Ex Parte Sahlin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

14130596 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/130,596 01/02/2014 Henrik Sahlin
24112 7590 07/31/2018
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
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.
4015-8756 I P34653-US1 4204
EXAMINER
ZHANG, ZHENSHENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2474
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HENRIK SAHLIN, DAVID ENGDAL, ANDERS PERSSON,
and YI-PIN ERIC WANG
Appeal 2017-011301
Application 14/130,596
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 16-18, 21, 22, and 25-30. Claims 19,
20, 23, and 24 have been canceled. See App. Br. 10-12 (Claims App'x).
We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget
LM Ericsson. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-011301
Application 14/130,596
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to "a user terminal arranged
for communication with at least one node in a wireless network" to "provide
enhanced wireless communication between nodes and user terminals, where
the available frequency spectrum is utilized in a more efficient manner."
Spec. 1:9-10, 2:21-23. Claim 16, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
16. A user terminal configured for communication with at
least one node in a wireless communication network that is
configured to transmit signals and receive signals simultaneously
at a first frequency interval, the user terminal being configured
to:
measure interference levels from at least one other user
terminal when said other user terminal is transmitting signals, the
measured interference levels being comprised in measurement
data; and
transfer the measurement data to said node at certain
times, wherein the transferred measurement data enables said
node to schedule transmission of signals and reception of signals
between the node and each user terminal that communicates via
said node such that each user terminal that communicates via said
node either transmits signals to said node at the first frequency
interval or receives signals from said node at the first frequency
interval, and wherein the node is configured to transmit signals
and receive signals simultaneously at the first frequency interval.
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Krenik et al. US 2004/0077356 Al Apr. 22, 2004
(hereinafter "Krenik")
Kim et al. US 2007/0191062 Al Aug. 16, 2007
(hereinafter "Kim")
2
Appeal 2017-011301
Application 14/130,596
Lee et al.
(hereinafter "Lee")
US 2009/0005094 Al Jan. 1, 2009
Rejections
Claims 16, 17, 21, 22, and 25-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee and Kim. Final
Act. 5-10.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Lee, Kim, and Krenik. Final Act. 10-
11.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the combination of Lee and Kim fails to teach or
suggest "transfer the measurement data to said node at certain times,
wherein the transferred measurement data enables said node to schedule
transmission of signals and reception of signals between the node and each
user terminal that communicates via said node," as recited in claim 16. App.
Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 1-5. Appellants argue although Lee teaches a base
station determines a bandwidth for communication between user equipment
(UE) in a peer-to-peer (P2P) communication network based on interference
levels measured by the two devices, Lee does not teach or suggest "that the
base station performs any time scheduling for the P2P signal
transmission/reception between the UEs, let alone for communications
between the base station and either of the UEs," as required by claim 16.
App. Br. 6 (citing Lee ,r,r 41--47). According to Appellants, Kim teaches
"known techniques for scheduling simultaneous uplink and downlink
communication, over a same frequency, between a base station (BS) and
multiple mobile stations (MSs) through utilization of spatial diversity
between base station antennas." App. Br. 7 (citing Kim, Fig. 9; ,r,r 68-74).
3
Appeal 2017-011301
Application 14/130,596
Appellants argue "Kim is completely silent regarding any basis whatsoever
for the scheduling. Instead, Kim merely states that a first mobile station
'receives a signal carrying time assignment information from the BS and
performs data detection and decoding according to the received signal."'
App. Br. 7 ( citing Kim ,r 71 ).
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Appellants'
argument that Lee does not teach or suggest that the base station performs
any time scheduling for the P2P signal transmission/reception between the
UEs or for communications between the base station and either of the UEs,
as required by claim 16 (App. Br. 6), is not persuasive because the Examiner
relies on Kim, not Lee, for teaching these limitations. Ans. 4; see also Kim
,r,r 38, 40. Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that Lee teaches "in a
conventional approach, in order for two MSs to communicate with each
other, the two MSs establish connections with the BS, and UpLink (UL) and
DownLink (DL) radio resources are allocated by the BS in both frequency
and time" and, therefore, also teaches or suggests the disputed limitations.
Ans. 2 ( citing Lee, Fig. 1; ,r 5) ( emphasis omitted).
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument (App. Br. 7), that
Kim fails to teach or suggest any basis for performing the scheduling,
because the Examiner relies upon Lee, not Kim, for teaching or suggesting
transferring the claimed measurement data to the node (Ans. 2-3). In
particular, the Examiner finds Lee teaches measuring, by a mobile station,
interference levels generated by signals of a neighboring mobile station and
transmitting a message including interference information ( e.g.,
measurement data) to a base station at certain times. Ans. 2-3; Final Act. 5
( citing Lee ,r,r 83, 84, and 99). The Examiner finds Lee further teaches that
4
Appeal 2017-011301
Application 14/130,596
the base station uses the interference information to select a transmission
band and transmits information regarding the selected transmission band to
the mobile stations for use in peer-to-peer communication. Ans. 3 ( citing
Lee ,r 45). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes the
combination of Lee and Kim teaches or suggests "transfer[ ring] the
measurement data to said node at certain times, wherein the transferred
measurement data enables said node to schedule transmission of signals and
reception of signals between the node and each user terminal that
communicates via said node," as recited in claim 16. Appellants' arguments
do not persuasively address the combined teachings of the references and,
therefore, are unpersuasive of error.
Appellants further contend the combination of Lee and Kim is
improper. App. Br. 7. In particular, Appellants argue:
[U]nlike the P2P frequency scheduling of Lee, the
scheduling of Kim is (a) for communication between a base
station and multiple mobile stations, (b) does not include
frequency information whatsoever, and ( c) is not based on
measurement data transferred from one or more UEs ( or MSs ).
Despite these substantial differences, however, the Office Action
takes the position that the pending independent claims are
obvious over the cited art simply because Lee discloses
frequency resource scheduling for UE-UE communication and
Kim discloses time division duplex (TDD) and space time duplex
(SDD) scheduling for UE-BS communication. As would be
understood by one or ordinary skill in the art, however,
modifying the P2P communication scheduling technique of Lee
with the general UE-BS communication scheduling technique
would simply not result in the invention defined by the presently
pending independent claims.
App. Br. 7. Appellants further argue "the cited prior art does not provide
any reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious
5
Appeal 2017-011301
Application 14/130,596
to modify a technique for scheduling UE-UE communications with an
unrelated technique for scheduling communication between a BS and
multiple UEs." App. Br. 7.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. "[I]f a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
her skill." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007). Here,
the Examiner finds "both Lee and Kim deal with problems of
communications between MSs" and "the concept of scheduling between two
MSs taught by Lee can also be easily applied to scheduling between MS and
BS since [Lee teaches] it is the BS who conducts the scheduling." Ans. 5.
The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to
combine the teachings of Lee and Kim "to efficiently utilize the same
spectrum." Final Act. 7 (citing Kim ,r 37); see also Ans. 3, 5. As such, the
Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as
to why one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to combine the
teachings of Lee and Kim. The Examiner's findings are reasonable because
the skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
together like pieces of a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is "a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton." See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420,421.
Appellants do not present evidence persuasive to show that the resulting
arrangement was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill
in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." See
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
6
Appeal 2017-011301
Application 14/130,596
2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Accordingly, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in combining Lee and Kim.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 16 and claims 17, 18, 21, 22, and 25-30, which are not
separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 8.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 16-18, 21, 22, and 25-
30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7