COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 16, 2020

2019001093 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 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.
14/973,261 12/17/2015 Gregory Allan Maca 2824/100.1485US01 7921
135878 7590 06/16/2020
Fogg & Powers LLC/Commscope
4600 W 77th St
Suite 305
Minneapolis, MN 55435
EXAMINER
CAIRNS, THOMAS R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/16/2020 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):
docketing@fogglaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS HANSSON and IAN RUDOLF BRATT
Appeal 2019-001093
Application 14/973,261
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, 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 1–20. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CommScope
Technologies LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001093
Application 14/973,261
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “allocating bandwidth among
communication links in a telecommunication system.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
simultaneously receiving, by a wireless receiver, beacon
signals at a common frequency from a first access point and a
second access point, respectively, wherein each of the beacon
signals has a data sequence that is different than other beacon
signals;
determining, by a processing device and based on the
data sequences received by the wireless receiver, channel
responses for channels between the first access point and the
wireless receiver and between the second access point and the
wireless receiver;
outputting, by the processing device and based on the
channel responses, an indicator that the first access point and
the second access point are suitable for a specified
configuration of a telecommunication system for providing
wireless coverage using the first access point and the second
access point.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Forenza US 2011/0003607 A1 Jan. 6, 2011
Govindswamy US 8,036,658 B2 Oct. 11, 2011
Hugl US 2013/0250876 A1 Sept. 26, 2013
Roman US 8,731,001 B2 May 20, 2014

Appeal 2019-001093
Application 14/973,261
3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–4, 8–10, and 12–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Roman and Govindswamy. Final Act. 6–15.
Claims 5, 6, and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Roman, Govindswamy, and Forenza. Final Act. 15–18.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Roman, Govindswamy, and Hugl. Final Act. 19–21.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–4, 8–10, and 12–17
over Roman and Govindswamy
The Examiner finds Roman and Govindswamy teach all limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 6–8. In particular, the Examiner finds Roman teaches all
limitations of claim 1, except for “simultaneously receiving, by a wireless
receiver, beacon signals at a common frequency from a first access point and
a second access point” (emphasis added) as recited in claim 1. See Final Act.
6–7. The Examiner further finds Govindswamy teaches “simultaneously
receiving, by a wireless receiver, beacon signals at a common frequency
from a first access point and a second access point” (emphasis added) as
recited in claim 1. Final Act. 8. The Examiner reasons
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
use Govindswamy to modify Roman in order to measure the
difference between channel responses of the same channels from
different access points. One would have been motivated to do
this, because using two RF receive chains simultaneously
reduces time diversity while achieving spatial diversity for faster,
more accurate measurements.
Final Act. 8 (citing Govindswamy col. 10, ll. 29–39).
Appeal 2019-001093
Application 14/973,261
4
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
i. “[T]here is no teaching in Roman that different CSI-RS
transmissions, with different CSI-RS symbol sequences, (the alleged
‘beacon signals’ with differing data sequence) are transmitted
simultaneously at a common frequency. Also, there is nothing in
Govindswamy to suggest otherwise.” Appeal Br. 7. “[I]f there is only a
single signal transmitted on that channel, only a single signal will be
received by the Govindswamy receivers even if it is received using multiple
receive chains at the same time.” Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2–3
(“[O]ne of skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify a
receiver to receive multiple simultaneous CSI-RS symbol sequences, where
multiple simultaneous CSI-RS symbol sequences are not being transmitted
in the first place.”).
ii. “The teachings of Govindswamy cited by the Examiner in
connection with this rejection relate to network acquisition -- that is, the
process of a client terminal (UE) searching for the network, acquiring
network information, registering and camping on to the network in the first
instance.” Appeal Br. 8 (citing Govindswamy col. 1, ll. 26–30). “[T]he
portions of Roman cited by the Examiner relate to channel state
information acquisition -- which occurs well after the UE has completed the
network acquisition process and is already being served by a cell. Indeed, no
searching for the CSI-RSs is needed in Roman since the relevant UE is
provided with the information about the CSI-RSs.” Appeal Br. 8 (citing
Roman Fig. 4, step 402). “[O]ne of skill in the art would not have been
motivated to use the network acquisition improvement techniques of
Govindswamy in the channel state information acquisition of Roman since
no beacon channel search process is used.” Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br.
Appeal 2019-001093
Application 14/973,261
5
3–4 (“[W]ith respect to the alleged benefit of achieving spatial diversity, the
Examiner has not shown how Roman’s UE 106 would utilize such diversity
in the processes of determining channel state information, and therefore
has no basis to assert that Roman’s UE 106 would obtain any benefit from
such diversity.”).
Regarding simultaneously receiving beacon signals at a common
frequency, the Examiner further explains as follows:
Roman does not explicitly disclose beacon signals being
simultaneously received on a common frequency. However, in
analogous art, Govindswamy discloses a similar process for
determining whether a current configuration of a communication
system is performing adequately by disclosing a radio frequency
receiver subsystem comprising radio frequency (RF) receive
chains capable of being tuned to the same RF channel (i.e., a
common frequency) in order to measure signal level
measurements on a set of channels such that the RF receive
chains measure the same channels at the same time.
Ans. 5–6 (citing Govindswamy Figs. 7 and 8, col. 9, ll. 23–35, col. 10, ll.
29–39).
Regarding motivation to combine, the Examiner further explains as
follows:
[E]ven if the processes [in Roman and Govindswamy] are for
somewhat different purposes, the processes are similar enough
for one to take lessons from improving one of the processes in
order to improve the other, especially when the process steps are
both for measuring channel information in order to determine if
the current system configuration is performing as required.
Ans. 7; see also Ans. 8 (citing Govindswamy col. 9, ll. 23–35, col. 10, ll.
29–39) (“Govindswamy discloses that one may reduce signal reception and
Appeal 2019-001093
Application 14/973,261
6
measurement time while ensuring accuracy by receiving signals at the same
time by two RF reception chains tuned to the same channel.”).
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner. We
concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Roman discloses a UE receiving transmissions from multiple
transmission points. Roman Fig. 4, cited at, Final Act. 6. Roman further
discloses “reference symbols may be used to distinguish transmission points
from one another.” Roman col. 13, ll. 55–56, cited at, Final Act. 7. Thus,
Roman teaches receiving beacon signals with different data sequences.
Regarding simultaneously receiving beacon signals at a common
frequency, Govindswamy discloses “the RF receive chains can be
simultaneously tuned to different RF channels or the same RF channel.”
Govindswamy col. 9, ll. 25–26, cited at, Final Act. 8. Thus, Govindswamy
teaches a receiver for simultaneous reception at a common frequency.
When Roman’s system is modified, it would transmit its beacon
signals simultaneously at a common frequency because Govindswamy
teaches simultaneous reception of signals at a common frequency.
Govindswamy col. 9, ll. 25–26. Thus, Appellant’s argument (i) does not
show any error.
Further, we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s reason to
combine the references and to modify Roman to incorporate
Govindswamy’s receiver. See Final Act. 8 (“One would have been
motivated to do this, because using two RF receive chains simultaneously
reduces time diversity while achieving spatial diversity for faster, more
accurate measurements.”). This reasoning is supported by evidence drawn
from the record. See Govindswamy col. 10, ll. 36–38 (“[T]ime diversity is
reduced but at the same time spatial diversity is achieved.”). Thus,
Appeal 2019-001093
Application 14/973,261
7
Appellant’s argument (ii) does not show any error because Roman’s UE,
when Roman is modified to incorporate Govindswamy’s receiver, would
utilize the two RF chains simultaneously in the process of determining
channel state information.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–4 and 8, which
depend from claim 1 and are not separately argued with particularity. See
Appeal Br. 8.
Regarding independent claim 9, Appellant argues “independent claim
9 is allowable over the combination of Roman and Govindswamy for []
substantially similar reasons as presented above for claim 1.” Appeal Br. 9.
For the same reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1, we,
therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 12, and 13,
which depend from claim 9 and are not separately argued with particularity.
See Appeal Br. 9.
Regarding independent claim 14, Appellant directs attention to claim
14’s recitation of “identifying data sequences in beacon signals received
simultaneously from a first access point and a second access point at a
common frequency, respectively, wherein each of the beacon signals has a
data sequence that is different than other beacon signals” (claim 14), and
argues “there is no finding on record of how the proposed combination
renders such an element obvious.” Appeal Br. 9–10; see also Reply Br. 5.
In our analysis above addressing claim 1, we determined Roman and
Govindswamy teach “simultaneously receiving, by a wireless receiver,
beacon signals at a common frequency from a first access point and a second
access point, respectively, wherein each of the beacon signals has a data
Appeal 2019-001093
Application 14/973,261
8
sequence that is different than other beacon signals” (claim 1). Based on the
same evidence and the same reasons discussed above when addressing claim
1, we determine Roman and Govindswamy teach “identifying data
sequences in beacon signals received simultaneously from a first access
point and a second access point at a common frequency, respectively,
wherein each of the beacon signals has a data sequence that is different than
other beacon signals” (claim 14). See Final Act. 15 (rejecting claims 14–17
under the same reasoning as claims 1–4).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15–17, which
depend from claim 14 and are not separately argued with particularity. See
Appeal Br. 10.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 5, 6, and 18–20 over
Roman, Govindswamy, and Forenza
Appellant argues Forenza does not cure the alleged deficiencies of
Roman and Govindswamy. See Appeal Br. 10.
For the same reasons discussed above when addressing claims 1 and
14, we, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, and 18–20.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 7 and 11 over Roman,
Govindswamy, and Hugl
Appellant argues Hugl does not cure the alleged deficiencies of
Roman and Govindswamy. See Appeal Br. 11.
For the same reasons discussed above when addressing claims 1 and
9, we, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, and 18–20.

Appeal 2019-001093
Application 14/973,261
9
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8–10,
12–17
103 1–4, 8–10,
12–17

5, 6, 18–20 103 5, 6, 18–20
7, 11 103 7, 11
Overall
Outcome
1–20

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).
AFFIRMED