TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 3, 2020

2019004110 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 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.
15/230,792 08/08/2016 Marco Belleschi P47827 US2 9485
27045 7590 11/03/2020
ERICSSON INC.
6300 LEGACY DRIVE
M/S EVR 1-C-11
PLANO, TX 75024
EXAMINER
GHOWRWAL, OMAR J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2020 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):
amber.rodgers@ericsson.com
michelle.sanderson@ericsson.com
pam.ewing@ericsson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MARCO BELLESCHI and STEFANO SORRENTINO
____________________

Appeal 2019-004110
Application 15/230,792
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 through 23. 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). According to Appellant, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson is the
real party-in-interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004110
Application 15/230,792

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method to reduce collisions between
device-to-device (D2D) communication resources and D2D discovery
resources. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is
reproduced below.
1. A method in a wireless device of reducing collisions between
device-to-device (D2D) communication resources and D2D
discovery resources in a wireless communication network, the
method comprising:
obtaining a first plurality of transmission resources, the
first plurality of transmission resources comprising
transmission resources available to the wireless device for
transmitting D2D discovery messages;
obtaining a second plurality of transmission resources,
the second plurality of transmission resources comprising a
subset of the first plurality of transmission resources, the subset
comprising transmission resources potentially unavailable to
the wireless device for transmitting D2D discovery messages;
associating a first weighted value with each transmission
resource of the first plurality of transmission resources not
included in the second plurality of transmission resources;
associating a second weighted value with each
transmission resource of the second plurality of transmission
resources;
selecting, for use during a first discovery period, a first
transmission resource from the first plurality of transmission
resources using the first weighted value and the second
weighted value;
determining whether the selected first transmission
resource is available to transmit a discovery message; and upon
determining the selected first transmission resource is available
to transmit the discovery message, transmitting the discovery
message using the selected first transmission resource.

Appeal 2019-004110
Application 15/230,792

3
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 6, 8, 9, 11 through 17, 19,
20, 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Zhao (US
2015/0215903 A1, published July 30, 2015). Final Act. 5–11.3
The Examiner has rejected claims 7 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Zhao and Faurie (US 2016/0338094 A1, published
November 17, 2016). Final Act. 13.
The Examiner has rejected claims 10 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Zhao and Xiong (US 2015/0245193 A1, published August
27, 2015). Final Act. 14.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 23. Appellant argues
that Zhao does not anticipate independent claims 1, 12, and 23. Appeal Br.
7–11. The dispositive issue presented by Appellant’s arguments is: did the
Examiner err in finding that Zhao discloses “associating a first weighted
value with each transmission resource of the first plurality of transmission

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed January 18,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed April 29, 2019 (Reply Br.); Final
Office Action mailed August 16, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed February 28, 2019 (“Ans.”).
3 We note that the statement of the rejection on pages 5 and 9 of the Final
rejection contains a typographical error, identifying claim 24 as rejected and
not claim 23.
Appeal 2019-004110
Application 15/230,792

4
resources not included in the second plurality of transmission resources” and
“associating a second weighted value with each transmission resource of the
second plurality of transmission resources” as recited in independent claim 1
and similarly recited in independent claims 12 and 23?
The Examiner, in response to Appellant’s arguments, states that “the
instant specification’s definition of ‘a weighted value’ is open-ended as is
mentions it may be ‘any other suitable weighting of transmission resources
with respect to each other.’ [See Page 18 lines 21–24 of Appellant’s
Specification as originally filed].” Ans. 16. Based upon this interpretation
of the term weighting, the Examiner finds that Zhao’s teaching of a RSRP
threshold meets the claimed first weighted value and the RSRP measurement
of the call is the claimed second weighted value. Id. (citing Zhao ¶¶ 10, 79,
and 249). The Examiner states, “In short, RSRP threshold and RSRP
measurements are values that are weighted by the units of power they are
measured in, they are not standalone values.” Id. at 16–17.
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of the independent claims. Appellant’s Specification states “a
weighted value may comprise a priority (e.g., high, low, etc.), a ranking
(e.g., 1–10, 1–100, etc.), a percentage (e.g., 0%, 50%, 100%, etc.), a binary
value (e.g., 0 for unavailable, 1 for available), or any other suitable
weighting of transmission resources with respect to each other.”
Specification p. 18, ll. 21–24. While this is not an explicit definition of the
term weighting, it does provide examples of values that may define
weightings. We do not consider the Examiner’s interpretation of Zhao’s
RSRP threshold and RSRP measurements as being two values which are
assigned to resources and thus meet the claimed two weightings assigned to
Appeal 2019-004110
Application 15/230,792

5
resources. While the RSRP measurement is a value assigned to a resource,
the RSRP threshold is not a value assigned to a resource, rather it is a value
against which another value (RSPR which is assigned to a resource) is
compared. See, e.g., Zhao ¶ 16 (“processor may select the at least one
resource pool to send the information via device-to-device transmission
when the RSRP measurement of the base station is above the RSRP
threshold.”) Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection as we do not
consider the RSRP threshold in Zhao to be a weighted value associated with
a resource.
In as much as the Examiner is considering the outcome of the
comparison of value to a threshold to be the claimed first value, such as
discussed in Zhao, ¶ 275 (“WTRU may report ‘1’ if the RSRP from the
serving eNB (e.g., eNB A) is larger than that from one or more neighbor
eNBs (e.g., eNB B), … and the WTRU may report ‘0’ otherwise.”), we
agree it is a weighted value.4 However, even considering this teaching of
Zhao, we do not find that the further limitations of the claims are met, as the
Examiner has not shown that the first weighted value is associated with the
first plurality of resources not including the second set of resources, and the
second weighted value is associated with the second plurality of resources as
claimed. Thus, the Examiner has not shown that the weighted values are
associated with each resource in the first and second plurality of resources as
claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation

4 The value assigned to the outcome, a “1” or “0” would be a weighted
value assigned to the resource as it is the same as one of the examples in
Appellant’s Specification, (“a weighted value may comprise … a binary
value (e.g., 0 for unavailable, 1 for available)”). Specification p. 18, ll. 21–
24.
Appeal 2019-004110
Application 15/230,792

6
rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 23, and dependent claims 2
through 6, 8, 9, 11, 13 through 17, 19, 20, and 22.
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 7, 10, 18,
and 21 similarly rely upon Zhao to teach the limitations of independent
claims 1 and 12. Final Act. 13, 14. The Examiner has not shown that the
additional teachings of Faurie and Xiong make up for the deficiencies in the
anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 12. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 7, 10, 18, and 21 for the same
reasons as claims 1 and 12.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 23.

Claims
Rejected
35 U. S. C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8, 9,
11–17,
19, 20,
22, 23
102(a)(1) Zhao 1–6, 8, 9, 11–
17, 19, 20, 22,
23
7, 18 103 Zhao, Faurie 7, 18
10, 21 103 Zhao, Xiong 10, 21
Overall
Outcome
1–23

REVERSED