REVERSED
7