TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON(publ)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 23, 2020

2019003389 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 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.
14/906,982 01/22/2016 Joakim Akesson P48655-US1 6500
27045 7590 10/23/2020
ERICSSON INC.
6300 LEGACY DRIVE
M/S EVR 1-C-11
PLANO, TX 75024
EXAMINER
REYES ORTIZ, HECTOR E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2472
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/23/2020 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 JOAKIM AKESSON and MAGNUS TRANK

Appeal 2019-003389
Application 14/906,982
Technology Center 2400

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection claims 1–14, 16, and 17 which constitute all of the
pending claims.2 Appeal Br. 1. Claims 15 and 18–21 have been canceled.
Claims App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We refer to the Specification filed Jan. 26, 2016 (“Spec.”); the Final
Office Action, mailed Jan. 25, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed
Jul. 18, 2018 (“Appeal Br”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Jan. 25, 2019
(“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed Mar. 25, 2019 (Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
(publ) as the real party-in-interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003389
Application 14/906,982

2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a
method and system for multimedia broadcast multicast service (MBMS)
bearer handling in group communications system (100). Spec., 2:11–12.
Figure 1 reproduced and discussed below, is useful for
understanding the claimed subject matter:

Figure 1 above illustrates group communications system (100) including
control node (200) announcing on an existing MBMS bearer new services
associated a newly activated MBMS bearer. Id. at 8:27–9:4.

In particular, upon receiving indication that a new MBMS bearer
needs activating, control node (200) activates the new MBMS bearer, and
announces on an already announced MBMS bearer the identity and
Appeal 2019-003389
Application 14/906,982

3
complementary service information associated with the newly activated
MBMS bearer to recipients (150, 300) of group communications (e.g.
broadcast/multicast). Id. at 10:17–27, 11:17–21, 13:5–10, 25–29. More
particularly, Appellant’s Specification states the following:
The service announcement message for the new MBMS
bearer will be broadcasted over the radio access network 120 to
the ·wireless devices 150a, 150b, and thus to the client nodes
300a, 300b. This message may be carried in a RTCP packet,
and can thus be sent on demand, and contains at least the
minimum required parameters for the client nodes 300a, 300b
to be able to start monitoring the new MBMS bearer. This
includes the MBMS bearer identity in the form of a Temporary
Mobile Group Identity (TMGI), the Session Description
Protocol (SDP) for the session and potentially additional
parameters. The SDP includes a Multicast IP address, port,
source address, protocol, codec. Additionally this message may
include a reference to an already announced MBMS service.

Id. at 17:2–12.
Claims 1, 4, 13, 14, 16 and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced
below with disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative:
1. A method for multimedia broadcast multicast service (MBMS)
bearer handling in a group communications system, the method being
performed by a control node, the method comprising:
obtaining a need for a new MBMS bearer to be activated;
activating the new MBMS bearer; and
announcing MBMS bearer identity and complementary service
announcement information of the new MBMS bearer on an
already announced MBMS bearer, thereby announcing the new
MBMS bearer.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App).
Appeal 2019-003389
Application 14/906,982

4
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Reference Date
Drozt US 2012/0170501 A1 July 5, 2012
Newberg US 2013/0064160 A1 Mar. 14, 2013
Song US 2013/01360 49 A1 May 30, 2013
Zhu US 2016/0119762 A1 Apr. 28, 2016

IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–14, 16, and 17 as follows:
Claims 1–5, 8, 10–14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as being anticipated by Drozt. Final Act. 3–7.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Drozt and Song. Final Act. 8.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Drozt and Zhu. Final Act. 8–9.
Claim 9 under is rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Drozt and Newberg. Final Act. 9.
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments in the order they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 8–13 and the Reply Brief, pages 1–4.4

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2014).
Appeal 2019-003389
Application 14/906,982

5
1. Anticipation Rejection
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Drozt
describes activating a new MBMS bearer and announcing the newly
activated MBMS bearer identity and complementary service information on
an already announced MBMS bearer, as recited in independent claim 1.
Appeal Br. 8. In particular, Appellant argues that Drozt’s disclosure of
adding new streams to an existing MBMS bearer, and sending a temporary
mobile group identity (TMGI) of an existing shared MBMS bearer on a pre-
established MBMS bearer does not describe the disputed claim limitations.
Id. at 10 (citing Drozt ¶¶ 61–63). According to Appellant, Drozt’s
disclosure of a Push-to-Talk (“PTT”) controller notifying recipient group
members of an identifier for the shared MBMS bearer falls short of
describing the disputed limitations because the shared MBMS bearer is not a
new bearer despite including new data streams. Id. Accordingly, Appellant
submits neither the new data streams nor the shared MBMS bearer describes
the new MBMS bearer required by the claim. Id. at 11.
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
As preliminary matter, we note it is undisputed that Drozt discloses a PTT
call controller notifying recipient group members via a pre-established
downlink MBMS bearer of an identifier for a shared MBMS bearer
established a priori for transporting new and old media streams. Drozt ¶¶
19, 20 61–63. Therefore, the dispute before us turns on whether Drozt’s
disclosure of a shared MBMS bearer including new media streams or UEs
joining the recipient group describes a new MBMS bearer. We answer this
inquiry in the negative. We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that
“the shared MBMS bearer is the new MBMS bearer when taken from the
Appeal 2019-003389
Application 14/906,982

6
perspective of the node [UE] joining the group communication system,
given that the MBMS is new to the node [UE].” Ans. 10 (citing Drozt ¶¶
61–63). As persuasively argued by Appellant, the shared MBMS bearer is
an existing (a priori) MBMS bearer, which does not become a new
broadcasting device by merely adding new data streams thereto or by
allowing a new UE to join the recipient group. Reply Br. 2. We agree with
Appellant that the Examiner’s application of Drozt’s disclosure to the
disputed claim limitation is unreasonable because although Drozt’s shared
MBMS bearer may be new to a UE joining a recipient group, the shared
MBMS bearer is not activated each time a new UE joins the recipient group.
Id. at 2–3. Therefore, because the shared MBMS bearer is not activated
each time a UE joins the recipient group, it does not describe the claimed
new MBMS bearer, which must be activated before being announced to the
recipient group.
Because Appellant has shown at least one reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, we do not reach
Appellant’s remaining arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 4, 13, 14, 16, and
17, each of which includes the argued disputed limitations. Likewise, we do
not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 8, and 10–12, which
also recite the disputed limitation.
2. Obviousness Rejections
Because the Examiner does not rely upon the secondary references to
cure the noted deficiencies of Drozt discussed above, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 6, 7, and 9, which recite the
disputed limitations.
Appeal 2019-003389
Application 14/906,982

7

VI. CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–14, 16, and 17.
VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 8, 10–14,
16, 17 102 Drozt
1–5, 8, 10–
14, 16, 17
6 103 Drozt, Song 6
7 103 Drozt, Zhu 7
9 103 Drozt, Newberg 9
Overall
Outcome
1–14, 16,
17

REVERSED