Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 16, 2018

14239834 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/239,834 02/20/2014
10948 7590 07/18/2018
Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC
4 Research Drive, Suite 202
Shelton, CT 06484
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yi Zhang
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.
800.1860.Ul(US) 3492
EXAMINER
YANG, JIANXUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/18/2018 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):
USPTO@hspatent.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
Appeal 2018-001198
Application 14/239,834
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YI ZHANG, BENOIST PIERRE SEBIRE, and
GUILLAUME DECARREAU
Appeal 2018-001198
Application 14/239,834
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R MACDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13-16, 19, 20, 22-24 and 26,
constituting all claims pending in the current application. 1,2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Claims 5, 9, 12, 18, 21, and 25 are canceled. See Ans. 4.
2 Appellants identify Nokia Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
1
Appeal 2018-001198
Application 14/239,834
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
providing measurement information from a communication device to a base
station. Spec. 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
determining if a device is experiencing in device co-existence
interference during operation of the device in performing a cell
measurement; and
reporting to a base station the cell measurement and
information about whether the device was experiencing in device
co-existence interference while the cell measurement was being
performed, wherein the cell measurement comprises minimizing drive
test information.
REJECTI0NS 3
Claims 1--4, 6-8, 10, 14--16, 19, 20, 22, and 26 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Dayal et al. (US 2011/0243047 Al; published Oct. 6, 2011) ("Dayal"), Koo
et al. (US2013/002820I Al; published Jan. 31, 2013) ("Koo"), and Olsson
(US 2011/0250880 Al; published Oct. 13, 2011). Final Act. 2.
Claims 11, 13, 23 and 24 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Dayal, Koo, Olson and Fu et al. (US
2012/0040715 Al, published Feb. 16, 2012) ("Fu"). Final Act. 8.
3 The Examiner withdrew 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) rejections to dependent claims
3, 11, 13, 17, 23, and 24 in the Answer. Ans. 14.
2
Appeal 2018-001198
Application 14/239,834
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding the combination of
Dayal, Koo, and Olsson teaches or suggests "reporting to a base station the
cell measurement and information about whether the device was
experiencing in device co-existence interference while the cell measurement
was being performed," as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 15.
According to Appellants, "it is not within the references, nor obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art, for a UE [ user equipment to] send MDT
[ minimizing drive test] measurements ( or the more generally claimed cell
measurements) while knowing, in advance of sending them, that such
measurements are inaccurate for the radio channel they purport to
[represent]." App. Br. 15 ( emphasis omitted).
Appellants assert the combined references do not teach the disputed
limitation because "the MDT measurement would not accurately reflect the
radio channel being measured [because] it was taken at a time during which
IDC [inter device coexistence] interference was so severe as to cause a RLF
[ radio link failure], and by definition the IDC interference is within the
device itself and so its effects are not manifested in the radio channel as seen
by other UEs," and so the combination reports "'polluted' MDT
measurements." App. Br. 16-17. According to Appellants, "[t]he RLF is
the only vehicle cited from among all the references relied upon for having
both IDC interference information and MDT measurement information
reported per claim 1." App. Br. 17. Therefore, Appellants argue "this
purported combination results in 'polluted' MDT measurements being
reported, and the UE knows at the time they are reported these
measurements are polluted because the UE experienced RLF prior to
3
Appeal 2018-001198
Application 14/239,834
reporting them," but "[t]here is no case in which non-polluted MDT
measurements can be reported by the combined references and still read on
claim 1 because there is no escaping that if there is no RLF due to IDC
interference there is no way for the combination to read on the reporting
element of claim 1." App. Br. 17. Appellants further argue "a key shortfall
of the rejection is why such 'polluted' MDT measurements would be
reported to the network at all" and "[ n ]othing in the combined references
suggest" such "polluted" MDT measurements would be reported. App. Br.
17.
We do not see any error in the Examiner's findings, and agree with
the Examiner's conclusions. Claim 1 recites "reporting to a base station the
[ minimizing drive test information] and information about whether the
device was experiencing in device co-existence interference while the cell
measurement was being performed."
Dayal describes methods for identifying coexistence issues among
radios in a UE and communication by the UE to a base node to inform the
base node of interference seen by the UE on the downlink. Dayal Abstract,
,r 8. Dayal describes measuring downlink signal quality, as well as
measuring interfering signals in various channels during a measurement gap
and reporting that information to the base station. Dayal ,r,r 80, 90. Koo,
likewise, describes avoiding in device coexistence interference between
different radio technologies, and teaches the UE indicating to the base
station which frequencies are or are not useable due to in-device
coexistence. Koo Abstract, ,r 23. Olsson describes "if a UE is performing
minimizing drive test (MDT) measurements and a radio link failure (RLF)
occurs, the UE may add MDT measurement information to an RLF message
4
Appeal 2018-001198
Application 14/239,834
to the network," in effect, "piggy-backing" the MDT information in the RLF
report. Olsson ,r 8.
Appellants' arguments fail to address the combination of the three
references as relied upon by the Examiner. As described above, all three
references teach the UE reporting some information to a base station. See
Ans. 11-13. Dayal and Koo both teach methods for determining in device
co-existence interference using a downlink measurement. See Final Act. 11;
see also Ans. 11-12. However, neither Dayal nor Koo teaches a cell
measurement comprising minimizing drive test information. For that, the
Examiner relies on Olsson, and finds "the DL measurement used in the
[Dayal and Koo] methods may be different types of measurements such as
an MDT measurement as taught by Olsson." Final Act. 11; see also Ans.
13. The Examiner further reasons "it would be at the knowledge of one with
ordinary skill in the art to allow a MDT report to include any in-device
interference experience[ ed] by a reporting UE for a simplified reporting
process," and "combining with Olsson would allow reporting the MDT
measurement with the normal DL measurement together to a network station
such as a base station." Ans. 13-14. We find the Examiner's reasoning is
rational and supported by the evidence on the record.
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Dayal, Koo, and
Olsson teaches or suggests reporting to a base station the cell measurement
and information about whether the device was experiencing in device co-
existence interference while the cell measurement was being performed
(Dayal ,r,r 80, 90 ( describes reporting the downlink measurements and
interfering signal measurement information to the base station, which
reflects in device co-existence interference problems); Koo ,r 23 ( describes
5
Appeal 2018-001198
Application 14/239,834
indicating to the base station which frequencies are (not) useable due to in-
device coexistence in frequency domain multiplexing (FDM) solutions)), 4
wherein the cell measurement comprises minimizing drive test information
(Olsson ,r 8 (describes cell measurement is MDT)).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of independent claim 1. For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner's 3 5
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 15 and 22, which recite
commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 4, 6-8, 14--16, 19, 20, 22,
and 26, which were not separately argued.
Claim 10
Appellants present similar arguments with respect to independent
claim 10. App. Br. 20. In addition, Appellants argue "[t]here is no teaching
in Dayal that the UE would send measurement results to the eNB, and along
with those measurement results would also send some kind of indication that
the UE was experiencing in-device coexistence interference while the
measurements were being performed." App. Br. 21. Appellants further
argue, "like Dayal, Koo is silent as to the UE sending measurement results to
the eNB along with some kind of indication that the UE was experiencing
in-device coexistence interference while the measurements were being
performed" and "Koo also does not mention MDT measurements." App. Br.
21-22. Appellants further ague "Olsson's RLF report cannot read on the
claimed information about whether the device was experiencing in device
4 Appellants' Specification indicates "[sending] usable/non-usable frequency
bands in case FDM solution" as information sent "to the network to report
the coexistence problems." Spec. 9.
6
Appeal 2018-001198
Application 14/239,834
co-existence interference while the cell measurement was being performed."
App. Br. 23 (emphasis omitted). Appellants contend "none of [the
references] alone or in combination contemplate the general concept of a UE
sending a 'polluted' cell measurement to a base station and also information
about the cell measurement being polluted due to in device co-existence
interference." App. Br. 23.
We do not see any error in the Examiner's findings, and agree with
the Examiner's conclusions. Appellants' arguments address the references
individually, rather than as combined by the Examiner. "Nonobviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually" when the
rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). For
the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 1, we agree with
the Examiner that the combination of Dayal, Koo, and Olsson teaches or
suggests the limitations in claim 10. See also Ans. 11-14.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of independent claim 10.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites "the cell measurement is
reported to the base station together with the information about whether the
device was experiencing in device co-existence interference." Claim 16
recites similar limitations. Appellants argue "[ w ]hile it is true Dayal
piggybacks MDT information in its RLF report, no motivation is shown why
Dayal would report RSRQ so grossly inaccurate due to its own IDC that it
caused RLF." App. Br. 24.
7
Appeal 2018-001198
Application 14/239,834
We do not see any error in the Examiner's findings, and agree with
the Examiner's conclusions for the same reasons as set forth above with
respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of dependent claims 2 and 16.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 14--16, 19, 20, 22,
and 26 is affirmed.
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
8