TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 10, 20212019004366 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 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. 15/027,575 04/06/2016 Miurel Isabel Tercero Vargas P40888 US1 1600 132398 7590 03/10/2021 Clairvolex Inc. 161 S San Antonio Road, Suite 10 Los Altos, CA 94022 EXAMINER BLANTON, JOHN D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2466 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/10/2021 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): elofdocket@clairvolex.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte MIUREL ISABEL TERCERO VARGAS and MUHAMMAD KAZMI ________________ Appeal 2019-004366 Application 15/027,575 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection of claims 45–50, 52–57, 59–61, and 63–65.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 1–44, 51, 58, and 62 were cancelled. Appeal Br. 21–22, 24–25 (Claims Appendix). Appeal 2019-004366 Application 15/027,575 2 INVENTION The purported invention relates to different ways of enabling mitigation of interference between an External Wireless System (“EWS”) and a mobile communication system. Spec. 1:6–8. Claim 45 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below with emphasis added (the emphasis denoting the “disputed limitation”): 45. A method performed by a User Equipment (UE) for enabling mitigation of interference between an External Wireless System (EWS) and a mobile communication system, said method comprising the steps of: said UE detecting an EWS event involving EWS operation interfering with the operation of the mobile communication system, wherein the UE detects the EWS event based on fulfillment of a frequency relationship condition by a function of an operating frequency of the EWS and of an operating frequency of the mobile communication system; and said UE enabling said mitigation of interference based on event information representing said EWS event. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). Appeal 2019-004366 Application 15/027,575 3 REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 45–50, 52–57,3 59–61, and 63–65 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Novak (US 2013/0003591 A1; published Jan. 3, 2013) and Fu (US 2012/0040620 A1; published Feb. 16, 2012). Final Act. 3–9. ANALYSIS I. Claims 45, 46, 49, 50, 52, 53, 56, 57, 59, 60, and 63–65 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 The Examiner finds that Fu teaches storing a pre-defined threshold in a mobile station that has different frequency separation from The Industrial, Scientific, and Medical (“ISM”) radio signals, which the Examiner maps to the disputed limitation. Ans. 3–5 (citing Fu ¶¶ 37–38); Final Act. 2–3, 5 (citing Fu ¶¶ 36–38). Appellant argues a condition necessary for triggering of Fu’s interference avoidance solution does not include Fu’s “shortest frequency separation” or “known frequency separation” because Fu teaches ignoring interference in the worst case (hereinafter “first argument”). Appeal Br. 12– 14 (citing Fu ¶¶ 36–38, 44). Appellant argues Fu fails to teach that a wireless device evaluates whether a difference of the wireless device’s operating frequency and the ISM operating frequency satisfies the condition 3 Although the Final Action omits claim 57 from the statement of the rejection, the Final Action includes substantive analysis of claim 57 in the body of the rejection. Compare Final Act. 4 (omitting claim 57 from the heading), with id. at 9 (including an analysis for rejecting claim 57). We, therefore, interpret the omission of claim 57 in the statement of the rejection as a typographical error. Stated differently, we interpret claim 57 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Novak and Fu. Appeal 2019-004366 Application 15/027,575 4 (hereinafter “second argument”). Appeal Br. 14–15 (citing Fu ¶¶ 34, 36– 38). We disagree with both arguments presented by Appellant. Regarding the first argument, we note that Fu teaches at least one scenario for triggering interference mitigation based on frequency separation. Final Act. 3 (citing Fu ¶ 36). That is, Fu teaches determining whether to trigger interference mitigation based on frequency separation when a LTE/WiMAX transceiver is co-located with a WiFi/BT transceiver and the transmit signal of the WiFi/BT transceiver is very close to the receive signal of the LTE/WiMAX transceiver in the frequency domain. Final Act. 3 (citing Fu ¶ 36). More specifically, Fu teaches an in-device co- existence (“IDC”) interference mitigation triggering mechanism relies on a radio signal measurement result and a corresponding condition (e.g., threshold value) and triggering the IDC interference avoidance solution when the threshold value is met. Ans. 3–4 (citing Fu ¶ 37). Furthermore, Fu teaches a base station considers different frequency separation from ISM radio signals when determining the threshold values. Ans. 3–5 (citing Fu ¶ 38); Final Act. 5 (citing Fu ¶ 38). We, therefore, disagree with Appellant’s first argument because Fu teaches at least one scenario in which the frequency separation is a condition that triggers an interference mitigation system. Compare Appeal Br. 12–14 (citing Fu ¶¶ 36–38, 44) with Ans. 3–5 (citing Fu ¶¶ 37–38); Final Act. 2–3, 5 (citing Fu ¶¶ 36–38). Appellant’s second argument is also unavailing. Appeal Br. 14–15 (citing Fu ¶¶ 34, 36–38). “[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.” See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). We note that claim 45 is Appeal 2019-004366 Application 15/027,575 5 broad in scope because it merely recites that the “UE detects the EWS events based on fulfillment of a frequency relationship condition by a function of an operating frequency of the EWS and of an operating frequency of the mobile communication system” (emphases added). Claim 45 does not recite a “difference,” nor does Appellant explain why the “frequency relationship condition” required by this claim should be limited to a so-called “difference.” See also Ans. 4–5 (the Examiner notes that the independent claims do not recite the features that Appellant is arguing on pages 14 and 15 of the Appeal Brief). In any event, even if we were to accept Appellant’s argument that the “frequency relationship condition” required by claim 45 should be limited to a “difference,” Fu nonetheless teaches determining whether to trigger interference mitigation based on frequency separation when a LTE/WiMAX transceiver is co-located with a WiFi/BT transceiver and a base station considers different frequency separation from ISM radio signals when determining the threshold values (i.e., fulfillment of a frequency relationship condition), which teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 3–5 (citing Fu ¶¶ 37–38); Final Act. 2–3, 5 (citing Fu ¶¶ 36–38). Appellant does not argue claims 46, 49, 50, 52, 53, 56, 57, 59, 60, and 63–65 separately. Appeal Br. 10–19. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of: (1) independent claims 45, 53, 60, 64, and 65; and (2) dependent claims 46, 49, 50, 52, 56, 57, 59, and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. II. Claims 47 and 54 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 The Examiner finds that Fu teaches an IDC interference mitigation triggering mechanism relies on a radio signal measurement result and a Appeal 2019-004366 Application 15/027,575 6 corresponding condition (e.g., threshold value) such that a base station considers different frequency separations from ISM radio signals when determining the threshold values, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “wherein said frequency relationship condition is expressed by a pre-defined function relating the operating frequency of the EWS and the operating frequency of the mobile communication system,” as recited in claim 47. Ans. 3–6 (citing Fu ¶¶ 37–38); Final Act. 2–3, 5–7 (citing Fu ¶¶ 36–38, 44). Appellant argues Fu fails to teach that the condition is expressed in a form that relates to the operating frequency of the LTE/WiMAX transceiver and the operating frequency of the WiFi/BT transceiver. Appeal Br. 16–17 (citing Fu ¶¶ 38, 44). We disagree with Appellant. As we explained previously, Fu teaches determining whether to trigger interference mitigation based on frequency separation between a LTE/WiMAX transceiver co-located with a WiFi/BT transceiver. Final Act. 2–3, 5 (citing Fu ¶¶ 36–38). Moreover, Fu teaches mitigating IDC interference between the LTE/WiMAX transceiver and the WiFi/BT transceiver (i.e., relating the operating frequency of the EWS and the operating frequency of the mobile communication system) relies on a threshold value (i.e., condition) in which a base station considers different frequency separations from ISM radio signals when determining the threshold values, which teaches the limitation “wherein said frequency relationship condition is expressed by a pre-defined function relating the operating frequency of the EWS and the operating frequency of the mobile communication system,” as recited in claim 47. Ans. 3–6 (citing Fu ¶¶ 37– 38); Final Act. 2–3, 5–7 (citing Fu ¶¶ 36–38, 44). Appeal 2019-004366 Application 15/027,575 7 Appellant does not argue claim 54 separately. Appeal Br. 16–17. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 47 and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. III. Claims 48, 55, and 61 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 The Examiner finds Novak teaches a UE device is configured to sense interference from a downlink channel (from a network node to the devices), which the Examiner maps to the limitation “wherein said UE receives . . . from a radio network node . . . to enable said UE to detect said EWS event based on fulfillment of the frequency relationship condition,” as recited in claim 48. Ans. 6 (citing Novak ¶ 41); Final Act. 7 (citing Novak ¶ 61). The Examiner finds Fu teaches a base station configuring different frequency separation from ISM radio signals when determining the threshold and storing the threshold configuration in mobile stations, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “wherein said UE receives a configuration request . . . , including configuration information to enable said UE to detect said EWS event based on fulfillment of the frequency relationship condition” recited in claim 48. Ans. 6 (citing Fu ¶¶ 37–38). Appellant argues Novak merely teaches a condition for communicating sensory data reports to a server in which the condition is met when an interference level exceeds a threshold, but fails to teach a condition for reporting the sensory data reports is based on fulfillment of a frequency relationship condition. Appeal Br. 17–18 (citing Novak ¶¶ 59, 61). Appellant states that the Examiner does not rely on Fu to cure the purported deficiencies of Novak. Appeal Br. 18. We disagree with Appellant. One cannot show nonobviousness “by attacking references individually” where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Appeal 2019-004366 Application 15/027,575 8 In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). In this case, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Novak and Fu to account for limitation of claim 48. More specifically, the Examiner relies on Novak to teach a UE device is configured to sense interference (i.e., detect an EWS event based on fulfillment of the frequency relationship condition) in a downlink channel on a path from a network node to the devices, which teaches the limitation “wherein said UE receives . . . from a radio network node . . . to enable said UE to detect said EWS event based on fulfillment of the frequency relationship condition,” as recited in claim 48. Ans. 6 (citing Novak ¶ 41).4 The Examiner turns to Fu to teach a base station configuring different frequency separation from ISM radio signals when determining the threshold and storing the threshold configuration in mobile stations (i.e., the UE receives a configuration request), which teaches the limitation “wherein said UE receives a configuration request . . . , including configuration information to enable said UE to detect said EWS event based on fulfillment of the frequency relationship condition,” as recited in claim 48. Ans. 6 (citing Fu ¶¶ 37–38). Appellant does not argue claims 55 and 61 separately. Appeal Br. 17– 18. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 48, 55, and 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to 4 Although Appellant is not required to file a Reply Brief, Appellant did not avail itself of the opportunity to file a Reply Brief in responding to the Examiner’s reliance on Novak’s paragraph 41 in the Answer. Appeal 2019-004366 Application 15/027,575 9 make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 45–50, 52– 57, 59–61, 63–65 103 Novak, Fu 45–50, 52– 57, 59–61, 63–65 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation