16067402 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2020)

British Telecommunications Public Limited Company

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 25, 2020

16067402 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2020)

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. 16/067,402 06/29/2018 Richard Thomas MACKENZIE 4359.176WOUS01 1019 135778 7590 09/25/2020 Patterson Thuente Pedersen, P.A. 4800 IDS CENTER 80 SOUTH 8TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-2100 EXAMINER KO, SITHU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2414 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/25/2020 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): efsuspto@ptslaw.com rabe@ptslaw.com rausch@ptslaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD THOMAS MACKENZIE, MICHAEL ROBERT FITCH, and ANVAR TUKMANOV Appeal 2020-003025 Application 16/067,402 Technology Center 2400 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We held a hearing on this case on 9/17/2020. We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the assignee, British Telecommunications Public Limited Company. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-003025 Application 16/067,402 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a base station, and a method of operating a base station, in a cellular telecommunications network. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of operating a first base station in a cellular network, the cellular network also including a second base station, wherein the first and second base stations include first and second oscillators providing a first and second periodic timing pulse respectively, the method comprising: determining a relative timing offset between a first instance of the first periodic timing pulse for transmission of a frame from the first base station and a first instance of the second periodic timing pulse for transmission of a frame from the second base station; determining a change in the relative timing offset; and, in response, adjusting the first periodic timing pulse to maintain the relative timing offset by varying a first period between instances of the first periodic timing pulse such that a rate of change of the relative timing offset over time is reduced. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Han US 2010/0054237 A1 Mar. 4, 2010 Fujishima US 2010/0208720 A1 Aug. 19, 2010 Zhang US 2011/0274097 A1 Nov. 10, 2011 Garcia US 9,538,369 B2 Jan. 3, 2017 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 6, 7, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fujishima in view of Han. Final Act. 13. Claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fujishima in view of Han in view of Zhang. Final Act. 16. Appeal 2020-003025 Application 16/067,402 3 Claims 4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fujishima in view of Han in view of Zhang in view of Garcia. Final Act. 18. Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1, 6, 7, 8, 13 103 Fujishima, Han 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12 103 Fujishima, Han, Zhang 4, 11 103 Fujishima, Han, Zhang, Garcia OPINION Appellant argues inter alia that Fujishima does not teach or suggest the limitation of “adjusting the first periodic timing pulse” as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8, 22, 23. Appellant argues that paragraph 77 of Fujishima relied upon by the Examiner does not teach the limitation of “adjusting the first periodic timing pulse.” Id. at 22–23. In particular, Appellant emphasizes that Fujishima adjusts the “frame length” according to fixed “clock counts” rather than adjusting a period of its periodic timing pulse as disclosed in Appellant’s Specification (Spec. 5:14) and recited in claim 1. Id. at 23. The Examiner points us to paragraph 149 and concludes that “[c]learly, the reference signals (the synchronization signals) are periodic timing pulses with the periodicity” and relies on Fujishima paragraphs 52, 53, 77 and 78 for the teaching of adjusting this periodicity. See Ans. 6. However, the Examiner does not point to any teaching or suggestion in indicating that Fujishima’s reference signals are adjusted. As Appellant argues, the relevant disclosures cited as teaching adjusting a timing pulse relate to changing a frame length based on the fixed timing pulse. See Fujishima ¶¶ 77–78. Accordingly, we do not find any teaching or Appeal 2020-003025 Application 16/067,402 4 suggestion in the cited paragraphs of adjusting Fujishima’s reference signals. Nor does the record support a finding that Fujishima’s teaching of adjusting a frame length teaches or suggests adjusting a timing pulse, as recited in representative claim 1. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record before us to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 2–13. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13 is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 6, 7, 8, 13 103 Fujishima, Han 1, 6, 7, 8, 13 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12 103 Fujishima, Han, Zhang 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12 4, 11 103 Fujishima, Han, Zhang, Garcia 4, 11 Overall Outcome 1-13 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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). REVERSED