Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

13106598 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/106,598 05/12/2011
74365 7590 09/26/2016
Slater Matsil, LLP
17950 Preston Road, Suite 1000
Dallas, TX 75252
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Liqing Zhang
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.
HW 82986882US02 5630
EXAMINER
TRANDAI, CINDY HUYEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 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):
uspatent@huawei.com
docketing@slatermatsil.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LIQING ZHANG, JIANGLEI MA, and ZHIJUN CHAO
Appeal2015-006938
Application 13/106,598
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-19 and 21-23.
We have reviewed Appellants' contentions in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
contentions. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner errs
in finding the combination ofNecker (US 2009/0081955 Al; March 26,
2009) and Viero (US 2005/0245266 Al; Nov. 3; 2005) teaches or suggests
the claimed invention's determining of frequency reuse modes based on an
interference level at a communications controller as recited in independent
claim 1.
Appeal2015-006938
Application 13/106,598
The Examiner finds Necker's interference graph teaches or suggests
the claimed interference level at a communications controller. Final Act. 3;
see also Ans. 4--5. Appellants contend:
Necker merely discloses calculating an interference graph for
interference relations between mobile terminals (i.e., the asserted
communications devices), not communications controllers,
according to interference at the mobile terminals, again, not
communications controllers. For example, Necker discloses "an
interference graph is calculated, where the mobile terminals are
the vertices and the edges represent critical interference relations
in-between mobile terminals" and "an interference graph whose
nodes represent the mobile terminals, and whose edges represent
critical interference relations in-between the [mobile] terminals"
(Necker para. [0009] and [0044], emphasis added). Necker
further teaches an interference graph, which "represents critical
interference relations among mobile terminals," not base
stations, and "if two mobile terminals in different cells have a
critical relation, they may not be served on the same
frequency/time resource" (Necker para. [0034], emphasis
added). Therefore, Necker consistently discloses an interference
graph plotting interference relations for mobile terminals based
on interference at the mobile terminals, and Necker fails to teach
or suggest generating an interference graph in accordance with
the interference level at one or more base stations.
App. Br. 6.
We agree with Appellants (App. Br. 6) that Necker's interference
graph is not described as pertaining to interference at the "serving base
station" mapped by the rejection to the claimed communications controller;
but rather described as pertaining to interference at mobile terminals served
by the base station. The Examiner shows only that Necker teaches the
serving base stations as each determining interference parameters forming
the interference graph. Ans. 4--5; see also Necker i-f 9 (describing formation
of the graph). But as indicated by Appellants, Necker describes such
2
Appeal2015-006938
Application 13/106,598
interference parameters as either: ( 1) based on interference measured at
mobile stations, which report the measurements to their serving base station
or (2) simulated based on such prior measurements. See e.g., supra (above
block quote); see also Necker i-fi-1 6-8. Thus, the Examiner has not shown
Necker's relied upon interference measurements (reported to base stations
and converted to the interference parameters by base stations) are generated
in accordance with the interference level at the base station. Thus, the
Examiner has not shown Necker' s determining of frequency reuse modes is
based on an interference level at a base station.
The Examiner also newly finds that, "[i]n addition to the teaching of
Necker, Vrzic [US 2009/0061778 Al; March 5, 2009] and Yoshii
[US 2010/0222003 Al; Sept. 2, 2010] also teach ... frequency reuse modes
chang[ing] based on the interference between adjacent (neighbor) cells/base
stations[.]" Ans. 5 (citing Vrzic i-fi-154---65; Yoshii i-fi-160-76). Appellants
argue: "Vrzic discloses FFR [Fractional Frequency Reuse] modes are
selected in accordance with the number of mobile terminals exceeding a CQI
[Channel Quality Indicators] threshold[; t]hat is, ... based on CQI at mobile
terminals." Reply Br. 4 (emph. added; citing Vrzic i-fi-133, 43). And, as
further indicated by Appellants: "Yoshii discloses transmission modes are
selected based on interference at UEs [User Equipment] in adjacent cells
(see Yoshii para. [0065] and [0066])." Reply Br. 6 (emphasis added);
accord Y oshii Fig. 7, i171. We have reviewed the cited sections of Vrzic
and Yoshi, and in the absence of further explanation by the Examiner,
determine the Examiner fails to provide sufficient findings to establish either
Vrzic or Yoshi teach determining a frequency reuse model based on
interference levels at the communication controller.
3
Appeal2015-006938
Application 13/106,598
For the reasons stated above, Appellants persuade us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1. The Examiner does not find the additional
references of record teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of: (i)
independent claim 1; (ii) independent claims 12 and 15, which recite
limitations similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1 and which were
rejected on the same basis; and (iii) the remaining claims, which depend
from claims 1, 12, or 15.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-19 and 21-23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
4