Ex Parte Wilhelmsson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 10, 201814400681 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 14/400,681 02/21/2015 Leif Wilhelmsson 1200-044 5160 120491 7590 01/12/2018 Leffler Intellectual Property Law, PLLC 2010 Corporate Ridge Suite 700 McLean, VA 22102 EXAMINER MURILLO GARCIA, FABRICIO R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2633 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/12/2018 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): info @ leffleriplaw .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LEIF WILHELMSSON, GABOR FODOR, and BENGT LINDOFF Appeal 2017-007343 Application 14/400,681 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-007343 Application 14/400,681 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1 and 3-18. Claim 2 was cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added): 1. A method of a first wireless communication device adapted to perform device-to-device communication and involved in device-to-device communication with a third wireless communication device, the method comprising: determining an interference criterion associated with a second wireless communication device which causes interference to the device-to-device communication; transmitting, to a network node, an interference management request message related to the interference criterion; and receiving information regarding an adjustment being made at the second wireless communication device or at the third wireless communication device. App. Br. 19 (Claims Appendix). Rejection on Appeal1 The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Geirhofer et al. (US 2012/0044815 Al; published 1 The header of the rejection indicates that claims 1 and 3-16 were rejected, but the body of the rejection makes clear that this is an apparent typographical error, and that claims 17 and 18 were also rejected. See Final Act. 3, 10-11. 2 Appeal 2017-007343 Application 14/400,681 Feb. 23, 2012) (“Geirhofer”) and Hugl et al. (US 2009/0325625 Al; published Dec. 31, 2009) (“Hugl”).2 Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious? PRINCIPLES OF LAW A claim under examination is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the underlying specification. See In re American Acad, of Science Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In the absence of an express definition of a claim term in the specification or a clear disclaimer of scope, the claim term is interpreted as broadly as the ordinary usage of the term by one of ordinary skill in the art would permit. See In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. See Super Guide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The mere existence of differences between the prior art and the claim does not establish non-obviousness. See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230 (1976). Instead, the relevant question is “whether the difference between the prior art and the subject matter in question is a [difference] 2 The patentability of claims 3-18 is not separately argued from that of claim 1. See App. Br. 9. Thus, except for our ultimate decision, claims 3-18 are not discussed further herein. 3 Appeal 2017-007343 Application 14/400,681 sufficient to render the claimed subject matter unobvious to one skilled in the applicable art.” Dann, 425 U.S. at 228 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Indeed, the Supreme Court made clear that when considering obviousness, “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ contention that the Examiner erred. Instead, we concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35U.S.C. § 103(a) because: Geirhofer [discloses] a peer-to-peer (“P2P”) device detecting interference from WAN devices or other P2P devices, and sending some information relating thereto to the WAN. However, Geirhofer neither discloses nor hints that information regarding an adjustment made at WAN devices or at other device is communicated to the P2P device. The Office rightly acknowledges that Geirhofer lacks at least this feature, but alleges that Hugl makes up for this deficiency. Appellants respectfully disagree for at least the following reasons. Hugl’s technology is concerned with allowing a device-to-device (D2D) link between two devices to operate concurrently with an uplink (UL) signal transmitted from another User Equipment (UE) to a Base Station (BS). To achieve this, the BS determines the interference that the D2D link adds to the UL signal from the UE to the BS. If the interference is relatively too high, so that, 4 Appeal 2017-007343 Application 14/400,681 for example, the Bit Error Rate (BER) is too high, then the BS either sends a command to the participants in the D2D link, instructing one or both of them to reduce their transmit power, or the BS sends a command to the UE instructing it to boost its transmit power. No other signaling of relevance to Appellants' claims is disclosed. Looking at each of the possibilities shown in Hugl, one first sees that if a power reduction command is sent to one or both of the devices engaged in the D2D link, there is absolutely no need to send information to the UE about this - it will reap the benefit of lower interference levels without having to take any steps. Consequently, Hugl does not disclose any such information being sent to the UE (or to the other, non-instructed D2D device, in case only one of the devices is instructed to reduce its transmission power). By similar reasoning, if a power increase command is sent from the BS to the UE (i.e., so that the BS will be better able to “hear” the UE), there is no need to inform the participants in the D2D link about this. App. Br. 10 (Appellants’ citations and emphasis omitted; panel’s emphasis added); see also App. Br. 11-17; see also Reply Br. 1-18. This argument is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 merely recites “information regarding an adjustment,” and does not specify what type of adjustment information (e.g., power transmit level adjustment information). See Ans. 3. Further, Appellants’ Specification also does not define or otherwise specify what “information regarding an adjustment” includes. See, e.g., Spec. 27:23-25. Thus, as the Examiner correctly found, the claimed “information regarding an adjustment” reads on any information received by a device regarding an adjustment made at another device. See Ans. 3. We also agree with the Examiner that the claim limitation “adjustment being made at the second wireless communication device or at the third wireless communication device” only requires an 5 Appeal 2017-007343 Application 14/400,681 adjustment to a single device due to the use of the term “or” in the claim. See id. Thus, we agree with Examiner that Hughs disclosure of a base station sending power control update commands to a first user equipment and a second user equipment teaches or suggests the claimed “receiving information regarding an adjustment being made at the second wireless communication device or at the third wireless communication device.” See Final Act. 4-5 (citing Hugl ^ 100); see also Hugl ^ 59. This is because Hugl discloses that the base station sends the two power control update commands as a coordinated power control update of the device-to-device connection between the two wireless communication devices (see Hugl ^ 59), and thus, a power control update command received by the first wireless communication device is also information regarding a power control update being made at the second wireless communication device (and vice-versa). We have considered Appellants’ other arguments, and we do not find them persuasive either. See App. Br. 11-17; see also Reply Br. 1-18. Therefore, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1 and 3-18 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) Claims 1 and 3-18 are not patentable. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3-18 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 6 Appeal 2017-007343 Application 14/400,681 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation