Google Technology Holdings LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 2, 20212019004772 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation