Ex Parte Lindoff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2016

12901677 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/901,677 10/11/2010 Bengt Lindoff
24112 7590 06/16/2016
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
4015-7106 1612
EXAMINER
LIU,SIMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2413
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/16/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BENGT LINDO FF, LARS LINDBOM, and
STEFAN PARKVALL
Appeal2014-002353
Application 12/901,677
Technology Center 2400
Before WILLIAM M. FINK, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1--4, 7-12, 15, and 16. Claims 5, 6, 13,
and 14 have been canceled. See App. Br., Claims App'x. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget
LM Ericsson. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-002353
Application 12/901,677
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to the adaptation of receiver
settings by a mobile terminal that is operating in a heterogeneous network.
Spec. i-f 2. The heterogeneous network includes low power access nodes
having overlapping coverage with high power access nodes. Id. Each low
power access node is included in a pico cell deployed within a macro cell,
which is served by the high power access node. Spec. i-f 19. Claim 1, which
is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. In a heterogeneous network including macro cells and pico
cells with overlapping coverage, a method implemented by
mobile terminal of adapting receiver settings to receive downlink
transmissions from a pico cell, said method comprising:
establishing a connection with the pico cell;
receiving subframe allocation information from the
network indicating a first subset of subframes reserved for
downlink transmissions by the pico cell to a mobile terminal
operating in a link imbalance zone;
adapting a first receiver setting for a receiver parameter
based on signals transmitted only in the first subset of subframes,
and adapting a second receiver setting for said receiver parameter
based on signals transmitted in a second subset of subframes,
wherein said first setting is for use by said mobile terminal when
operating in a link imbalance zone; and
receiving and decoding data transmitted in the first subset
of subframes by the pico cell using said first receiver setting for
said receiver parameter and receiving and decoding data
transmitted by a neighboring macro cell in said second subset of
subframes using said second receiver setting for said receiver
parameter when the mobile terminal is operating in a link
imbalance zone.
2
Appeal2014-002353
Application 12/901,677
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Palanki (US 2009/0247181 Al; published Oct. 1,
2009). Final Act. 4---6.
Claims 3 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Palanki and Cheng (US 2006/0233153
Al; published Oct. 19, 2006). Final Act. 7.
Claims 4 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Palanki and Lee (US 200710190945
Al; published Aug. 16, 2007). Final Act. 8.
Dispositive Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err by finding that Palanki discloses "adapting a
first receiver setting for a receiver parameter based on signals transmitted
only in the first subset of subframes, and adapting a second receiver setting
for said receiver parameter based on signals transmitted in a second subset
of subframes" (hereinafter the "disputed limitation"), as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
§ 102 Rejection
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Palanki discloses that a user
terminal may perform automatic gain control and may adjust a receiver gain
such that an input signal provided to an analog-to-digital converter is at a
target signal level. Ans. 3 (citing Palanki i-f 64). The Examiner further finds:
Refer to Fig. 6 of Palanki, serving base station 120
(weaker Serving Base Station such as Pica Base Station) may
communicate in subframe fs, and Strong Interfering Base Station
3
Appeal2014-002353
Application 12/901,677
(Macro Base station) may refrain from transmitting at Reserved
Subframe fi and Reserved Subframe fi+ 1 to avoid interference
between these two Base Stations. Signals transmitted from
Macro Base station and Pica Base Station would obviously have
different power, one from the Macro base station would have
much more power. Thus the receiving terminal which applies
automatic gain control would yield two different gain settings to
the signals received from these two different Base Stations.
Ans. 4. Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes Palanki discloses
the disputed limitation. Id.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Palanki discloses
the disputed limitation because Palanki does not disclose adapting a first
receiver setting for a receiver parameter and adapting a second receiver
setting for the receiver parameter but, instead, discloses continuously
adjusting a single receiver setting (e.g., the receiver gain) for both reserved
and unreserved subframes. App. Br. 8 (citing Palanki i-f 64). Appellants
contend "in construing the first receiver setting and second receiver setting
as one setting, the Examiner does not give effect to other limitations in the
claims related to the separate nature of these settings." App. Br. 10.
We find Appellants' contentions persuasive. The Specification
defines the term "receiver parameter" as "a variable that controls some
aspect of the receiver operation" and defines the term "setting" as "a specific
value for the parameter or variable." Spec. i-f 38. Further, the Specification
consistently describes the first and second receiver settings as being separate
and distinct sets of settings. See Spec. i-fi-136, 39--40. Additionally, we note
the preamble indicates that the claim is directed to "a method ... of adapting
receiver settings to receive downlink transmissions from a pico cell." App.
Br. 13 (emphasis added). Thus, we find the broadest reasonable
4
Appeal2014-002353
Application 12/901,677
construction of the claim in light of the Specification requires adapting a
first specific value for a parameter that controls some aspect of the receiver
operation and adapting a second specific value for that parameter - i.e., a
first receiver setting that is separate and distinct from a second receiver
setting. As noted by Appellants (App. Br. 8), Palanki discloses continuously
adjusting a single receiver setting. Palanki i-f 64. As such, we are persuaded
the Examiner erred by finding Palanki discloses the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
For the same reasons we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9,
which recites similar limitations, and claims 2, 7, 8, 10, 15, and 16, which
depend from claims 1 and 9.
§ 103 Rejections
Each of claims 3, 4, 11, and 12 depends, directly or indirectly, from
one of independent claims 1 and 9. The Examiner has not established on
this record that the secondary references relied on in rejecting these claims
cure the deficiencies of Palanki as set forth above with respect to the
independent claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103
rejections of claims 3, 4, 11, and 12 for the reasons discussed supra.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 7-12, 15, and 16.
REVERSED
5