Ex Parte Kalhan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2018

14400385 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2018)

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.
14/400,385 11/11/2014 Amit Kalhan TUTL 00225 1061
32968 7590 03/09/2018
KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
8611 Balboa Ave
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
EXAMINER
CAIRNS, THOMAS R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2018 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):
KII-USPatents @ kyocera.com
Kathleen .Connell@kyocera.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMIT KALHAN1
Appeal 2017-010434
Application 14/400,385
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—18, all the pending claims in the
present application. See Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
appellant names Kyocera Corporation as the real party in interest (App. Br.
3).
Appeal 2017-010434
Application 14/400,385
The present invention relates generally to management of device-to-
device (D2D) communication resources by transmitting D2D control data.
See Spec. 12.
Claims 1 and 14 are illustrative:
1. A method comp rising:
receiving device-to-device (D2D) control information at
a first wireless communication device over a macrocell
communication link from a base station, where the D2D control
information specifically identifies D2D communication resources to
be used by each of the first wireless communication device and the
second wireless communication device:
determining second de vice D2D control data at least
partially from the D2B control information; and
transmitting, from the first wireless communication
device., the second device D2D control data to a second wireless
communication device, the second device 1)21) control data,
identifying a subset of defined macrocell communication resources as
D2D communication resources for transmission of 1)21) signals
between the first wireless communication device and the second
wireless eornmunication device.
14. A method performed at a first device-to-device (D2D)
wireless communication device, the method comprising:
deriving system timing of a macrocell communication
system from a macrocell reference signal received from a base station;
transmitting a reference signal to a second D2D wireless
communication device over a D2D communication link using D2D
communication resources that are a subset of defined macrocell
communication resources defined by a communication specification
for the macrocell system, the reference signal providing the system
timing to the second D2D wireless communication device.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
Rl. Claims 14—18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being
2
Appeal 2017-010434
Application 14/400,385
anticipated by Hakola (US 8,504,052 B2, Aug. 6, 2013) (Final Act. 6—7);
R2. Claims 1—6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ribeiro (WO 2010/082114 Al, July 22, 2010) and
Damnjanovic (US 8,942,192 B2) (id. at 8—13);
R3. Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ribeiro, Damnjanovic, and Yu (US 2012/0258706 Al,
Oct. 11, 2012) (id. at 13—15); and
R4. Claims 8—12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ribeiro, Damnjanovic, and Charbit (US 2012/0106517
Al, May 3, 2012) (id. at 15-19).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
ANALYSIS
Rejection under § 102
Claims 14 and 15
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that Hakola discloses a
reference signal received from a base station, as set forth in claim 14?
Appellant contends that “the SRS configuration information is, in fact,
a power control signal that dictates the respective power levels to be used
when the UEs send SRS signals to the eNB” (App. Br. 8) (emphasis
omitted) and “receiving a power control signal (e.g., SRS configuration
signal). . . does not disclose receiving the SRS, itself from the eNB” (id.).
In essence, the Appellant contends that Hakola’s “SRS configuration
3
Appeal 2017-010434
Application 14/400,385
information” is not the same as the “SRS” signal itself or the claimed
“macrocell reference signal.” We agree with Appellant.
Although Appellant’s Specification fails to give an explicit definition
for “macrocell reference signal,” the Specification highlights that the
reference signals “can be used for device detection/discovery, signal
acquisition (reception), channel estimation, and determining channel
characteristics” and that “an example of a suitable technique for transmitting
reference signals includes periodically transmitting D2D Sounding
Reference Signals (SRS)” (Spec. 119). With that in mind, we find that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of a “macrocell reference signal” hinges
on what that signal is being used for, e.g., detection/discovery, acquisition,
channel estimation, and determining characteristics, not necessarily where it
comes from, and preferably includes SRS.
Here, the Examiner finds that the “[bjroadest reasonable interpretation
suggests that the term ‘macrocell reference signal’ encompasses any signal
related to a base station,. . . such as any signal received from an eNB” (Ans.
4) (emphasis added). We disagree with the Examiner’s interpretation
because we find that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “reference
signal” is not based on whether the signal is related to/comes from a base
station. The fact that the claimed “macrocell reference signal” is received
from a base station is merely a further requirement in the claims, but it does
not define the reference signal itself.
Here, Hakola discloses that “the network access node/eNB [, i.e., base
station] configures both UE1 and UE2 [, i.e., user equipments,] for SRSs,
and informs each of them of the SRS configuration of the other UE” (5:62—
64; see also Fig. 4) and that “the UEs send sounding reference signals
4
Appeal 2017-010434
Application 14/400,385
[SRSs] to the eNB which enables the eNB can accurately [sic] measure the
UL channel on which it receives those SRSs” (5:48—50). In other words,
Hakola discloses that the “SRS configuration” signals 402a, 402b, 404a, and
404b are distinct from the reference signals themselves in that the “SRS
configuration signals” are used to configure the user equipments for sending
reference signals to the base station.
Therefore, we agree with Appellant that Hakola fails to disclose a
reference signal being received from the base station, as required by claim
14, but instead discloses sending SRS configuration signals for configuring
the UEs for subsequently sending reference signals to the base station.
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Hakola’s “SRS
configuration signals” disclose a reference signal from the base station, as
recited in independent claim 14, and in dependent claim 15. Since we agree
with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach
the merits of Appellant’s other arguments regarding claims 14 and 15.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claims 14 and 15.
Claims 16—18
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that Hakola discloses a D2D
reference signal transmitted from a wireless communication device, as set
forth in claim 16?
We highlight that independent claim 16 does not recite a reference
signal received from a base station, like claim 14, but rather more broadly a
reference signal transmitted from a wireless communication device (see
claim 16).
5
Appeal 2017-010434
Application 14/400,385
As noted supra, Hakola discloses that “the UEs send sounding
reference signals [SRSs] to the eNB which enables the eNB can accurately
[sic] measure the UL channel on which it receives those SRSs” (5:48—50).
Thus, claim 16’s “D2D reference signal transmitted from a wireless
communication device” read on the aforementioned Hakola’s UEs sending
reference signals to the eNB.
Claim 16 further recites, inter alia, timing information transmitted
from a base station (see claim 16) (emphasis added). Appellant contends
that “the SRS configuration information transmitted by the eNB in Fig. 4 of
Hakola” does not disclose “any [] timing information from the eNB” (App.
Br. 11) (emphasis omitted) because “UE1 and UE2 of Hakola are already
DL synchronized to the same eNB” (id. at 12) and “making a resource
allocation decision does not disclose ‘deriving the system timing from the
D2D reference signal’” (id.) (emphasis omitted).
In response, the Examiner finds that “the term ‘system timing’
encompasses any timing utilized within a system” (Ans. 8) and Hakola
“describe[s] a resource allocation function that uses inputs of scheduling
metrics ... to output resource allocation . . . that takes the resources given
by the eNB” (id.).
For example, Hakola discloses that “[t]he resource allocation function
uses inputs of scheduling metrics ... to output the resource allocation
decision. . . . [T]he load indication message sent between eNBs on the X2
interface . . . facilitate coordinating transmit power and scheduling of UEs”
(5:2—11). Hakola further discloses that “the UEs send sounding reference
signals to the eNB” (5:48^49).
6
Appeal 2017-010434
Application 14/400,385
In other words, Hakola shows the base station sending scheduling
information, i.e., timing information, for the UEs and the UEs sending a
reference signal to the eNB thereafter. Appellant’s contention fails to
distinguish Hakola’s scheduling information from the claimed timing
information transmitted from a base station or how such timing information
is not linked to the reference signal.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 16, and dependent claims 17—18 for similar reasons.
Rejection under § 103(a)
Claims 1—13
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding that Ribeiro teaches or
suggest control information that identifies resources to be used by each of
the first and second devices, as set forth in claim 1?
Appellant contends that “the resource allocation messages sent by the
base stations of Ribeiro only allocate resources for cellular communication
between a particular MS and the base station serving the particular MS”
(App. Br. 14) (emphasis omitted), not “resources to be used by each of the
first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication
device” (id.).
The Examiner finds that “specific D2D resource allocation for each of
the D2D devices is interpreted to encompass the allocation of system timing
for the D2D devices” (Ans. 13) and “all the [mobile stations (MSs)] may
detect a resource allocation for other devices in the same cluster . . . each of
the MSs may simultaneously obtain their resource allocations . . . another
MS may forward or relay the resource allocation broadcast by the BS to the
7
Appeal 2017-010434
Application 14/400,385
out-of-range MS” (id. at 13—14). In essence, the Examiner finds that in
Ribeiro “the base station is disclosed as specifically allocating D2D
communication resources for each of the MS, individually’'’ (see Final
Act. 9) (emphasis added), a fact that Appellant apparently agrees with (see
App. Br. 14).
Thus, the question before us is whether claim 1 “reads on” control
information that individually allocates resources to each device. We find
that claim 1, as written, is not limited to control information that collectively
identifies resources for each device, but also reads on control information
that individually allocates resources, as shown in Ribeiro. Thus, we find that
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “control information” in claim 1
reads on both individual information and collective information.
“Giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘serves the
public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will
be given broader scope than is justified. In re Amer. Acad, of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). “An essential
purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear,
correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope
be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “Construing claims broadly
during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant. . . because the applicant
has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim
coverage.” Amer. Acad., 367 F.3d at 1364.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellant does not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims.
We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—13.
8
Appeal 2017-010434
Application 14/400,385
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 102(a) rejection R1 of claims 16—18.
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections R2—R4 of claims 1—13.
We reverse the Examiner’s § 102(a) rejection R1 of claims 14 and 15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9