Ex Parte Kalhan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 14, 2017

14358339 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2017)

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.
14/358,339 05/15/2014 Amit Kalhan TUTL 00208 1094
32968 7590 08/16/2017
KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
8611 Balboa Ave
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
EXAMINER
ATKINS JR., GEORGE CALVIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2412
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2017 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):
KII-USPatents @ kyocera.com
Kathleen .Connell@kyocera.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMIT KALHAN, HENRY CHANG, DOUGLAS DUNN,
and
DAVID COMSTOCK
Appeal 2017-004769
Application 14/3 58,3391
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Kyocera Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed July
25, 2016; Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed January 20, 2017; Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”) mailed November 23, 2016; Final Office Action (“Final
Act.”) mailed March 24, 2016; and original Specification (“Spec.”), filed
May 15,2014.
Appeal 2017-004769
Application 14/358,339
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a system and method for detecting a
neighboring node (e.g., base station) in a cellular communication network.
Spec. 17, Title, and Abstract. Appellants’ invention enables user equipment
(UE/wireless mobile device 20, shown in Figure 1) connected to a first node
(e.g., a base station 12), to efficiently detect a neighboring node (a second
node/base station 16) that has a stronger signal and employs a different radio
access technology (RAT) and/or operates at a different frequency than other
adjacent nodes (e.g., node 12). Spec. H 5—7, 25, 31, 42, 68, and Abstract.
In particular, Appellants’ invention allows UE 20 located at cell boundaries
(e.g., boundaries of coverage area 14 of first node 12, and coverage area 18
of second node 16) to become aware of the presence of the second node 16
while reducing the UE’s power consumption for detecting the second node.
Spec. H7, 32, 43, 78, and Abstract.
Appellants’ Figure 1 is reproduced below with additional markings
for illustration.
2
Appeal 2017-004769
Application 14/358,339
FIG. 1 A CONTROLLER
Figure 1 illustrates a cellular communication network 10 including a macro
node/first node 12, and a home node/second node 16.
As shown in Appellants’ Figure 1, first node/macro node 12 provides
wireless services over a larger coverage area 14, and second node/home
node 16 provides wireless services over a smaller coverage area 18. Spec.
125. User equipment (UE) 20, including a controller and an air interface,
receives wireless services from first node 12 while UE 20 is near the
boundary of the first node’s coverage area 14 and the second node’s
coverage area 18. Spec. Tflf 7, 32, and 38. While UE 20 is serviced by the
first node 12, the second node 16 transmits Multicast Broadcast Single
Frequency Network (MBSFN) subframes containing cell-specific
information about itself, such as its carrier-frequency, cell-ID, SSID,
transmit power, physical cell ID (PCI), frame offset, and/or the like. Spec.
11 7, 36, 39, 51, and Abstract. The UE’s air interface receives one or more
3
Appeal 2017-004769
Application 14/358,339
MBSFN subframes from the second node 16, and the UE’s controller
initiates a search for the second node 16 based on the information contained
in the MBSFN subframe. The search may include one or more inter­
frequency or inter-RAT measurements based on the information contained in
the MBSFN subframe. Spec. 7, 38-40 and Abstract. Based on
measurement reports of the search, the first node 12 releases or hands over
the UE 20 to the second node 16 having a stronger signal for servicing the
UE. Spec. 11 5, 7, 40, 58, and Abstract.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Representative claim 1 is
reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
an air interface configured to receive one or more services
from a first node in a cellular communication network and to
receive a Multicast Broadcast Single Frequency Network
(MBSFN) subframe from a second node in the cellular
communication network, the MBSFN subframe containing
information about the second node; and
a controller configured to initiate a search for the second
node based on the information contained in the MBSFN
subframe.
App. Br. 14—17 (Claims App’x).
Examiner’s Rejections & References
(1) Claims 1—3, 9—11, and 17—20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ode (WO 2011/135693 Al;
published November 3, 2011; “Ode-WO”)3 and Maeda et al. (WO
3 The Examiner and Appellants cite to Ode’s US equivalent (US
2013/0040691 Al; published Feb. 14, 2013; “Ode”). See Final Act. 4; see
also App. Br. 7.
4
Appeal 2017-004769
Application 14/358,339
2011/135825; published November 3, 2011; “Maeda-WO”)4. Final Act. 4—
11.
(2) Claims 4—7 and 12—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ode-WO, Maeda-WO, and Balasubramanian et
al. (US 2009/0129341 Al; published May 21, 2009; “Balasubramanian”).
Final Act. 11—16.
(3) Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ode-WO, Maeda-WO, and Xiao et al. (WO
2009/113918 Al; published Sept. 17, 2009; “Xiao”). Final Act. 16-18.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the combination of Ode and Maeda teaches or suggests:
an air interface configured ... to receive a Multicast
Broadcast Single Frequency Network (MBSFN) subframe from
a second node in the cellular communication network, the
MBSFN subframe containing information about the second
node; and
a controller configured to initiate a search for the second
node based on the information contained in the MBSFN
subframe
as recited in Appellants’ independent claim 1 and similarly recited in
independent claims 9 and 17. App. Br. 7—13 (emphases added); see also
Reply Br. 2—5.
4 The Examiner and Appellants cite to Maeda’s US equivalent (US
2013/0028161 Al; published Jan. 31, 2013, to Maeda et al.; “Maeda”). See
Final Act. 4; see also App. Br. 7.
5
Appeal 2017-004769
Application 14/358,339
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Ode’s mobile
station 300 teaches Appellants’ claimed apparatus comprising an air
interface configured to receive one or more services from a first node (Ode’s
base station 100), as claimed. Final Act. 5—6 (citing Ode Figs. 1, 12, and
14); see also Ans. 2—3. The Examiner finds Ode’s air interface is further
configured to receive a MBSFN subframe from a second node (Ode’s base
station 200). The MBSFN subframe containing information (reception
quality) about the second node 200. Final Act. 6—7 (citing Ode 1157, Fig.
12); see also Ans. 2—3.
Ode’s Figure 12 is reproduced below with additional markings for
illustration.
FIG. 12
M8MS
GATEWAY
520
MCE
410
TRANSMIT MBSFN
CONTROL cMjn
PARAMETERS
BASE STATION
100
_L
BASE STATION
200
DETECT
REDUCTION IN
MOBILE STATIONS
TRANSMIT MBSFN
STOP REQUEST/• -SI 36
TRANSMIT MBSFN
STOP NOTIFICATION
TRANSMIT MBSFN
CONTROL PARAMETERS
TRANSMIT MBMS DATA
„~$131
TRANSMIT
MEASUREMENT
TRANSMIT QUALITY Cnc
. INFORMATION M'-1 '4n
TRANSMIT
SYNCHRONIZATION I v "ATTON >00
R 's V RECEPTION
MING TER
TEEEE0ENCE
6
Appeal 2017-004769
Application 14/358,339
Ode’s Figure 12 illustrates a transmission flow for switching a
service (for a mobile station 300) from a base station 100 to another
base station 200. Ode H 23, 153, 161.
As shown in Ode’s Figure 12, the transmission flow includes step
SI34 in which base station 200 transmits a reference signal and mobile
station 300 measures reception quality about an MBSFN transmission of
base station 200 using the received reference signal. Ode Tflf 153, 155, and
157.
Ode’s Figure 14 is reproduced below with additional markings for
illustration.
FIG. 14
Ode’s Figure 14 illustrates a relationship between base stations 100, 200,
and a mobile station 300, while switching a mobile station’s service from
base station 100 to base station 200. Ode H 25, 169.
7
Appeal 2017-004769
Application 14/358,339
To support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner relies on both
Ode and Maeda for teaching Appellants’ claimed “controller configured to
initiate a search for the second node based on the information contained in
the MBSFN subframe.” Final Act. 7 (citing Maeda H 85, 144, and Fig. 12);
see also Ans. 4—6 (citing Maeda 135, Fig. 16; Ode 1157, and Fig. 12).
Regarding Maeda, the Examiner finds Maeda’s Figure 12 discloses a user
equipment initiates a search for a second node based on information
(reception quality and received power RSRP) about the second node, the
information being contained in a MBSFN subframe from the second node,
as claimed. Final Act. 7 (citing Maeda 1 85, Fig. 12 (step ST 1202)); see
also Ans. 3—5 (citing Maeda 177).
Maeda’s Figure 12 is reproduced below.
FIG. 12
START CELL SEARCH
TO IDLE STATE OPERATiON TO IDLE STATE
OPERATION AFTER TAlf
Maeda’s Figure 12 is a flowchart showing an outline of a cell search
performed by a user equipment (UE) in an FTE communication system.
Maeda 50, 77.
8
Appeal 2017-004769
Application 14/358,339
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s factual findings regarding Ode and
Maeda. Particularly, Appellants contend neither Ode nor Maeda teaches or
suggests that a received “MBSFN subframe actually contains information
about the second node” that sent the subframe. App. Br. 8—9; see also Reply
Br. 2—3. In particular, Appellants argue “Ode merely describes that the
mobile station can measure ‘the reception quality about the MBSFN
transmission by using the received reference signal[,]”’ but “the reception
quality of a transmission has absolutely nothing to do with whether the
MBSFN subframe, itself actually contains information about the second
node.” App. Br. 8—9 (citing Ode 1157). Appellants further argue Ode and
Maeda do not teach or suggest a “controller configured to initiate a search
for the second node based on the information contained in the MBSFN
subframe.” App. Br. 9—10; see also Reply Br. 3^4. In particular, Appellants
assert one of skill in the art could not reasonably conclude that Maeda’s
UE/controller initiates a search for the second node based on the MBSFN
subframe information “since the UE of Maeda starts the cell search well
before the UE has possession of the ‘information!)]’” App. Br. 10 (citing
Maeda 177, Fig. 12). Appellants also assert Ode’s mobile station cannot
initiate a base station search based on the information because “the mobile
station of Ode is already synchronized to the base station before receiving
the RS [Reference Signal]” carrying the information. Reply Br. 4.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Rather, we find the
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants’ arguments
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 2—6. Therefore, we adopt
the Examiner’s findings and explanations provided therein. Id.
9
Appeal 2017-004769
Application 14/358,339
For additional emphasis, we note Ode describes:
FIG. 12 is a sequence diagram illustrating a flow of the
transmission stop according to the second embodiment. . . .
[T]he base station 200 performs the MBSFN transmission. . . .
(Step S133) The base station 200 transmits a
synchronization signal through the DL radio frame. The mobile
station 300 synchronizes with the base station 200 by using the
received synchronization signal.
(Step S134) The base station 200 transmits a reference
signal through the DL radio frame. The mobile station 300
measures the reception quality about the MBSFN transmission
by using the received reference signal.
Ode H 153, 156—157 (emphases added).
As explained by Ode, base station 200 (second node) transmits to
mobile station 300 (apparatus’ air interface) a “MBSFN subframe carrying
the reference signal” which, in turn, “carries information [reception quality]
about the base station [200] . . . that serves as the source of the reference
signal.” Ans. 2—3 (citing Ode 1157, Fig. 12); see also Ode 1111 (“The
reception quality of the base station which performs the MBSFN
transmission may be measured . . . by using the reference signal included in
an MBSFN subframe”) (emphases added). Ode’s mobile station (air
interface) then uses the reference signal to measure the node reception
quality. Ans. 2 (citing Ode 1157, Fig. 12).
As recognized by the Examiner, the claimed “information about the
second node” is broad and only requires “some type of information
regarding the second node,” such as “information, of any kind, that is
associated/related to [the] second node.” Ans. 2. Thus, the claimed
“information about the second node” is taught by Ode’s reception quality
about the second node’s MBSFN transmission because reception quality is
10
Appeal 2017-004769
Application 14/358,339
related to (e.g., determined by) the second node’s transmission power. Ans.
2 (citing Ode 1157); see also Ode Tfl[ 49—50 (“For the reception conditions
of radio signals from the base stations 21 and 22, the mobile station 30 may
measure reception quality such as reception power or radio channel quality
(e.g., CIR (Carrier to Interference Ratio)) of radio signals. ”) (emphases
added); 1110 (“By using the reference signal... the quality measurement
unit 322 measures reception quality (or, radio channel quality) such as a
CIRC) (emphasis added), and Fig. 17.
Thus, Ode teaches an air interface configured to receive a MBSFN
subframe from a second node, “the MBSFN subframe containing
information about the second node,” as recited in claim 1. Additionally,
Maeda also teaches a “MBSFN subframe containing information about the
second [originating] node.” Ans. 3^4. In particular, Maeda discloses a
“CRS [cell-specific Reference Signal] in the MBSFN subframe” of a base
station contains information about “the received power (also referred to as
an RSRP)” and “[t]he code corresponding to the PCI [Physical Cell
Identity]” of the base station. See Maeda H 77, 85; see also Ans. 3^4; Final
Act. 7.
Appellants further argue
the proposed combination of Ode and Maeda cannot be
reasonably interpreted as teaching or suggesting a “controller
configured to initiate a search for the second node based on the
information contained in the MBSFN subframe” since (1)
Maeda begins the cell search before receiving the RS
[Reference Signal], and (2) the mobile station of Ode is already
synchronized to the base station before receiving the RS.
Reply Br. 4.
11
Appeal 2017-004769
Application 14/358,339
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Rather, we agree
with the Examiner that Maeda’s measuring the received power/RSRP from
the MBSFN’s reference signal (RS) to determine “the cell having the best
RS reception quality (for example, cell having the highest RS received
power; best cell),” is commensurate with the description of “initiating a
search” for a node in Appellants’ Specification. See Maeda 1 77; see also
Final Act. 9 (citing Maeda Fig. 12 (step ST 1202)). In particular,
Appellants’ Specification describes a search for a node as a measurement of
the node’s capabilities in order to switch the UE’s services to that node. See
Spec. H7, 40, and 58.5
In addition, Ode’s measuring the “quality information indicating the
reception quality about the MBSFN transmission” of a node is similarly
commensurate with the description of “initiating a search ” for the node in
Appellants’ Specification. See Ode 1158; see also Ans. 6 (citing Ode Fig.
12 (steps S134 and S135)) and Spec. 19 (emphasis added).
Appellants further argue Ode’s “reception and measurement of the
reference signal by the mobile station” does not teach or suggest “a trigger to
initiate a cell search since the mobile station of Ode is already synchronized
to base station 200 by the time the mobile station receives the reference
5 Appellants’ Specification describes a user equipment (UE) that can
“initiate a search for the second node, which may include one or more inter-
frequency or inter-RAT measurements, based on the information contained
in the MBSFN subframes,” where “[t]he search/measurement can be an
intra-frequency, inter-RAT and/or inter-frequency search, an intra-RAT
and/or inter-RAT search or any other suitable type or combination of
searches” so that “macro node 12 may handover the UE 20 to the home node
16 based on the measurement reports.'1'’ See Spec. H 7, 40 (emphases
added).
12
Appeal 2017-004769
Application 14/358,339
signal.” Reply Br. 4 (citing Ode 156—158). Appellants’ argument is not
persuasive because neither claim 1 nor Appellants’ Specification precludes
synchronizing the second node to the mobile station/controller before
initiating the search for the second node. See Spec. 33, 35—36, 38, and
50.6
Thus, we agree with the Examiner Ode and Maeda teach “a controller
configured to initiate a search for the second node based on the information
contained in the MBSFN subframe,” as recited in claim 1.
Based on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, and the rejections of its dependent claims 2—8, which
Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 7.
Independent claims 9 and 17 similarly recite the disputed limitations
using commensurate language. See claim 9 (“[Receiving ... a Multicast
Broadcast Single Frequency Network (MBSFN) subframe from a second
node, the MBSFN subframe containing information about the second node;
and initiating a search for the second node based on the information.”); and
claim 17 (“[Rjeceive ... a Multicast Broadcast Single Frequency Network
(MBSFN) subframe containing information about a second node, and initiate
6 Appellants’ Specification provides that “[t]he home node 16 is
synchronized to the cellular network to transmit MBSFN subframes on the
same frequency as the macro node 12”; for example, “the home node ... is
synchronized to the network 10 to transmit one or more MBSFN subframes
26 to notify the nearby UE 20 of its proximity to the home node" and “[t]o
accomplish the notification, the home node 16 can transmit MBSFN
subframes”; furthermore, “[ojnly the WEAN AP’s MBSFN transmissions to
the UE 20 need to be synchronized to the network.” See Spec. 33, 35—36
(emphases added).
13
Appeal 2017-004769
Application 14/358,339
a search for the second node based on the information in the MBSFN
subframe.”). App. Br. 15—16 (Claims App’x). Thus, for the same reasons as
claim 1, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 9 and 17 for which
Appellants provide substantially the same arguments. App. Br. 11—13;
Reply Br. 5. We also sustain the rejections of respective dependent claims
10-16 and 18—20, which Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 7.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we affirm the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
14