Sprint Spectrum L.P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 27, 2020

2019002067 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2020)

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.
14/828,298 08/17/2015 Daniel S. Broyles 11048 2349
28005 7590 05/27/2020
Sprint Spectrum L.P.
6391 Sprint Parkway
KSOPHT0101-Z2100
Overland Park, KS 66251
EXAMINER
YOUNG, STEVE R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2020 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):
6450patdocs@sprint.com
docketing@mbhb.com
steven.j.funk@sprint.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DANIEL S. BROYLES and ROGER D. BARTLETT

Appeal 2019-002067
Application 14/828,298
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before: GREGG I. ANDERSON, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–20, which are all of the pending claims.1 See
Appeal Br. 5–27; Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. The Appellant identifies Sprint Spectrum L.P., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Sprint Corporation, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002067
Application 14/828,298

2
Introduction
The Specification explains that in prior art wireless communication
systems, when a base station provides “carrier aggregation,”2 scenarios may
arise that result in inefficient use of available bandwidth. See Spec. 4–5. To
address such scenarios, the invention provides a method to provide service
to user equipment (UE) via a particular carrier from multiple carriers that a
base station supports, based on varying capabilities of different UEs to be
served by different carriers. See id. at 7–9.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method operable by a base station, wherein the
base station is configured to provide wireless communication
service on a plurality of radio frequency (RF) carriers, each
carrier defining a plurality of physical resource blocks for
carrying data, the method comprising:
serving, by the base station, a plurality of user equipment
devices (UEs) including a first UE and a second UE;
during the serving, detecting that a load level on a first
RF carrier of the plurality of RF carriers remains higher than a
threshold load level for at least a threshold amount of time;
making a first determination that the first UE (i) is being
served by the base station on the first RF carrier and (ii) is
capable of being served by the base station on a second RF
carrier of the plurality of RF carriers;
making a second determination that the second UE (i) is
being served by the base station on the first RF carrier and (ii)
is incapable of being served by the base station on the second
RF carrier;

2 “With carrier aggregation service, multiple carriers . . . are aggregated
together as ‘component carriers’ to increase the overall bandwidth available
per slot by providing a greater extent of air interface resources in which the
base station can schedule uplink and downlink communication.” Spec. 4.
Appeal 2019-002067
Application 14/828,298

3
responsive to at least the detecting, the first
determination, and the second determination, reducing a
number of resource blocks on the first RF carrier that are
available for allocation by the base station to the first UE; and
serving, by the base station, the first UE on the first RF
carrier using at most the reduced number of resource blocks
available for allocation to the first UE.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).
The Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, and 6–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Aksu (US 9,516,549 B1; Dec. 6, 2016) and Li et al. (US
2016/0249222 A1; Aug. 25, 2016, (“Li”). Final Act. 3–15.
The Examiner rejected claim 2 under § 103 as obvious over Aksu, Li,
and Fong et al. (US 2013/0322370 A1; Dec. 5, 2013) (“Fong”). Final Act.
16–17.
The Examiner rejected claim 3 under § 103 as obvious over Aksu, Li,
Fong, and Ishikura et al. (US 2013/0208615 A1; Aug. 15, 201) (“Ishikura”).
Final Act. 17–18.
The Examiner rejected claim 5 under § 103 as obvious over Aksu, Li,
and Aksu et al. (US 2014/0185526 A1; July 3, 2014) (“Aksu II”). Final Act.
18–19.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner relies on Aksu for,
inter alia,3 teaching “responsive to at least the detecting, the first
determination, and the second determination, reducing a number of resource

3 We reverse the Examiner based on a dispositive issue and do not address
all findings and arguments.
Appeal 2019-002067
Application 14/828,298

4
blocks on the first RF carrier that are available for allocation by the base
station to the first UE” (hereafter, “the disputed limitation”) as recited in
claim 1 and as commensurately recited in claims 10 and 18. Final Act. 3–4
(citing Aksu 8:1–26) (claim 1), 8 (claim 10), 12–14 (claim 18). Appellant
contends the Examiner errs in this finding, arguing the cited discussion of
load balancing in Aksu is silent on (and would not suggest) the specific
requirements recited by the disputed limitation. Appeal Br. 9.
The Examiner responds that Aksu, when load balancing, “will move
load from a first carrier to a second carrier such that the first carrier’s load is
reduced and the second carrier’s load is increased.” Ans. 24. Thus, the
Examiner explains, any blocks allocated for a UE are “removed from
allocation” when that UE is transferred away as a result of load balancing,
i.e., it thereby teaches “reducing the number of resource blocks on the first
RF carrier that are available for allocation by the base station to the first
UE,” as recited by the disputed limitation. Id. at 24–25. Appellant replies
by contending that “moving load from a first carrier to a second carrier”
when load balancing, as taught by Aksu, is inapposite to the disputed
limitation. Reply Br. 6–7.
Appellant’s argument is persuasive. We agree with Appellant that,
based on antecedent relationships, the terms recited in the disputed limitation
interrelate with other claim requirements such that the disputed limitation
“involve[s] the first UE being served on the first carrier and the base station
continuing to serve the first UE on the first carrier after having reduced the
number of resource blocks available.” Id. In particular, claim 10 requires
that, after the disputed limitation has been performed, the first carrier
continues serving the first UE using “the limited number of resource blocks”
Appeal 2019-002067
Application 14/828,298

5
set by the disputed limitation. Similarly, the disputed limitation of claim 1
“reduc[es],” but does not discontinue, the “number of resource blocks on the
first RF carrier.” By mapping the disputed limitation’s first UE to a UE in
Aksu that has been “load balanced” off the first carrier, however, the base
station in Aksu discontinues serving the UE on the first carrier. See Aksu,
3:36–40 (“For example, if a first carrier is relatively overloaded, while a
second carrier is relatively underutilized, load balancer 112 may output an
instruction to base station 110 to hand over one or more user devices 105,
connected to the first carrier, to the second carrier.”) (emphasis added). The
rejection’s rationale for combining Li with Aksu (“to improve spectrum
efficiency”) does not cures this defect (e.g., by explaining how or why an
artisan of ordinary skill, based on Li, would have modified Aksu’s load-
balancing disclosure as necessary to). Thus, Appellant persuades us of
Examiner error in the rejection of the independent claims.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the
independent claims 1, 10, and 18. We also, therefore, do not sustain the
§ 103 rejections of their dependent claims 2–9, 11–17, 19, and 20.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 6–20 103 Aksu, Li 1, 4, 6–20
2 103 Aksu, Li, Fong 2
3 103 Aksu, Li, Fong, Ishikura 3
5 103 Aksu, Li, Aksu II 5
Overall
Outcome
1–20
REVERSED