Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 27, 2021

2020006608 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 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.
15/505,893 02/22/2017 Oumer Teyeb 3000-208 2141
27820 7590 12/27/2021
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C.
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
EXAMINER
HSU, ALPUS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2021 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):
patents@wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte OUMER TEYEB, NIKLAS JOHANSSON,
FILIP MESTANOV, KARL NORRMAN,
MAGNUS STATTIN, and JARI VIKBERG
________________

Appeal 2020-006608
Application 15/505,893
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CATHERINE SHIANG, BETH Z. SHAW, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 21, 41, 42, and 45‒53, which are all the
claims pending in this application.1 Claims 3, 5‒11, 13‒20, 22‒40, 43, 44,
and 54‒73 have been canceled. 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 (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ). Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-006608
Application 15/505,893

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to carrier aggregation between
different radio access networks, such as cellular and other wireless networks.
Spec. 1:6‒11. Claims 1 illustrates the appealed subject matter and reads as
follows:
1. A method of operation of a first network node for
supporting carrier aggregation between different radio access
networks, the first network node configured for operation in a
first radio access network, wherein the first radio access
network is a cellular radio access network and the first network
node is a base station, the method comprising:
configuring a second network node of a second radio
access network with keying material; and
configuring the second network node to establish an
association with a wireless device associated with a given
identifier based on said keying material, wherein the
establishment of the association is based on an exchange of
random value(s) between the second network node and the
wireless device, enabling generation of a key using said random
value(s) and the keying material; and
configuring said second network node to forward data
from the wireless device to said first network node.

The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 21, 41, 42, and 45‒53 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gage (US 9,801,099 B2;
Oct. 24, 2017), Jeong (US 2015/0350896 A1; Dec. 3, 2015), and Sharma
(US 9,526,002 B2; Dec. 20, 2016). Final Act. 3‒6.

Appeal 2020-006608
Application 15/505,893

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Gage, Jeong, and Sharma
teaches or suggests “configuring said second network node to forward data
from the wireless device to said first network node,” as recited in claim 1.
Final Act. 3‒5; Ans. 3‒5. In particular, the Examiner finds Gage teaches
moving traffic, or offloading, from a wireless device in a macro cell to a
WLAN small cell utilizing the macro cell base station and small cell access
point, which the Examiner finds teaches the configuring limitation. Ans. 4
(citing Gage 7:44‒50, 8:42‒9:6, 14:5‒23).
Appellant argues the Examiner errs because Gage teaches offloading
traffic from a macro cell to a small cell, but does not teach the small cell
forwarding data from the wireless device back to the macro cell. Appeal
Br. 11‒12. Appellant argues Gage instead teaches data from the small cell
and macro cell being sent to the internet through a traffic interchange point.
Id. at 12. Appellant argues Figure 4 of Gage shows that the WLAN does not
forward data from the wireless device to the macro cell. Id. at 15 (citing
Gage Fig. 4).
Appellant has persuaded us of error. Gage teaches offloading traffic
from a cellular network (the claimed “first radio access network”) to a
WLAN (the claimed “second radio access network”). See Gage 7:44‒9:6.
Gage teaches the base station configures the target access point to receive
the wireless device. Id. at 14:5‒23. However, we agree with Appellant that
the Examiner fails to establish that Gage teaches or suggests “configuring
said second network node to forward data from the wireless device to said
first network node.” The Examiner’s findings regarding this limitation are
speculative and the Examiner has failed to adequately support the finding
Appeal 2020-006608
Application 15/505,893

4
that Gage’s offloading also teaches the claimed data forwarding. That is, the
Examiner has not identified any specific teaching of the WLAN access point
forwarding data from the wireless device to the cellular base station. Nor has
the Examiner explained sufficiently how Gage’s offloading involves such
data forwarding.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 12, 21,
41, and 51, which recite commensurate subject matter for which the
Examiner relies on the same findings. See Final Act. 5‒6. We also do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, 42, 45‒50, 52, and 53 for the
same reasons.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 21, 41, 42, and
45‒53 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 12,
21, 41, 42,
45‒53
103 Gage, Jeong, Sharma 1, 2, 4, 12,
21, 41, 42,
45‒53

REVERSED