Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 22, 2020

14606360 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 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.
14/606,360 01/27/2015 Milind M. Buddhikot 4100-817372-US 6086
114592 7590 10/22/2020
Nokia Technologies Oy
C/O Davidson Sheehan LLP
6836 Austin Center Blvd.
Suite 320
Austin, TX 78731
EXAMINER
DETSE, KOKOU R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2020 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):
docketing@ds-patent.com
nokia@ds-patent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MILIND M. BUDDHIKOT and LANCE HARTUNG
____________

Appeal 2019-003855
Application 14/606,360
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JAMES B. ARPIN, DAVID J. CUTITTA II, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s final
rejections of claims 1–28, all of the pending claims. Final Act. 1.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 “Appellant” here refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc.
Appeal Br. 1.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
September 17, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed April 11, 2019);
the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed May 17, 2018) and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 21, 2019); and the Specification
(“Spec.,” filed January 27, 2015). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s
findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these
documents.
Appeal 2019-003855
Application 14/606,360

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed methods, user equipment, and apparatus “relate[]
generally to wireless communication systems and, more particularly, to
heterogeneous wireless communication systems.” Spec. ¶ 3. In particular,
The aggregate bandwidth of a heterogeneous wireless
communication system may be increased by instructing a user
equipment to aggregate a subset of a plurality of interfaces based
on channel capacities of the plurality of interfaces and one or
more channel capacities of one or more other interfaces
implemented by other user equipment.
Id. ¶ 19.
As noted above, claims 1–28 stand rejected. Claims 1, 6, 10, 13, 15,
20, 24, and 27 are independent. Appeal Br. 15–18 (claims 1, 6, 10, and 15),
19–21 (claims 20, 24, and 27) (Claims App.). Claims 2–5 depend directly
from claim 1; claims 7–9, 11, and 12 depend directly or indirectly from
claim 6; claim 14 depends directly from claim 13; claims 16–19 depend
directly from claim 15; claims 21–23, 25, and 26 depend directly or
indirectly from claim 20; and claim 28 depends directly from claim 27. Id.
at 15–21.
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is
illustrative.
1. A method comprising:
transmitting, from first user equipment, information identifying
first interfaces supported by the first user equipment and first
channel capacities associated with the first interfaces;
receiving, at the first user equipment, information identifying a
subset of the first interfaces, wherein the subset is selected based
on the first channel capacities and second channel capacities of
second interfaces associated with at least one second user
equipment; and
Appeal 2019-003855
Application 14/606,360

3

configuring the first user equipment to aggregate the subset of
the first interfaces.
Id. at 15 (emphasis added). Claims 6, 10, 13, 15, 20, 24, and 27 recite
limitations corresponding to the disputed limitations of claim 1. See, e.g., id.
at 16 (claim 6 recites “selecting, at the policy server, a subset of the first
interfaces supported by the first user equipment based on the first channel
capacities of the first interfaces and second channel capacities of second
interfaces associated with at least one second user equipment”).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references in rejecting the
claims:
Name3 Reference No./Title Issued/Publ’d Filed
Szabo US 5,592,469 Jan. 7, 1997 Aug. 9, 1994
Sirota US 7,801,771 B1 Sept. 21, 2010 June 15, 2006
Meylan US 9,571,952 B2 Feb. 14, 2017 Feb. 10, 2012
Nomura US 2001/0019554 A1 Sept. 6, 2001 Mar. 5, 2001
Leroudier US 2009/0029645 A1 Jan. 29, 2009 July 25, 2008
Sirotkin US 2014/0092828 A1 Apr. 3, 2014 June 25, 2013
Masud A Scheduling
Algorithm for
Bandwidth
Aggregation in
Heterogeneous
Wireless Network, 3rd
Int’l Conf. on
Informatics,
Electronics & Vision,
IEEE
2014 NA

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor or author only.
Appeal 2019-003855
Application 14/606,360

4

Specifically, the Examiner rejects claims 1, 15, 20, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Szabo and Sirotkin
(Final Act. 5–7); claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Szabo, Sirotkin,4 and Masud (id. at 8–9); claim 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Szabo,
Sirotkin, and Sirota (id. at 9); claims 2, 3, 6–9, 11, 12, 16–19, 22, 23, 25, and
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Szabo,
Sirotkin, and Nomura (id. at 10–14); claims 10 and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Szabo and Leroudier (id. at
14–15); and claims 13, 14, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Szabo and Meylan (id. at 15–17).
The Examiner relies on similar combinations of references and
substantially similar arguments and evidence in rejecting independent claims
1, 6, 10, 13, 15, 20, 24, and 27. Final Act. 5–17. In particular, the Examiner
relies on Szabo to teach or suggest the disputed limitations in each of these
claims. Appellant contests the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1,
and Appellant relies on the alleged deficiencies in that rejection with respect
to Szabo’s teachings to overcome the rejections of the other independent
claims, as well as of the dependent claims. Appeal Br. 7–10. The Examiner
and Appellant focus their findings and contentions on claim 1; so do we.
See, e.g., Appeal Br. 11; Ans. 16–18; Reply Br. 2–4. Because we determine

4 Although the Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Szabo and Sirotkin, the Examiner fails to identify
Sirotkin in the rejection of dependent claim 4. Final Act. 8–9. Appellant
noted this omission in its Appeal Brief. Appeal Br. 12. The Examiner
asserts that reliance on Sirotkin is apparent because claim 4 depends from
claim 1. Ans. 19. Appellant does not challenge this assertion.
Appeal 2019-003855
Application 14/606,360

5

that reversal of the rejection of independent claim 1 is dispositive, except for
our ultimate decision, we do not discuss the merits of the rejections of
claims 2–28 further herein.5 We review the appealed rejection of
independent claim 1 for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant,
and in light of the contentions and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We address the
rejection of claim 1 below.
ANALYSIS
1. Obviousness of Claim 1 Over Szabo and Sirotkin
As noted above, the Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Szabo and Sirotkin. Final Act. 5–6. In
particular, the Examiner finds that Szabo teaches or suggests the steps of
transmitting, from first user equipment, information
identifying first interfaces supported by the first user equipment
and first channel capacities associated with the first interfaces;
[and]
receiving, at the first user equipment, information
identifying a subset of the first interfaces, wherein the subset is
selected based on the first channel capacities and second channel
capacities of second interfaces associated with at least one
second user equipment.
Id. at 5 (citing Szabo, Fig. 2b, 2:1–11, 6:22–37); Appeal Br. 15 (Claims
App.) (emphases added).
Appellant contends the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 as obvious
over Szabo and Sirotkin for two reasons based on alleged deficiencies in

5 In particular, Appellant argues claims 4 and 5 separately. Appeal Br. 11–
13. Because we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1,
from which these claims depend, we do not reach Appellant’s contentions
with respect to claims 4 and 5.
Appeal 2019-003855
Application 14/606,360

6

Szabo’s teachings. Appeal Br. 7–10. First, Appellant contends the
Examiner fails to show Szabo teaches or suggests, “transmitting . . .
information identifying first interfaces supported by the first user equipment
and first channel capacities associated with the first interfaces.” See id.
at 7–9 (emphases added). Second, Appellant contends the Examiner fails to
show Szabo teaches or suggests, “receiving . . . information identifying a
subset of the first interfaces, wherein the subset is selected based on the first
channel capacities and second channel capacities of second interfaces
associated with at least one second user equipment.” See id. at 9–10
(emphasis added). We find the second reason persuasive of Examiner error.
First, Appellant contends Szabo fails to teach or suggest the first user
equipment transmitting information identifying “first interfaces” and “first
channel capacities associated with the first interfaces.” Appeal Br. 7–10;
Reply Br. 2–3. In particular, Appellant contends,
Szabo therefore discloses that each mobile station has a
single flexible radio interface to a corresponding base station.
The single flexible radio interface for each base station supports
three different services (TEL, FAX, and VIDEO), which can be
requested by the mobile station. In response to receiving the
request, the base station determines the free transmission
capacity for the single flexible radio interface and then adjusts
the transmission parameters for the single flexible radio interface
to provide the requested transmission capacity, if available.
However, Szabo does not disclose, or even suggest, multiple
interfaces between a mobile station and a corresponding base
station because Szabo specifically provides for only a single
flexible radio interface for each mobile station.
Appeal Br. 8. Further, Appellant contends that, to the extent Szabo discloses
additional radio interfaces SIG1 and SIG2 defined by fixed parameters,
Szabo does not teach or suggest that first user equipment transmits
Appeal 2019-003855
Application 14/606,360

7

identifying information for those interfaces with their capacities, as recited
in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 2. We disagree.
Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, Szabo is not limited to
transmissions over “a single flexible radio interface.” See Appeal Br. 8–10
(underlining omitted, italics added). As the Examiner finds, Szabo
discloses:
Transmissions between the mobile stations and the base
stations take place through radio interfaces SIG1 and SIG2,
which are characterized by fixed parameters, and via radio
interfaces COMa to COMc, which are characterized by variable
parameters Ta, Fa, Tb, Tc, Cc1 and Cc2. The radio interfaces
with fixed parameters SIG1 and SIG2 will hereafter be called
fixed radio interfaces. They are used for signaling between the
base stations and the mobile stations. The radio interfaces with
variable parameters COMa to COMc will hereafter be called
flexible radio interfaces. They serve to transmit useful data
between the radio stations.
Szabo, 4:14–24 (emphasis added); see Ans. 16; see also Szabo, 2:61–67
(describing transmission of parameters between a remote and a base station).
Although the embodiment depicted in Szabo’s Figure 1 depicts one fixed
and one flexible interface between each remote and base station, we find that
Szabo is not limited to that embodiment. As Szabo discloses:
According to a first aspect of the present invention, a radio
system with at least one base station and remote radio stations
containing transmitting and receiving means for the
transmission of useful data via radio interfaces, whose
respective transmission capacity is changed by changes [to] the
base station on the basis of requests signaled by the remote radio
stations, and based on a monitoring of existing radio
transmissions in the field range of the base station, is
characterized in that the base station predetermines variable
parameters of the radio interfaces for changing the respective
transmission capacity, which specify the modulation and the
Appeal 2019-003855
Application 14/606,360

8

demodulation for the transmitting means or for the receiving
means, respectively.
Szabo, 1:36–48 (emphases added). Thus, Szabo teaches or suggests remote
or base stations may transmit information identifying “interfaces” and
parameters identifying the interfaces’ capacities.
Consequently, the Examiner finds Szabo teaches or suggests a remote
station (e.g., first user equipment) and a base station (e.g., second user
equipment) transmit information identifying multiple interfaces, whether
fixed or flexible, and their associated capacities. Ans. 16–18 (citing Szabo,
5:12–20, 6:9–30, 9:6–16). We agree.
Second, Appellant contends Szabo fails to teach or suggest, “receiving
. . . information identifying a subset of the first interfaces[, wherein] the
subset is selected based on the first channel capacities and second channel
capacities of second interfaces associated with at least one second user
equipment.” See Appeal Br. 9–10 (emphasis added). In particular,
Appellant contends,
Szabo does not disclose any larger set of interfaces from which
a subset of interfaces can be selected and, in particular, Szabo
does not disclose that a base station selects a subset of interfaces
from a set of interfaces identified in information received from a
mobile station. Consequently, Szabo does not disclose
“receiving, at the first user equipment, information identifying a
subset of the first interfaces” or that “the subset is selected based
on the first channel capacities and second channel capacities of
second interfaces associated with at least one second user
equipment.”
Id. at 10.
Regarding Appellant’s initial contention, the Specification does not
define a subset (see, e.g., Spec. ¶ 19), and we understand that, generally, a
subset may include some or all elements of another set. For the reasons
Appeal 2019-003855
Application 14/606,360

9

given above, we are not persuaded Szabo fails to teach or suggest identifying
a plurality of interfaces, e.g., “any larger set of interfaces,” and, therefore,
does not teach or suggest a subset of the identified interfaces. See Ans. 16–
17; see also In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]t is proper to
take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom.”).
Nevertheless, Appellant also contends “Szabo does not disclose . . .
that ‘the subset is selected based on the first channel capacities and second
channel capacities of second interfaces associated with at least one second
user equipment.’” Appeal Br. 10 (italics added). The Examiner finds Szabo
discloses the assignment of radio interfaces to mobile stations based on
channel capacity\ requirements. Ans. 17; see Szabo, 6:26–28 (“The
remaining free transmission capacities (channels) are determined by
spectrum analysis in the base stations, and are available for assignment.”).
In particular, Szabo discloses:
The other mobile stations MSb and MSc also have flexible
radio interfaces COMb and COMc assigned to them, where
mobile station MSb is connected to one of the base stations and
mobile station MSc to the other base station. Mobile station MSb
exchanges signals with base station BS through the fixed radio
interface SIG1. The following describes in greater detail, by
means of FIG. 2, how the flexible radio interfaces COMa to
COMc are adapted for the capacity requirements of the mobile
stations, for exchange of useful data.
Szabo, 5:11–21 (emphases added); see id. at 6:9–30 (“On the one hand, this
mobile radio system is flexible with regard to the respective transmission
between a mobile station and the base station, in that the arranged flexible
radio interface is adapted to the requested transmission capacity.”
Appeal 2019-003855
Application 14/606,360

10

(emphasis added)).
Based on the portions of Szabo upon which the Examiner relies,
Appellant concludes,
Szabo discloses that the flexible radio interfaces COMb and
COMc are assigned to the mobile stations MSb and MSc,
respectively. Szabo also discloses that after a flexible radio
interface is assigned to the corresponding mobile station, the
arranged flexible radio interface is adapted to a requested
transmission capacity. Thus, the assignment of flexible radio
interfaces to mobile stations in Szabo is performed prior to (and
independent of) the channel capacity that will subsequently be
requested by the mobile station.
Reply Br. 2–3 (citing Szabo, 5:12–15, 6:5–13). We agree. Thus, we are
persuaded the Examiner fails to show that Szabo teaches or suggests, “the
subset is selected based on the first channel capacities and second channel
capacities,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.) (emphasis
added).
Because the Examiner fails to show that Szabo teaches or suggests the
“receiving” step, as recited in claim 1, we are persuaded that the Examiner
errs in rejecting claim 1. Consequently, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 1.
2. The Remaining Claims
As noted above, Appellant challenges the rejections of independent
claims 6, 10, 13, 15, 20, 24, and 27 for substantially the same reasons, based
on deficiencies in Szabo’s teachings, as for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11–13.
The Examiner does not find that Nomura, Leroudier, or Meylan, relied upon
with respect to rejections of the other independent claims, supplies the
limitations missing from Szabo. Final Act. 10–17. Consequently, for the
Appeal 2019-003855
Application 14/606,360

11

reasons given above with respect to claim 1, we also do not sustain the
rejections of the other independent claims.
Each of claims 2–5, 7–9, 11, 12, 14, 16–19, 21–23, 25, 26, and 28
depends directly or indirectly from independent claim 1, 6, 13, 15, 20, or 27.
Appeal Br. 15–21 (Claims App.). Because the Examiner does not find that
the additional references supply the limitations missing from Szabo and
because we are persuaded the Examiner errs with respect to the obviousness
rejections of independent claims 1, 6, 13, 15, 20, and 27, we also are
persuaded the Examiner errs with respect to the obviousness rejections of
dependent claims 2–5, 7–9, 11, 12, 14, 16–19, 21–23, 25, 26, and 28. Our
reversal of the Examiner’s rejections of the independent claims is dispositive
with respect to the dependent claims. Id. at 11–14. For this reason, we also
do not sustain the rejections of claims 2–28.
DECISION
1. The Examiner errs in rejecting
a. claims 1, 15, 20, and 21 as obvious over the combined teachings of
Szabo and Sirotkin;
b. claim 4 as obvious over the combined teachings of Szabo, Sirotkin,
and Masud;
c. claim 5 as obvious over the combined teachings of Szabo, Sirotkin,
and Sirota;
d. claims 2, 3, 6–9, 11, 12, 16–19, 22, 23, 25, and 26 as obvious over
the combined teachings of Szabo, Sirotkin, and Nomura;
e. claims 10 and 24 as obvious over the combined teachings of Szabo
and Leroudier; and
Appeal 2019-003855
Application 14/606,360

12

f. claims 13, 14, 27, and 28 as obvious over the combined teachings
of Szabo and Meylan.
2. Thus, on this record, claims 1–28 are not unpatentable.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1–28.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 15, 20, 21 103 Szabo, Sirotkin

1, 15, 20, 21
4 103 Szabo, Sirotkin,
Masud
4
5 103 Szabo, Sirotkin,
Sirota
5
2, 3, 6–9,
11, 12, 16–
19, 22, 23,
25, 26
103 Szabo, Sirotkin,
Nomura
2, 3, 6–9, 11,
12, 16–19,
22, 23, 25,
26
10, 24 103 Szabo, Leroudier 10, 24
13, 14, 27,
28
103 Szabo, Meylan 13, 14, 27,
28
Overall
Outcome
1–28
REVERSED