Google Technology Holdings LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2021

2019004772 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2021)

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.
14/673,391 03/30/2015 Robert T. Love 31730/101377-00D 5517
12716 7590 04/02/2021
Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP (Google)
233 South Wacker Drive
6300 Willis Tower
Chicago, IL 60606-6357
EXAMINER
MILLS, DONALD L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2021 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):
mgbdocket@marshallip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT T. LOVE, AJIT NIMBALKER,
KENNETH A. STEWART, SANDEEP H. KRISHNAMURTHY,
and XIANGYANG ZHUANG
Appeal 2019-004772
Application 14/673,391
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Google
Technology Holdings LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004772
Application 14/673,391

2
BACKGROUND
The Claimed Invention
The invention relates to wireless communication, and specifically, to
interference control, signal quality optimization, and signaling enhancements
to “improve the performance of observed time difference of arrival
(OTDOA) measurements in wireless receivers.” Spec. ¶ 2. The
Specification explains that such improvement in OTDOA measurements is
“for the purpose of assisting user position estimation.” Id.
Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention and the subject matter in dispute, and is reproduced below:
1. A method in a first base station including:
receiving, by the first base station, system timing
information of a second base station;
transmitting, to the second base station, system timing
information of the first base station;
scheduling, by the first base station, transmission of
observed time difference of arrival (OTDOA) reference signals
using the system timing information of the first base station and
the system timing information received from the second base
station, the transmission being scheduled such that the
transmission of OTDOA reference signals from the first and
second base stations overlap in time, and the OTDOA reference
signals from the first and second base stations being different;
and
signaling, to a wireless terminal, a measurement pattern
corresponding to the OTDOA reference signals from the first and
second base stations.

Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2019-004772
Application 14/673,391

3
References
The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Edge US 7,155,244 B2 Dec. 26, 2006
Nam et al. (“Nam”) US 2009/0268680 A1 Oct. 29, 2009
Gerstenberger et al.
(“Gerstenberger”)
US 8,908,586 B2 Dec. 9, 2014
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–9 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gerstenberger, Nam, and Edge. Final Act. 2–8.
Claims 10–12 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gerstenberger and Nam. Final Act. 8–9.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments that Appellant could have
made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). For the reasons discussed below, Appellant has persuaded
us of error regarding the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5. As to the
remaining claims, Appellant has not persuaded us of error and we adopt as
our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections and in the
Examiner’s Answer. We provide the following for highlighting and
emphasis.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests “receiving, by the first base station” and “transmitting, to the
second base station, system timing information of the first base station” as
recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 8–11; Reply Br. 4–6. Specifically, Appellant
argues the Examiner ignores the language in the preamble, “in a first base
Appeal 2019-004772
Application 14/673,391

4
station,” and Gerstenberger fails to teach any base station that transmits
system timing information back to another (first) base station. Appeal Br.
8–9; Reply Br. 4. We, however, are unpersuaded of error.
As the Examiner finds, Gerstenberger teaches a plurality of eNodeBs,
which are described therein as “base station[s].” Gerstenberger 5:56; Ans.
11. As the Examiner further finds, Gerstenberger teaches the eNodeBs
receiving “selected time instances during which transmission of the
positioning subframes is to occur in the wireless communications network,”
and specifically, “[o]ne or several eNodeBs 13 . . . receives 42 the time
instance from the network node and [the] schedules 43 [of] the positioning
subframes based on the received time instance.” Ans. 11; Gerstenberger
6:60–7:5; Figs. 1, 3–5.
We agree with the Examiner’s determination that the disputed claim
limitation does not require the first base station to send information directly
to the second base station. Ans. 11. The claim only recites “transmitting, to
the second base station,” not “transmitting by the first base station to the
second base station.” Appeal Br. 18 (emphasis added); In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (claim terms given their
“their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification”).
Although the preamble recites a “first base station,” claim 1 is a method
claim and the disputed limitation does not specify which element does the
“transmitting, to the second base station” (nor does any other limitation in
the claim). See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364.
Further, we agree with the Examiner’s rationale in combining the
references. Final Act. 4 (citing Edge 9:36–46). Edge teaches that it was
well known in the art to utilize timing information exchanged between base
Appeal 2019-004772
Application 14/673,391

5
stations and a central node, and it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill to implement the information exchange of Edge into
Gerstenberger and Nam, both of which are directed to OTDOA
improvements. Id. Appellant does not identify any error in the Examiner’s
findings.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 as obvious over Gerstenberger, Nam, and Edge.
For the same reasons, we are not persuaded of error regarding
dependent claim 4, which recites a “relationship” between the measurement
pattern and the second base station identity. Appeal Br. 17. As the
Examiner finds, the schedule described in Gerstenberger is a “relationship”
between the measurement pattern and base station. Ans. 13. Claim 4
requires nothing specific about the recited “relationship.” See In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364. Similarly, dependent claim 6
recites a “periodicity” of subframes, but as the Examiner observes, the
“periodicity” could be one (unity). Ans. 14. Thus, we are unpersuaded the
Examiner erred in finding Gerstenberger teaches the recited “periodicity” of
subframes. Id. (citing Gerstenberger 5:47–61, 6:60–7:5).
As to dependent claim 5, however, we are persuaded of error. Claim
5 recites the “measurement pattern includes an offset of subframes on which
the OTDOA references signals are transmitted.” Appeal Br. 19. The
Examiner finds Gerstenberger teaches “the network node informs 41 one or
several eNodeBs 13 about the selected time instance and scheduled
accordingly for OTDOA subframes.” Ans. 14. The Examiner explains that
the claim is being interpreted as “functionally equivalent to the transmitted
Appeal 2019-004772
Application 14/673,391

6
schedule as the schedule includes an offset between OTDOA transmissions,
as the alignment is altered to effectuate a situation in which interference is
avoided by positioning subframes with an off set, by its nature, to avoid the
interference issue.” Id.
As Appellant argues, however, the Examiner’s foregoing findings do
not identify any teaching in that the measurement pattern includes an offset
of subframes and that the OTDOA reference signals are transmitted on these
subframes, as recited in claim 5. Reply Br. 7. The Examiner has not
identified sufficient evidence on this record to support the conclusion of
obviousness as to claim 5. Accordingly, we are persuaded of error regarding
claim 5.
We are unpersuaded of error regarding the remaining claims, for the
reasons discussed above (and in the Answer). As to claim 10, Appellant
argues the prior art fails to teach or suggest “reference signals being
identical both in signal sequence and time-frequency resources used of the
transmission.” Appeal Br. 19–20. As the Examiner finds, however,
Gerstenberger teaches “the network node selects 40 a time instance during
which transmission of the positioning subframes is to occur in the wireless
network, the transmission to multiple base stations occurring in the same
signal sequence and time/frequency resources used for transmission.” Ans.
15; Gerstenberger 5:47–61, 6:12–20, 7:24–51, Figs. 1, 3–5.
Dependent claim 12 further recites “subdividing a set of possible
PCIDs that can be assigned to the plurality of base station transmitters.”
Appeal Br. 20. As the Examiner observes, “PCID” is, essentially, an index
(as used in claim 12 in view of Appellant’s Specification). Ans. 15–16;
Appeal 2019-004772
Application 14/673,391

7
Spec. ¶¶ 24–25. Specifically, the PCID is an index for “exchanging
scheduling information in which some base stations may be adjacent to one
another.” Ans. 15; In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364. As
the Examiner finds (and as discussed above), Gerstenberger teaches a
“network node informs 41 one or several eNodeBs 13 about the selected
time instance and schedule[s] accordingly for OTDOA subframes.” Ans.
15–16; see also Gerstenberger Figs. 1, 3–5. Further, Gerstenberger teaches
the “the OTDOA signals the same for the first and second eNodeB, first and
second disjoint sets, for signaling to a mobile station.” Ans. 16;
Gerstenberger 5:47–61, 6:60–7:5. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of
error.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejections of
claims 1–4 and 6–12. We do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim
5.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1–4 and 6–12.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to rejectclaim 5.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2019-004772
Application 14/673,391

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9 103 Gerstenberger,
Nam, Edge
1–4, 6–9 5
10–12 103 Gerstenberger,
Nam
10–12
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–12 5

AFFIRMED IN PART