TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 10, 2021

2019004366 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 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.
15/027,575 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