Ex Parte VAN BUSSEL et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 24, 201914418479 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/418,479 01/30/2015 95683 7590 05/29/2019 Ley dig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900 180 North Stetson Avenue Chicago, IL 60601-6731 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Han VANBUSSEL 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. 814759 7905 EXAMINER JIA,XIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2667 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): chgpatent@leydig.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HAN VAN BUSSEL and AXEL KLATT Appeal2017-006400 Application 14/418,4 79 Technology Center 2600 Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 13, constituting all claims pending in the current application. Oral arguments were heard on April 17, 2019. A transcript of the hearing ("Tr.") will be placed in the record in due course. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal2017-006400 Application 14/418,479 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to a method, user equipment, and base transceiver station for enabling lawful interception in a telecommunications network. Spec. ,r,r 2-3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for enabling lawful interception in a telecommunications network, the telecommunications network comprising a core network and an access network, wherein a user equipment, camping on the telecommunications network, is enabled for device to device communlcatlon, wherein the access network of the telecommunications network comprises a base transceiver station, wherein the user equipment is connected to the base transceiver station and the base transceiver station is enabled for allowing the user equipment to conduct device to device communication, wherein the user equipment is subjected to a lawful interception observation, the method comprising: receiving, by the base transceiver station, a request from the user equipment to conduct a device to device communication; and sending, by the base transceiver station, a first message to the user equipment, wherein the first message comprises the indication of a permission to conduct a direct or proximity device to device communication not routed through the base transceiver station by the user equipment, wherein either the first message or a second message sent from the base transceiver station to the user equipment comprises a transmission power information, wherein the transmission power information indicates the value of a minimum transmission power of the user equipment for conducting the direct or proximity device to device communication, such that the transmission power of the user equipment is set high enough by the user equipment to allow reception of the direct or proximity device to device communication at the base transceiver station. 2 Appeal2017-006400 Application 14/418,479 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 5, 8, and 13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Broustis et al. (US 2013/0290696 Al; published Oct. 31, 2013)("Broustis") and Lei et al. (US 2015/0094064 Al; published Apr. 2, 2015) ("Lei"). Claim 4 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Broustis, Lei, and Vasudevan et al. (US 2013/0322345 Al; published Dec. 5, 2013) ("Vasudevan"). ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Broustis and Lei teaches or suggests "a direct or proximity device to device communication not routed through the base transceiver station, wherein either the first message or a second message sent from the base transceiver station to the user equipment comprises a transmission power information, wherein the transmission power information indicates the value of a minimum transmission power of the user equipment for conducting the direct or proximity device to device communication, such that the transmission power of the user equipment is set high enough by the user equipment to allow reception of the direct or proximity device to device communication at the base transceiver station," as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 5, 8, and 13? The Examiner finds Broustis teaches or suggests the entirety of the disputed limitation, except that the Examiner finds Lei expressly teaches or suggests "a direct or proximity device to device communication not routed through the base transceiver station." Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Broustis ,r,r 72, 3 Appeal2017-006400 Application 14/418,479 67, 68, Figs. 1, 3, Lei ,r 24, Fig. 1). In the Answer, the Examiner finds in Broustis, the "communication link between Alice and Bob is a device to device communication" and "information for setting up the link or channel goes through the base transceiver station before the device to device communication starts." See Ans. 6-9 (citing Broustis Fig. lB, Fig. 3, 312, ,r,r 23, 28, 66, 68, 70. Appellants argue "the combination of Broutsis' SeProSe system (see Broustis [0029]-[0082]) with the teaching of [device to device] communications that are not routed through a base station is improper because Broustis explicitly teaches away from such combination." App. Br. 7. According to Appellants, "[ o ]ne of ordinary skill in the art thus would not have modified the SeProSe system of Broustis [0029]-[0082] based on Lei or based on the Pro Se system at Broustis [0023]-[0028]." App. Br. 7. Appellants argue the Examiner relies on hindsight, because although Broustis "mentions a[ base station] controlling transmission power to allow the [base station] to decode signals communicated from one device to another, the [base station] only does so in the context of the SeProSe system of Broustis where the communications between the two devices are routed through the [base station] and the [base station] is integrally part of the communications." App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 4. Appellants argue "[t]he solution of using the eNB as a relay is contrary to the claimed invention, which recites a direct or proximity device to device communications that is not routed through the base transceiver station." Reply Br. 4. Appellants argue that when lawful interception is desired or needed, Broustsis relays the communications between the UEs through the base station so that there is no direct communication between the UEs. See Tr. 5-7. Appellants argue 4 Appeal2017-006400 Application 14/418,479 there is a "departure from the normal ProSe communication between Alice and Bob" when lawful interception is needed. Tr. 9. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Broustis is generally directed to "establishing secure communications between computing devices utilizing proximity services [Pro Se] in a communication system." Broustis Abstract. As used in Broustis, "ProSe communications" refers to communications between computing devices ( e.g., Alice and Bob) that are in proximity to one another, so that user traffic flows between the devices rather than via the network. Broustis ,r,r 19, 23, 24, 26; see also Tr. 15-16. However, because Alice and Bob communicate directly, the network is incapable of performing functionalities that enable lawful interception ("LI"). Broustis ,r 28. Broustis seeks to remedy this problem by providing a mechanism (referred to as SeProSe) so that lawful interception is feasible in ProSe settings. Broustis ,r,r 28-31. Broustis explains "[i]n order to make user tracking by the [base station] as well as LI feasible, embodiments of the invention provide a channel feedback mechanism with which Alice's and Bob's signals are transmitted strong enough so that they can be decoded by the [base station(s)] to which they are attached." Broustis ,r 65 (emphasis added). Specifically, Alice and Bob "do not exchange channel (and other control) information directly, but through the network infrastructure," and not through the ProSe communication. Broustis ,r 66. Therefore, Alice and Bob receive their channel information and parameters from the base station, which allows them to exchange traffic. Broustis ,r 67. Examples of parameter information are transmission power and PHY bit rate. Broustis ,r 67. "[T]he [base station] informs Alice that she should use a specific 5 Appeal2017-006400 Application 14/418,479 transmission power ... for transmitting packets to Bob." Broustis ,r 67. Doing so "enables the network operator to provision ProSe communication parameters to Alice and Bob, such that the [base station] is able to overhear ProSe communications." Broustis ,r 68. "Specifically, when the [base station] informs Alice about Bob's channel feedback information, the [base station] may convey ProSe communication parameters such that: (a) Alice and Bob can use the parameters to successfully establish and maintain ProSe communication; and (b) the [base station] is able to overhear the communication between Alice and Bob." Broustis ,r 68 (emphasis added). Broutsis differentiates between ProSe communications generally ( e.g., traffic) and communication of communication parameters. E.g., Broustis ,r,r 28, 31, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, Fig. 3. Broustis also indicates that the parameters ( e.g., transmission power, PHY bit rate) allow the associated base station to overhear Pro Se traffic. See, e.g., Broustis ,r 31 ( emphasis added) ("SeProSe includes a mechanism as per which the ProSe-capable UE transmits traffic using a transmission power level ... such that the associated network can successfully overhear ProSe traffic. Note that such a transmission mode clearly enables the support of LI, since the network now obtains the ability to access the data exchanged directly between UEs "); ,r 65 ( emphasis added) ("[i]n order to make ... LI feasible, embodiments of the invention provide a channel feedback mechanism with which Alice's and Bob's signals are transmitted strong enough so that they can be decoded by the [base station] to which they are attached.") While we understand Appellants' arguments, we are not persuaded they are supported by the disclosure in Broustis. Broutsis does not explicitly indicate that there is a departure from normal ProSe communication or that 6 Appeal2017-006400 Application 14/418,479 communications ( as opposed to communication parameters) are relayed through the base station when lawful interception is needed. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that Broutsis indicates "that only the channel information goes through the [base station] before the Pro Se link is setup ... [and] [t]he data communication between Alice ... and Bob ... will start after the device to device communication is set up." Ans. 7; see also Ans. 8; see Broustis Fig. 3. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Broustis indicates that the network may provision ProSe communication parameters (e.g., transmission power) "to Alice and Bob, such that the [base station] is able to overhear ProSe communications [between Alice and Bob]." Ans. 9 ( citing Broustis ,r 68). At the hearing, Appellants relied upon certain passages in paragraphs 69, 72, and 7 5 of Broustis to support their arguments that the base station is used as a relay. See Tr. 6-8, 12, 16-17. However, based on the explicit disclosure in Broustis, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings with respect to the disputed limitations as our own. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that the combination of Broustis and Lei teaches or suggests "a direct or proximity device to device communication not routed through the base transceiver station," (e.g., Broustis as discussed above and Lei, Fig. 1, ,r 24 ), "wherein either the first message or a second message sent from the base transceiver station to the user equipment comprises a transmission power information," (e.g., Broustis ,r,r 66-69, 72), "wherein the transmission power information indicates the value of a minimum transmission power of the user equipment for conducting the direct or proximity device to device communication, such that the transmission power of the user equipment is set high enough by the user equipment to allow reception of the direct or proximity device to device 7 Appeal2017-006400 Application 14/418,479 communication at the base transceiver station," ( e.g., Broustis ,r,r 65, 67, 68)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 5, 8, and 13, and, for the same reasons, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 4, not argued separately (App. Br. 8). DECISION The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 13 is affirmed. 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 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation