Google LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 28, 2021

2020000570 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2021)

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.
15/177,911 06/09/2016 Jibing Wang GOOGLE 3.0F-2777 1063
78792 7590 04/28/2021
GOOGLE
Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP
20 Commerce Drive
Cranford, NJ 07016
EXAMINER
KAVLESKI, RYAN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2412
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2021 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):
eOfficeAction@lernerdavid.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JIBING WANG, TIBOR BOROS,
and JAMES PEROULAS
____________________

Appeal 2020 -000570
Application 15/177,9111
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF and JASON J. CHUNG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1–21.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Google LLC as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 5, 13, 19, and 20 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2020-000570
Application 15/177,911

2
Appellants’ invention is a method of reducing interference arising
from overlap between the timing of a frame structure associated with one
base station-user equipment pair and the timing of a frame structure
associated with a neighboring base station-user equipment pair. Spec. ¶ 2. In
response to determining the synchronization error represented by such a
timing offset value, the inventive method includes sending, from the first
base station to the first user equipment, a timing advance value and
instructions to advance by the timing advance value a window of time
during which the first user equipment transmits uplink signals to the first
base station. Spec. ¶ 3.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:

1. A method for reducing communication interference,
comprising:
determining, at a first base station servicing a first user
equipment, a synchronization error between a timing of a
communication between the first base station and the first user
equipment and a timing of a communication between a second
base station and a second user equipment different from the first
user equipment, wherein the synchronization error is
represented by a timing off set value; and
in response to determining the synchronization error,
sending, from the first base station to the first user equipment, a
timing advance value and instructions to advance by the timing
advance value a window of time during which the first user
equipment transmits uplink signals to the first base station,
Appeal 2020-000570
Application 15/177,911

3
wherein the timing advance value is based on the timing offset
value such that interferences caused by a lack of
synchronization between frame structures of neighboring base
station - user equipment pairs can be reduced or eliminated.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Jalloul et al.
“Jalloul”
US 2010/0215032 A1 Aug. 26, 2010
Novak et al.
“Novak”
US 2014/0241225 A1 Aug. 28, 2014
Kim US 2016/0360463 A1 Dec. 8, 2016
Seo et al.
“Seo”
US 2017/0141859 A1 May 18, 2017

Claims 1–4, 7, 8, 10–13, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Jalloul and Kim.
Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jalloul, Kim, and Seo.
Claims 6, 9, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jalloul, Kim, and Novak.
Claims 18–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Novak, Seo, and Kim.3
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief filed
June 17, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief filed Nov. 1, 2019 (“Reply

3 The Examiner’s Statement of Rejection refers to claims 18–20. Final Act.
8. The explanation of that rejection includes analysis of a rejection of claim
21 over these references. Final Act. 11.
Appeal 2020-000570
Application 15/177,911

4
Br.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed Sept. 4, 2019 (“Ans.”) for their
respective details.
ISSUES
1. Does the combination of Jalloul and Kim teach or suggest
determining a synchronization error between a timing of a communication
between the first base station and the first user equipment and a timing of a
communication between a second base station and a second user equipment
different from the first user equipment?
2. Does the combination of Novak, Seo, and Kim teach or suggest
determining a synchronization error between a timing of a communication
between the first base station and the first user equipment and a timing of a
communication between a second base station and a second user equipment
different from the first user equipment?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–4, 7, 8, 10–13, and 16
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, determining at a first
base station servicing a first user equipment, a synchronization error
between a timing of a communication between the first base station and the
first user equipment and a timing of a communication between a second base
station and a second user equipment different from the first user equipment.
Independent claim 10 recites determining the same synchronization error.
The Examiner finds that Jalloul teaches the claimed determination of
synchronization error. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4. The Examiner cites to Figure 2,
and paragraphs 20, 24, and 25, of Jalloul. Final Act. 3. Figure 2 illustrates
the concept of a timing error between, e.g., DL (downlink) Subframe 210
and DL Subframe 220. Figure 1 of Jalloul is described in paragraph 20,
Appeal 2020-000570
Application 15/177,911

5
which discloses communications between, on the one hand, WiMAX base
station (“BS2”) 110 and mobile station 130, and on the other hand,
Femtocell base station (“BS1”) 120 and mobile station 130. Paragraph 24
discloses that downlink frames occur at different times, owing to the fact
that “the BS1 is not synchronized to the same references (UPS) as the BS2.”
Jalloul ¶ 24. Paragraph 25 discloses the ability to introduce a bias in the
timing of the femtocell base station.
Appellant argues, and we agree, that Jalloul does not teach
determining the error in timing of communication between a first base
station and first user equipment, and a timing of communication between a
second base station and second user equipment different from the first user
equipment. Reply Br. 2. We agree with Appellant that Jalloul teaches BS2
and BS1 communicating with a single mobile station 130. Reply Br. 2;
Jalloul Fig. 1. We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that “the WiMax
base station can service multiple mobile stations” amounts to a disclosure
that Jalloul determines the synchronization error between first base station to
first mobile station communication and second base station to second mobile
station communication. Final Act. 3; Jalloul ¶ 20.
The Examiner does not rely on Kim for a teaching of determining a
synchronization error as recited in claims 1 and 10. We therefore find that
neither Jalloul nor Kim teaches determining a synchronization error as
recited in the independent claims, and consequently that the combination of
Jalloul and Kim fails to teach all the limitations of independent claims 1 and
10. We do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1–4, 7, 8,
10–13, and 16.

Appeal 2020-000570
Application 15/177,911

6
Claims 5 and 14
These claims depend from independent claims 1 and 10, respectively.
As explained supra, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the
independent claims. The Examiner has not identified teachings in Seo that
would remedy the deficiencies we have noted in Jalloul and Kim.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 5
and 14 over Jalloul, Kim, and Seo, for the same reasons given with respect
to claims 1 and 10, supra.
Claims 6, 9, 15, and 17
These claims depend from independent claims 1 and 10, respectively.
As explained supra, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the
independent claims. The Examiner has not identified teachings in Novak that
would remedy the deficiencies we have noted in Jalloul and Kim.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 5
and 14 over Jalloul, Kim, and Seo, for the same reasons given with respect
to claims 1 and 10, supra.
Claims 18–21
Independent claims 18 and 20 recite determining a timing offset
representing a synchronization error between a timing of the communication
signals received from the first base station (by a first user equipment) and a
timing of the communication between the second base station and a second
user equipment different from the first user equipment.
Appellant argues, and we agree, that Novak does not teach
determining the claimed timing offset. Reply Br. 5. In the Final Action and
the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner does not explain how Novak teaches
the two sets of communication claimed, or even identify first and second
Appeal 2020-000570
Application 15/177,911

7
user equipment. We have reviewed Novak paragraphs 78 and 83 cited by the
Examiner, and we do not find support for a finding that Novak teaches the
timing offset determination limitation.
We find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 18–21 as being
unpatentable over Novak, Seo, and Kim. We do not sustain the § 103
rejection.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Jalloul and Kim does not teach or suggest
determining a synchronization error between a timing of a communication
between the first base station and the first user equipment and a timing of a
communication between a second base station and a second user equipment
different from the first user equipment.
2. The combination of Novak, Seo, and Kim does not teach or
suggest determining a synchronization error between a timing of a
communication between the first base station and the first user equipment
and a timing of a communication between a second base station and a
second user equipment different from the first user equipment.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–21 is reversed.

Appeal 2020-000570
Application 15/177,911

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7, 8, 10–
13, 16
103 Jalloul, Kim 1–4, 7, 8, 10–
13, 16
5, 14 103 Jalloul, Kim, Seo 5, 14
6, 9, 15, 17 103 Jalloul, Kim, Novak 6, 9, 15, 17
18–21 103 Novak, Seo, Kim 18–21
Overall
Outcome

1–21

REVERSED