Ex Parte Karlsson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2018

14117953 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/117,953 11115/2013
6449 7590 05/02/2018
ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
607 14th Street, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
Jorgen Karlsson
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
3602-780 5053
EXAMINER
DEMETER, HILINA K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2674
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2018 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):
PTO-PAT-Email@rfem.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JORGEN KARLSSON, KONSTANTINOS DIMOU,
SVERKER MAGNUSSON, OLAV QUESETH 1
Appeal2017-000330
Application 14/117,953
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-14, all the pending claims in the
present application (see Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants name Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) as the real party
in interest (App. Br. 2).
Appeal2017-000330
Application 14/117,953
The present invention relates generally to arrangements for avoiding
or reducing out-of-band interference into adjacent frequency bands (see
Spec., Abstract).
Claims 1 and 5 are illustrative:
1. A method in a serving node in a first system associated
with a first frequency band for radio communication for avoiding or
reducing interference in a second frequency band associated with a
second system and adjacent to the first frequency band, the method
compnsmg:
detecting activity of the second system in the second
frequency band,
determining characteristics of the second system current
activity in the second frequency band,
said serving node adjusting the bandwidth used by said
node for transmitting data to a plurality of wireless communication
devices (WCDs) served by said node, the adjustment of said
bandwidth being based on said characteristics such that
interference to the second frequency band from radio transmission
from the node is adapted to the second system activity in said second
frequency band, and
said serving node providing to at least one of said
plurality of WCDs served by the node information related to said
adjustment of the bandwidth used by said node for transmitting data to
said plurality of WCDs, thus enabling continued service of said at
least one WCD.
5. A method in a mobile terminal in a first system
associated with a first frequency band for radio communication, for
supporting avoiding or reducing interference in a second frequency
band associated with a second system and adjacent to the first
frequency band, the method comprising:
receiving, at the mobile terminal, information transmitted
by a node serving the mobile terminal, said information being related
to a bandwidth adjustment made by said node serving the mobile
terminal, said bandwidth adjustment comprising an adjustment of a
bandwidth used by said node for communication, and
2
Appeal2017-000330
Application 14/117,953
adapting at least one parameter related to channel
estimation based on the received information.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
RI. Claims 5, 6, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kim (US 2010/0165827 Al/July 1, 2010) and
Borran (US 2008/0161033 Al, July 3, 2008); and
R2. Claims 1--4, 7-9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim, Borran, and Pikkarainen
(WO 2011/128879 Al, Oct. 20, 2011).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Kim and Borran
collectively teach or suggest "receiving, at the mobile terminal, information
transmitted by a node serving the mobile terminal ... related to a bandwidth
adjustment made by said node serving the mobile terminal," as set forth in
claim 5?
Appellants contend that "not only does paragraph [0027] [of Kim] not
disclose that the second communication system is 'serving the mobile
terminal,' as is expressly required by claim [5], but Kim teaches that the
mobile terminal is not even a part of the second communication system"
(App. Br. 10, citing Kim i-f 53). Although we agree with Appellants that
Kim's "wireless communication device" (i.e., mobile terminal that samples a
3
Appeal2017-000330
Application 14/117,953
periodic signal of the second wireless communication system) is located in
the first communication system (see Kim i-f 53), we highlight that claim 5,
unlike claim 1, places no requirement on where the "serving node" is
located. Thus, the only question we have here is whether the cited
combination teaches or suggests a serving node transmitting bandwidth
adjustment information, as set forth in claim 5.
Appellants contend that "paragraph [0027] of Kim does not disclose
(or even suggest) that the 'periodic signal' transmitted by the second
communication system and received by the wireless communication device
comprises 'information being related to a bandwidth adjustment made by
said node serving the mobile terminal"' (id. at 11 ). Appellants also contend
that Borran "does not teach or suggest that any node that is serving the
mobile terminal makes any adjustment. Rather, paragraph [0054] merely
discloses the mobile terminal itself adjusting resources" (id. at 12).
In response, the Examiner explains that "[a ]lthough Kim teaches a
threshold adjusting unit that adjusts a threshold value based on bandwidth
information, [the] Examiner further relied on Borran to specifically teach
receiving information related to bandwidth adjustment made by said node"
(Ans. 4, citing Kim i-fi-151 and 103 and Borran i-f 54). In other words, as
noted by Appellants, "the Examiner no longer cites to Kim at paragraph
[0027], but [now] cites Kim at paragraphs [0051] and [0103]" (see Reply
Br. 2-3) in addition to Borran's paragraph 54. In essence, the Examiner
finds that Kim teaches one unit adjusting a threshold value and another
external device providing bandwidth information, while Borran teaches a
node that makes the bandwidth adjustments and transmit information
relating thereto.
4
Appeal2017-000330
Application 14/117,953
In reply to the Examiner's new findings, Appellants contend that
"[t]here is nothing in Kim, however, that discloses or suggests that the
'external device; (e.g., [media access controller] 'MAC 350') is 'a node
serving the mobile terminal"' (Reply Br. 4) (underlining omitted) and "there
is nothing in Kim or Borran that teaches or suggests that the 'bandwidth
information' provided by the 'external device' is 'information related to a
bandwidth adjustment made by said [external device]"' (id. at 5). We
agree with Appellants.
Claim 5 requires both that the "serving node" transmit information
related to a bandwidth adjustment to the mobile terminal and that the
bandwidth adjustment is an adjustment made by and used by the serving
node for communication (see claim 5). Independent claims 1, 7, and 10
recite similar features. Appellants gives an exemplary description of
"serving nodes" as a functional unit providing regular base station functions
(see Spec. i-f 63). Therefore, the claimed "node serving the mobile terminal,"
reads on any node providing regular base station functions.
Here, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner fails to show that
Kim's MAC 350, the alleged serving node, performs both of the
aforementioned features. Specifically, while Kim's MAC 350
"communicates" bandwidth information (see Kim i-f 103), the Examiner fails
to show that such information is related to a bandwidth adjustment made by
MAC 350 and used by MAC 350, as required by claim 5.
In fact, Kim's threshold adjusting unit 820 appears to be making any
needed adjustments, not the MAC 350. In addition, the Examiner is silent
regarding Appellants' contention that "[ t ]here is nothing in Kim, however,
that discloses or suggests that the 'external device; (e.g., 'MAC 350') is 'a
5
Appeal2017-000330
Application 14/117,953
node serving the mobile terminal"' (see Reply Br. 4; see also App. Br. 10)
(underlining omitted).
Kim's MAC 350 is located in a baseband processor included within a
wireless communication devices (see Kim i-f 56; see also Figs. 1-3), and
Kim's threshold adjusting unit 820 is also included in the wireless
communication device (see Kim i-f 101). The Examiner fails to equate Kim's
wireless communication device with a serving node, i.e., a node providing
regular base station functions.
Similarly, the Examiner fails to address Appellants' contention that
Borran "does not teach or suggest that any node that is serving the mobile
terminal makes any adjustment" (App. Br. 12) (emphasis added). We agree
with Appellants that "paragraph [0054] [of Borran] merely discloses the
mobile terminal itself adjusting bandwidth resources" (Reply Br. 7)
(emphasis added). For example, Borran discloses "a reverse link (RL)
transmission 230 between terminal 210 and base station 220 in system 200 is
illustrated .... resources used by terminal 210 ... such as power and/or
bandwidth, can be adjusted by a transmission adjustment component 212 at
terminal 210" (Borran, i-f 54; see also Fig. 2A). In other words, similar to
Kim, Borran's mobile terminal itself adjusts the bandwidth, not a node
serving the mobile terminal, e.g., not a base station.
Appellants make similar arguments for independent claims 1 and 7
(see App. Br. 14--17), which include similar limitations. We also find these
arguments persuasive for similar reasons.
In summary, the Examiner has not shown that the combination of Kim
and Borran teaches or suggests a node serving the mobile station, as set forth
6
Appeal2017-000330
Application 14/117,953
in representative claim 5. The Examiner also has not shown that the other
reference of record, i.e., Pikkarainen, teaches this feature.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 1-14.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-14 is reversed.
REVERSED
7