Ex Parte Persson et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 24, 2019

13883410 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/883,410 05/03/2013
6449 7590 05/29/2019
ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
607 14th Street, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
Anders Persson
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.
3602-629 1071
EXAMINER
ONAMUTI, GBEMILEKE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2019 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 ANDERS PERSSON, ROLAND CARLSSON, and
HENRIK SAHL IN 1
Appeal2017-009253
Application 13/883,4102
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson ("Appellant") is the Applicant as
provided in 37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 The application on appeal has an effective filing date of April 26, 2013.
Therefore, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) amendments to the
U.S. Code(§§ 102, 103) are applicable. See Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure ("MPEP") § 2159.02 (The amended sections "apply to any patent
application that contains or contained at any time a claim to a claimed
invention that has an effective filing date that is on or after March 16,
2013.").
Appeal2017-009253
Application 13/883,410
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-22, 24, 25, and 29-34. Claims 23 and
26 have been canceled. Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 2. 3,4 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral Hearing was held on April 23, 2019.
We reverse.
Appellant's Invention
The invention at issue on appeal relates generally to "mobile
communication networks, and particularly to a method, a user equipment
[(node)] and a computer program [(computer program encoded in a
computer-readable medium)] for configuring a communications link in a
mobile communication network." Spec. 1 :3-5; see also Spec. 1 :24--4:5;
Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method for configuring a communications link, the
method being performed by a network node functional unit,
comprising the steps of:
3 Claims 1-22, 24, 25, and 27-34 are pending. The Examiner objects to
claims 27 and 28, but indicates these claims include patentable subject
matter. Final Act. 1, 5; Appeal Br. 2.
4 We refer to Appellant's Specification ("Spec.") filed May 3, 2013
(claiming benefit ofEPO PCT/EP2013/058684, filed Apr. 26, 2013); Appeal
Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed Feb. 23, 2017; Supplemental Appeal Brief
("Supp. Appeal Br.") filed Apr. 4, 2017; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed
June 15, 2017. We also refer to the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final
Act.") mailed Aug. 23, 2016; and Answer ("Ans.") mailed Apr. 20, 2017.
2
Appeal2017-009253
Application 13/883,410
wirelessly receiving control signalling from a user
equipment, the control signalling relating to an uplink
communications resource between the user equipment and the
network node functional unit; and
notifying in response to receiving said control signalling
and prior to receiving any user data associated with said
control signalling from said user equipment on said uplink
communications resource, a backhaul client functional unit to
configure the communications link to a backhaul hub, wherein
configuring the communications link includes changing at least
one property of the communications link.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 7-9, 11-13, 17-22, 24, 25, and
29-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Andreozzi et al.
(US 2013/0336200 Al, published Dec. 19, 2013 (filed Mar. 3, 2011))
("Andreozzi") and Pandey (US 8,340,678 Bl, issued Dec. 25, 2012).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 10, and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Andreozzi, Pandey, and Ratasuk et al. (US
2014/0162666 Al, published June 12, 2014 (filed Dec. 6, 2012))
("Ratasuk").
3. The Examiner rejects claims 3---6, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Andreozzi, Pandey, and Shen et al. (US
2010/0272007 Al, published Oct. 28, 2010) ("Shen").
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, Appellant's contentions, and the
Examiner's findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows:
Did the Examiner err in concluding the combination of Andreozzi and
Pandey collectively would have taught or suggested:
3
Appeal2017-009253
Application 13/883,410
notifying in response to receiving said control signalling and
prior to receiving any user data associated with said control
signalling from said user equipment on said uplink
communications resource, a backhaul client functional unit to
configure the communications link to a backhaul hub, wherein
configuring the communications link includes changing at least
one property of the communications link
Claim 1 (Supp. Appeal Br. 3 (Claim App'x)), within the meaning of
Appellant's claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 13, 21, 22,
24, and 25?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 7-9, 11-13, 17-22, 24, 25, and 29-34
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as obvious in view of
Andreozzi and Pandey. See Final Act. 5-8; Ans. 31-36. Appellant contends
that Andreozzi does not disclose the disputed limitations of claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 8-17; Reply Br. 2-6. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter
alia, that the Examiner-cited portions of Andreozzi do not describe the
notification recited in claim !-"notifying in response to receiving said
control signalling ... a backhaul client functional unit to configure the
communications link to a backhaul hub"-because Andreozzi' s "link
scheduling procedure ... merely indicates whether the access link or the
backhaul link (but not both) should be selected for a given relay node,"
which does not teach the notifying process. Appeal Br. 12.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of
Andreozzi (i1i133, 73, 76, 81, 95-see Final Act. 5-8; Ans. 31-36) do not
teach or suggest the disputed notifying step. Instead, as pointed out by
Appellant, the cited portions of Andreozzi describe the so-called notification
4
Appeal2017-009253
Application 13/883,410
occurring "at each Transmission Time Interval ( or TTI) as an automatic part
of running the link scheduling algorithm" rather than occurring in response
to control signaling. Appeal Br. 12-13 (internal quotations omitted) ( citing
Andreozzi ,r 74); see Appeal Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 2--4.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us and
determine that the Examiner erred in concluding that Andreozzi and Pandey
render obvious Appellant's claim 1. Independent claims 13, 21, 22, 24, and
25 include commensurate limitations. Dependent claims 7-9, 11, 12, 17, 19,
20, and 29-34 depend on and stand with claims 1, 13, 21, 22, 24, and 25,
respectively. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 7-9, 11-13, 17, 19-22, 24, 25, and 29-34.
Appellant makes additional contentions with respect to dependent
claim 18. See Appeal Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 6-7. We need not address
Appellant's additional contentions because claim 18 depends from claim 13
and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 13 ( discussed supra).
Accordingly, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 18.
Claims 2-6, 10, and 14-16
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 10, and 14, which depend from claims
1 and 13 (respectively), as obvious in view of Andreozzi, Pandey, and
Ratasuk. See Final Act. 26-28. The Examiner rejects claims 3---6, 15, and
16, which depend from claims 1 and 13 (respectively), as obvious in view of
Andreozzi, Pandey, and Shen. See Final Act. 29-33. The Examiner does
not suggest, and we do not find, that the additional cited references (Ratasuk
or Shen) cure the deficiencies of Andreozzi and Pandey (supra). Therefore,
we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2---6,
5
Appeal2017-009253
Application 13/883,410
10, and 14--16 for the same reasons set forth as their respective base claims
(supra).
CONCLUSIONS
Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-22, 24,
25, and 29-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-22, 24, 25, and 29-
34.
REVERSED
6