Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 14, 2021

2019003882 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 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.
15/436,553 02/17/2017 Xun Yang 088963-1142055(069800US) 2241
151394 7590 01/14/2021
Huawei / Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
TAYLOR, BARRY W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/14/2021 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
uspatent@huawei.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte XUN YANG
____________________

Appeal 2019-003882
Application 15/436,553
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOHN A. EVANS, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JOHN P. PINKERTON,
Administrative Patent Judges.

PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–16, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as HUAWEI
TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003882
Application 15/436,553

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant generally describes the disclosed and claimed invention as
relating to “a frequency reuse method and a related apparatus, so as to
reduce frequency interference in a Wi-Fi network.” Spec. ¶ 8.
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 6, 9, and 14 are independent. Independent claim 1 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and provides as follows:
1. An access point device, comprising:
a memory; and
a processor in communication with the memory, wherein
the processor is configured to:
send a first message to a station, wherein the first message
carries indication information indicating that a basic service set
is in a fractional frequency reuse mode;
receive a second message sent by the station, wherein the
second message carries indication information indicating that the
station supports the fractional frequency reuse mode; and
communicate with the station in the fractional frequency
reuse mode after determining, according to the second message,
that the station supports the fractional frequency reuse mode.
Appeal Br. 34 (Claims App.).
References and Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2011/0195732
A1; published Aug. 11, 2011) (“Kim”) and Grandhi (US 2011/0110349 A1;
published May 12, 2011). Final Act. 2–9.
Appeal 2019-003882
Application 15/436,553

3
Claims 3 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kim, Grandhi, and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art
(“AAPA”). Final Act. 10.
Claims 5, 8, 13, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kim, Grandhi, and Gupta (US 2015/0117180 A1;
published Apr. 30, 2015). Final Act. 10–11.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over the combination of Kim
and Grandhi. Final Act. 2–6. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Kim
teaches, among other limitations, a “processor configured to send a first
message to a station, wherein the first message carries indication information
indicating that a basic service set is in a fractional frequency reuse mode.”
Final Act. 2–3 (citing Kim ¶¶ 5–8, 29–32, 45, 49, 51, 52, 61–64, 107–109);
see also id. at 12 (additionally citing Kim, Fig. 2); Ans. 3–5. In particular,
the Examiner finds:
(1) “Kim at 0062 [teaches that] the control information of
the preset data format associated with application of FFR
should be signaled between the serving BS and a terminal or
between the serving BA and a neighbor BS”;
(2) a “basic service set” may be interpreted as reading on the
disclosure in “Kim paragraph 0030 and figure 2 [of an] FRR
mode at cell edge and non-FFR [mode] at cell center” where
“the edge users may further branch into a plurality of smaller
areas[,] which is consistent with [Appellant’s] figure 10 and
originally filed specification at paragraph 0112”;
(3) “Kim at 0045 [teaches that] for efficient FFR
implementation, a BS and/or terminal should know information
needed for applying FFR”;
(4) “Kim at 0049 teaches the control information may
indicate the number of frequency resource groups wherein first
Appeal 2019-003882
Application 15/436,553

4
mode for inner terminals FFR = 1, second mode/method is FFR
1/3 and third mode/method is 2/3”;
(5) “Kim at 0061 [teaches that] a cell or sector is a basic unit
using FRR and the type of a cell (sector) to which FFR is
applied tells what frequency resource group is available for
edge users”;
(6) Kim teaches “control information associated with FFR
(TABLE 2 clearly shows first mode = non-FRR, second mode =
FFR 1/3, and third mode = FFR 2/3 and a bitmap (e.g., 2 bits)
are used to indicate 01 (Non-F[F]R), 01 (FFR 1 /3) and 10
(F[F]R 2/3)”; and
(7) “Kim at paragraph 0051 teaches ‘basic frequency
resources.’”
Ans. 3–5 (additionally citing Kim ¶ 51, Table 2; Spec. ¶ 112, Fig. 10).
In the Answer, the Examiner also finds that Grandhi teaches:
(1) a “WLAN infrastructure has Basic Service Set mode
(0058) and by sending operation information to the WTRUs in
the BSS, the AP may control WTRUs operation in the BSS and
allow adaption to various operation scenarios”;
(2) “[t]he AP controls operation of the WTRUs in BSS by
using OPERATIONAL IE (0065) . . . including . . . ‘Indication
of frequency reuse mechanism’ (last three lines in TABLE 1
on page 6) [in] the WLAN by making channel/sub-carrier
assignments for traffic/users”;
(3) “[a]n example [of] increasing spectrum efficiency by
reusing some frequencies from the frequency spectrum more
often for WTRUs closer to the AP which alleviates overlapping
BSSs”;
(4) “at TABLE 3, . . . frequency reuse mechanisms by
reusing some frequencies more often for WTRUs closer to the
AP”; and
(5) “UE informs BS about its supported data rates (0063)”
and “notifies BS regarding capabilities (e.g., OBSSs
capabilities in claim 13) which helps the BS increase spectrum
efficiency (paragraph 0067-0068 wherein BSSID neighbor
Appeal 2019-003882
Application 15/436,553

5
report disclosed”; and
(6) “neighbor report shown in figure 10 include[s] BSSID
and capabilities information described in TABLE 3.”
Id. at 4–5 (citing Grandhi ¶¶ 58, 61, 63, 65, 67, 68, 82–84, Table 1, Table 3).
Appellant contends the proposed combination of references does not
teach or suggest a first message that “carries indication information
indicating that a basic service set is in fractional frequency reuse mode,” as
recited. Appeal Br. 14–25; Reply Br. 10–21. Appellant argues that nothing
in the cited disclosures of Kim describes a “first message” as recited.
Appeal Br. 14–25; Reply Br. 10–18. In particular, Appellant asserts that
Kim’s “‘control information’ includes information about FFR groups,
methods, sectors, etc.,” but it does not indicate or teach anything about a
basic service set being in a fractional frequency reuse (“FFR”) mode. Reply
Br. 15; see also id. at 17–18. Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s
interpretation of a “basic service set” and asserts that it is based on a logical
fallacy that Kim can be interpreted as having a basic service set because Kim
references FFR, and the Specification references an access point that has two
basic service sets that support FFR. Id. at 17. Appellant instead offers its
own interpretation of a basic service set as “a component of a WLAN
architecture” comprising “units of devices operating with the same medium
access characteristics (i.e. radio frequency, modulation scheme etc.).” Id. at
22–23. Appellant further argues that nothing in the cited disclosures of
Grandhi or Gupta describes a “first message” as recited. Reply Br. 18–21.
More specifically, Appellant asserts that Grandhi’s disclosure of simple
frequency reuse is not the same as an FFR mode, and that Gupta does not
mention an FFR mode. Id. at 19–20.
Appeal 2019-003882
Application 15/436,553

6
We are persuaded of Examiner error. We begin with a discussion of
the claim term “basic service set.” As best understood, the Examiner
interprets this term as reading on Kim’s disclosure of a frequency resource
group for terminals that may be classified according to FFR-related usages
based on whether the user is using the center (inner user) or edge (cell-edge
user) of a cell. See, e.g. Kim ¶¶ 29–32, Fig. 2. The Examiner’s
interpretation is defective for at least two reasons. First, as Appellant points
out, a “basic service set” is “a component of a WLAN architecture,” not a
cellular communications network, which is the case with Kim’s frequency
resource group. See, e.g., Kim ¶¶ 1–5, 7, 12. This is consistent with
Appellant’s Specification, which describes the invention as being in the field
of wireless communications and, more specifically, that its FFR method
supports WLAN technologies. Spec. ¶¶ 2–3, 8, 139, 172. Second, Kim does
not describe its frequency resource group as having the same MAC
characteristics or being identified by a single MAC address, which the
record indicates are exemplary characteristics of a basic service set. See,
e.g., Appeal Br. 22–23; Spec. ¶¶ 13, 16, 21, 24, 71, 122, 150, claim 5.2
Moreover, as Appellant argues, the Examiner has not shown that Kim
or Grandhi teaches or suggests a first message that “carries indication
information indicating that a basic service set is in [an FFR] mode,” as
recited. Kim describes a method for signaling control information
associated with the application of FFR between a base station (which may be
an access point) and a terminal or neighbor base station. See, e.g., Kim ¶¶ 8,

2 Even though Grandhi describes a basic service set (see, e.g., Grandhi ¶ 58),
as discussed in greater detail below, it does not fill the gaps in the rejection
left by the cited disclosures of Kim.
Appeal 2019-003882
Application 15/436,553

7
45, 62, 107. But, as discussed above, the Examiner has not adequately
shown that the cited disclosures of Kim describe a basic service set.
Accordingly, Kim’s disclosures about a frequency resource group classified
according to FFR-related usages do not teach or suggest a basic service set
that is in an FFR mode. Nor does Kim’s signaling of control information,
which, at best, instructs a terminal to use FFR in the future, cure this
deficiency.
The cited disclosures of Grandhi also fall short. Grandhi describes
sending operational information from an AP (for example, an access point or
base station) to a WTRU (for example, a user equipment (UE) or mobile
station) in a basic service set. See, e.g., Grandhi ¶¶ 19, 20, 58, 61.
Grandhi’s operational information can control the WTRU in the basic
service set to operate and employ a frequency reuse mechanism. See, e.g.,
id. ¶¶ 63, 65, 67, 68, Table 1 (describing that frequency reuse mechanisms
may be employed as one type of operational information). Grandhi also
describes negotiation of capabilities between AP and WTRUs (including a
frequency reuse mechanism for a basic service set) prior to communication.
See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 73, 74, Table 3. While these disclosures may suggest (1)
controlling the WTRU (station) of a basic service set so that it will employ a
frequency reuse mechanism in the future, and (2) that the WTRU and AP
can agree on the capability to use a frequency reuse mechanism for a basic
service set in the future, the Examiner has not adequately shown that they
disclose or suggest a message that indicates the basic service set is in an FFR
mode. Nor does the Examiner’s proposed rationale to combine Kim and
Grandhi, which pertains to a different claim limitation (“the second
message”), cure the above deficiency. See Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2019-003882
Application 15/436,553

8
The Examiner, therefore, has not adequately shown that either Kim or
Grandhi teaches or suggests the disputed limitation as claimed. Nor do the
Examiner’s explanations or proposed rationale to combine the asserted
teachings of Kim or Grandhi fill the gaps in the rejection. As a result, the
Examiner has not adequately shown that the proposed combination teaches
or suggests all the limitations of claim 1. We decline to resort to speculation
to fill the gaps in the Examiner’s rejection. See Ex parte Braeken,
54 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (BPAI 1999). Thus, we determine that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness
over Kim and Grandhi.
Accordingly, constrained by this record, we decline to sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we
decline to sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 2–16, each of
which includes a similar limitation. For these claims, the Examiner fails to
provide any finding or reasoning that cures the defects discussed above. See
Final Act. 2–11; cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(“dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which
they depend are nonobvious”).
CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2019-003882
Application 15/436,553

9
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 6, 7,
9, 10, 12,
14, 15
103 Kim, Grandhi
1, 2, 4, 6, 7,
9, 10, 12,
14, 15
3, 11 103 Kim, Grandhi, AAPA 3, 11
5, 8, 13, 16 103 Kim, Grandhi, Gupta 5, 8, 13, 16

REVERSED