Ex Parte Mildh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2016

13076698 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016)

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.
13/076,698 03/31/2011 Gunnar Mildh P31761-US2 4237
27045 7590 12/27/2016
F.RTrSSON TNC EXAMINER
6300 LEGACY DRIVE MORLAN, ROBERT M
M/SEVR 1-C-ll
PLANO, TX 75024 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2475
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2016 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):
kathryn.lopez@ericsson.com
michelle. sanderson @ eric sson .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUNNAR MILDH, BOGDAN TIMUS, JESSICA
OSTERGAARD and PETER MOBERG
Appeal 2015-007568
Application 13/076,698
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1—42 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.
Introduction
The invention is directed to “a method for operating a relay node
includes receiving information at the relay node that identifies a plurality of
subframes during which a base station may grant the relay node permission
to transmit to the base station on a first frequency. Appeal Brief 6.
Appeal 2015-007568
Application 13/076,698
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)'.
1. A method of operating a relay node in a telecommunication
network, comprising:
receiving, at a relay node, information identifying a plurality of
subframes during which a base station may grant the relay node permission
to transmit to the base station on a first frequency;
selecting one of the identified subframes to be used for a transmission
between the relay node and a wireless terminal on the first frequency; and
transmitting to the wireless terminal a scheduling grant granting the
wireless terminal permission to transmit on the first frequency during the
selected subframe.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—5, 12—17, 22—26, and 33—38 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2011/0244787 Al; published October 6, 2011) and
Horn (US Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0201846 Al;
published August 13, 2009). Final Rejection 2—8.
Claims 6—8 and 27—29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kim, Horn, Adjakple (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2010/0316096 Al; published December 16, 2010), and
Liu (US Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0130170 Al;
published May 27, 2010). Final Rejection 8—9.
Claims 9—11 and 30-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kim, Horn, and Mischel (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2013/0003646 Al; published January 3, 2013). Final
Rejection 9—11.
Claims 18, 19, 39, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Huawei (“MBSFN Subframe Configuration”) and
Mischel. Final Rejection 12—13.
2
Appeal 2015-007568
Application 13/076,698
Claims 20, 21, 41, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Huawei, Mischel, and Kim. Final Rejection 14—15.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 13, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed
November 4, 2014), the Answer (mailed May 22, 2014), and the Final
Rejection (mailed September 13, 2013) for the respective details.
Appellants argue, “The proposed Kim-Horn combination has not been
shown to disclose ‘selecting one of the identified subframes to be used for a
transmission between the relay node and a wireless terminal on the first
frequency’ as recited by Claim 1.” Appeal Brief 11. The Examiner finds
Kim discloses, “selecting one of the identified subframes to be used for a
transmission between the relay node and a wireless terminal on the first
frequency (Tfl[ [0062], [0064]).” Answer 3. Kim discloses “data can be
transmitted/received between the BS and the RS” in both paragraphs 62 and
64. See Appeal Brief 11, 12. Appellants argue, “the cited paragraphs of
Kim relate to determining subframes to be used for data transmissions
between the base station 1BS1 and the relay station 1RS1. not for data
transmissions between the BS and a mobile station (MS).” Appeal Brief 12.
The Examiner further finds:
Kim teaches making the change from access to backhaul, but the
reverse would also have been obvious as link imbalance can
occur in any direction. The situation can occur that the BS may
assign too much backhaul and the resource would sit idle.
Conversely, changing the rule from backhaul to relay would
increase the ability of the relay station to schedule during those
frames.
Answer 3 (citing Kim paragraphs 59, 64 and 75).
3
Appeal 2015-007568
Application 13/076,698
Appellants contend:
the answer concludes that Kim teaches that “subframes are
changed from access link to the backhaul link.” Answer at 2
(emphasis in original). The citations provided by the Answer do
not support this conclusion. All of the cited portions of Kim, and
indeed the general disclosure, are directed to HARQ operations,
as opposed to changing subframes from the access link to the
backhaul link. See, e.g., Kim || [0059]—[0064],
Reply Brief 3.
Appellants further contend “Kim describes semi-static assignment of
radio resources for downlink backhaul transmissions, see Answer at 2, as
opposed to uplink transmissions between a mobile station (MS) and the RS.”
Reply Brief 3 (footnote omitted).
We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. The Examiner’s finding
does not support the Examiner’s assertions that Kim actually discloses
“selecting one of the identified subframes to be used for a transmission
between the relay node and a wireless terminal on the first frequency” in
spite of Kim’s omission.1 Horn does not address Kim’s deficiency. See
Appeal Brief 13—14. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claims 1 and 22, as well as, dependent claims 2—17
and 23—38.
Appellants argue the obviousness rejection of independent claims 18
and 39 is improper because the combination fails to disclose “transmitting
information indicating the ranking to the relay node” as required by claim
1 “[R]ejecti°ns on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR Int ’l, Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
4
Appeal 2015-007568
Application 13/076,698
18, and similarly recited in claim 39. Appeal Brief 15. Appellants argue the
citation of Mischel does not address the noted deficiency of Huawei
because:
The cited portion of Mischel merely indicates that an HH-r
message transmitted by a relay node (RN) to a donor eNodeB
(d-eNB) may include “information that the RN would prefer using
PRBb over PRBa.” [paragraph 83] (emphasis added). The cited
paragraph does not disclose the d-eNB transmitting any
information indicating a ranking to the relay node. Indeed, there
would be no reason for the d-eNB to transmit the information
indicating that the RN prefers using PRBb over PRBa to the RN,
as the RN was the component that originally provided that
information to the d-eNB in the first place. Thus, assuming for
the sake of argument that Mischel discloses “obtaining a ranking
of the subframes,” the cited portion of Mischel does not also
disclose “transmitting information indicating the ranking to the
relay node” (emphasis added) as recited by Claim 18.
Consequently, the proposed Huawei-Mischel combination also
fails to disclose this element of Claim 18.
Appeal Brief 15.
We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive and reverse the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 18 and 39, as
well as, dependent claims 19—21 and 40-42.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—42 are reversed.
REVERSED
5