Ex Parte Larsson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

12873817 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/873,817 09/01/2010
27045 7590
ERICSSON INC
6300 LEGACY DRIVE
MIS EVR 1-C-11
PLANO, TX 75024
06/30/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Magnus LARSSON
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.
JRL-2380-1476 6025
EXAMINER
OHR!, ROMANI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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):
kara.coffman@ericsson.com
kathryn.lopez@ericsson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAGNUS LARSSON, CHRISTIAN BERGLJUNG,
and MUHAMMAD KAZMI 1
Appeal2014-008983
Application 12/873,817
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision2 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-30, which are all the pending claims. Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget L
M Ericcson. App. Br. 1.
2 Our decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed October 9, 2013
("Final Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed March 7, 2014 ("App. Br.");
the Examiner's Answer mailed June 17, 2014 ("Ans."); Appellants' Reply
Brief filed August 14, 2014 ("Reply Br."); and the Specification filed
September 1, 2010 ("Spec.").
Appeal2014-008978
Application 11/632,669
THE CLAHvIED TI'-JVENTION
According to the Specification, "[t]he technology pertains to
telecommunications, and more particularly, to carrier aggregation."
Spec. 1. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method, independent claim 15
is directed to a radio network node for a radio communications network,
independent claim 27 is directed to an operational node for a radio network,
and independent claim 29 is directed to a radio terminal for a radio
communications network. App. Br. Al-A9 (Claims Appendix). Claim 1
recites:
1. A flexible carrier aggregation method for use in a radio
communications system, comprising:
determining a capability to communicate over a radio
interface using multiple radio frequency component carriers,
each of the multiple component carriers being configurable with
one or more control channels in a first mode of operation and
with no control channels in a second mode of operation, and
signaling, using signaling circuitry, configuration
information for one of the multiple radio frequency component
carriers indicating at least one of the component carriers is
configured to operate in a selected one of the first mode of
operation and the second mode of operation so that a radio
network node and a user equipment radio node can communicate
using the selected node of operation.
App. Br. Al.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1--4, 9, 11-13, 15-18, 22-25, and 27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2010/0240372 Al,
published Sep. 23, 2010) ("Wu") and Kim et al. (US 2009/0238091 Al,
published Sep. 24, 2009) ("Kim"). Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal2014-008978
Application 11/632,669
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Wu, Kim, and Molno et al. (US 2001/0030949 Al,
published Oct. 18, 2001) ("Molno"). Final Act. 10.
Claims 6, 7, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
being unpatentable over Wu, Kim, and Sagfors et al. (2012/0099453 Al,
published Apr. 26, 2012) ("Sagfors"). Final Act. 11.
Claims 8 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Wu, Kim, and Ahn et al. (US 2011/0051681 Al,
published Mar. 3, 2011) ("Ahn"). Final Act. 13.
Claims 10 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Wu, Kim, and Sebire, (US 2007/0010281 Al, published
Jan. 11, 2007) ("Sebire"). Final Act. 14.
Claims 14 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Wu, Kim, Ahn, and 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 #67
(Panasonic, August 24--28, 2009) ("3GPP"). Final Act. 15.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Wu, Kim, and Fang et al. (US 2010/0150069 Al,
published June 17, 2010) ("Fang"). Final Act. 17.
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Wu, Kim, and Onggosanusi et al. (US 2009/0268831 Al,
published Oct. 29, 2009) ("Onggosanusi"). Final Act. 19.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the cited combination of references fails to teach or
suggest, "the multiple component carriers being configurable with one or
more control channels in a first mode of operation and with no control
3
Appeal2014-008978
Application 11/632,669
channels in a second mode of operation" as recited in independent claims 1,
15, 27 and 29. App. Br. 11-16; Reply Br. 4--7. The Examiner cites
paragraphs 58 and 59 of Kim. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4--5. Paragraphs 58 and 59
of Kim teach using a broadcast channel with control information (BCCH)
and a dedicated traffic channel (DTCH), but fail to teach or suggest multiple
component carriers with a first and second mode of operation. The
Examiner fails to point to any teaching or suggestion in the cited art of
multiple component carriers with a first and second mode of operation. As
the cited art fails to teach and suggest the disputed limitation recited in each
of the independent claims, on this record, we reverse the rejection of all the
pending claims.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-30 are reversed.
REVERSED
4