Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 17, 2022

2020006423 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2022)

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. 14/502,631 09/30/2014 Haitao Li 355450-US-NP 7193 147148 7590 02/17/2022 Ray Quinney & Nebeker - Microsoft 36 South State Street Suite 1400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 EXAMINER KAUR, PAMIT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2416 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/17/2022 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): mspatent@rqn.com usdocket@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte HAITAO LI, and YUANTAO ZHANG ____________________ Appeal 2020-006423 Application 14/502,631 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 through 9, 11, 13 through 18, and 20 through 24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. INVENTION The invention is directed to establishing device to device (D2D) communication between two user devices in a cellular communication 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-006423 Application 14/502,631 2 network. Spec. ¶ ¶ 5-8. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below. 1. A method implemented by master user equipment comprising: obtaining radio resource information associated with a slave user equipment in cellular communication, the radio resource information comprising capability information and information on an existing cellular radio resource configuration currently used by the slave user equipment; performing a first device-to-device radio resource configuration for device-to-device (D2D) communication between the master user equipment and the slave user equipment based on the capability information and the existing cellular radio resource configuration; and determining a remaining capacity of the slave user equipment that is useable for a second device-to-device radio resource configuration for future device-to-device communications based on the existing cellular radio resource configuration and the first device-to-device radio resource configuration. Appeal 2020-006423 Application 14/502,631 3 EXAMINER’S REJECTION2 The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 through 9, 11, 13 through 18, and 20 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Nimbalker (US 2014/0187283 A1; July 3, 2014). Final Act. 3-11.3 ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 through 9, 11, 13 through 18, and 20 through 24. Appellant presents several arguments with respect to the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 8-13. The dispositive issue presented by Appellant’s arguments is did the Examiner err in finding Nimbalker discloses obtaining radio resource information associated with user equipment in cellular communication where the radio resource information includes information comprising capability and information on an existing cellular radio resource configuration currently used by the user equipment. Appeal Br. 9-11. The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments directed to this 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed March 23, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed September 14, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Final Office Action mailed October 21, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 13, 2020 (“Ans.”). 3 We note that the statement of the rejection on page 3 of the Final Action does not include claims 21 through 24, we consider this to be a typographical error as the Examiner’s statement on page 5 of the Final Action clearly identifies claims 21 through 24 as included in the rejection. Appeal 2020-006423 Application 14/502,631 4 point identifying that Nimbalker discusses that the Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) Resource Blocks (RB) transmitted from the second user equipment to the first user equipment, and finds that this teaches the disputed feature as the PUCCH is resource information associated with cellular communication. Ans. 3-4 (citing Nimbalker ¶¶ 53, 108, 164, 165). We have reviewed the cited teachings of Nimbalker and disagree with the Examiner. Claim 1 recites “the radio resource information comprising capability information and information on an existing cellular radio resource configuration currently used by the slave user equipment.” Thus, the claimed radio resource information must include both information on the capability and information on the configuration currently used by the user device. The cited teachings of Nimbalker discuss information associated with cellular communication but does not identify that the information is on a configuration currently used by the user device. Notably paragraph 164 is prospective and discusses the Resource Blocks that are to be used for the Physical Uplink Control Channel, and not discussing resources currently being used. Thus, we do not find that the Examiner has shown that Nimbalker discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 1 and we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 21, 22. With respect to independent claims 8 and 15 Appellant presents similar arguments on pages 14 through 20 of the Appeal Brief and the Examiner provides a similar response on pages 8 through 13 of the Answer. Independent claim 8 recites a limitation directed to determining radio resource information including “information on an existing cellular radio resource configuration currently being used by the slave user equipment.” Appeal 2020-006423 Application 14/502,631 5 Appeal Br. 27. Independent claim 15 recites a limitation directed to determining radio resource information including “information on a first cellular radio resource configuration being used by the slave user equipment.” Id. at 28. Thus, similar to claim 1, both independent claims 8 and 15 recite that the determined information includes information about a configuration in use. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, we do not find that the teachings cited by the Examiner disclose this feature. Accordingly, we do not find that the Examiner has shown that Nimbalker discloses all of the limitations of independent claims 8 and 15 and we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 7 through 9, 11, 13 through 18, and 20, 23 and 24. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 through 9, 11, 13 through 18, and 20 through 24. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-18, 20-24 102 Nimbalker 1, 2, 4, 5, 7- 9, 11, 13-18, 20-24 REVERSED