Ex Parte Maric et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 12, 2019

14181995 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/181,995 02/17/2014
27045 7590
ERICSSON INC.
6300 LEGACY DRIVE
MIS EVR 1-C-11
PLANO, TX 75024
02/14/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ivana Marie
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.
P41954-US1 6125
EXAMINER
BOKHARI, SYED M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/14/2019 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):
michelle.sanderson@ericsson.com
pam.ewing@ericsson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IV ANA MARIC and DENNIS HUI
Appeal2018-006564
Application 14/181,995 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-3, 7-13, 17-20, and 23. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget
LM Ericsson (publ). App. Br. 2.
2 In the Final Action, the Examiner objected to claims 4---6, 14--16, 21, 22,
24, and 25 as dependent upon a rejected base claim, but indicated the claims
would be rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the
base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 27.
Appeal2018-006564
Application 14/181,995
INVENTION
Appellants' Application relates to wireless networks in which
communications between a source-destination node pair are assisted by relay
nodes and, more particularly, to more efficiently defining and using the relay
nodes that assist with the communications between a source-destination
node pair. Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter
and reads as follows ( emphasis added):
1. A method of selecting a plurality of wireless relay nodes
to convey traffic data from a source node to a destination node,
the method comprising:
executing a forward pass from the source node to the
destination node to define two or more layers of relay nodes to
convey the traffic data from the source node to the destination
node, the forward pass comprising:
defining a first layer of first relay nodes to include one or
more of the plurality of wireless relay nodes that receive a test
signal from the source node having a signal quality exceeding a
first forward threshold; and
defining a second layer of second relay nodes to include
one or more of the plurality of wireless relay nodes not part of
any other layer that receive a test signal from at least one of the
first relay nodes having a signal quality exceeding a second
forward threshold different from the first forward threshold;
and
transmitting the traffic data to each of the first relay
nodes via one or more antennas.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 11, 20, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Suh et al. (US 2010/0238816 Al; published Sept. 23,
2010) ("Suh") and Courtice (US 2014/0213191 Al; published July 31,
2014). Final Act. 3.
2
Appeal2018-006564
Application 14/181,995
Claims 2, 8, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Suh, Courtice, and Cain et al. (US 7,079,552 B2, issued
July 18, 2006) ("Cain"). Final Act. 17.
Claims 3, 10, 13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Suh, Courtice, and Yu et al. (US 2010/0157826 Al,
published June 24, 2010) ("Yu"). Final Act. 21.
Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Suh, Courtice, and Steer et al. (US 2012/0176900 Al,
published July 12, 2012) ("Steer"). Final Act. 24.
Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Suh, Courtice, and Alexander et al. (US 2014/0269278
Al; published Sept. 18, 2014) ("Alexander"). Final Act. 26.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1-3, 7-13, 17-20, and 23
in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We have
considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Brief. Any other arguments Appellants could have made, but chose
not to make, in the Brief are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Instead, we find
the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants'
arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 27-35.
Appellants have not responded to the Examiner's further clarifications and
findings in the Answer as they have not filed a Reply Brief. As such, we
adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided in the Final Action
(Final Act. 3-17) and Answer (Ans. 27-35).
3
Appeal2018-006564
Application 14/181,995
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings of Suh
and Courtice, the Examiner found Suh teaches all of the claim limitations
except a test signal "having a signal quality exceeding a second forward
threshold different from thefirstforward threshold." Final Act. 5---6. The
Examiner relied on Courtice as teaching that limitation. Id. at 6-7.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in mapping Suh's multiple
relay nodes to the claimed "two or more layers of relay nodes" because
Suh' s multiple relay nodes 121-124 are each part of a separate path between
the source and destination nodes and, thus, are each part of the only layer of
relay nodes between the source and destination node. Br. 5.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner concluded
claim 1 defines a "layer of relay nodes" to "include one or more of the
plurality of wireless relay nodes." Ans. 29 ( emphasis omitted). Under a
broad but reasonable interpretation, 3 the Examiner's mapping of Suh's
multiple relay nodes to the claimed "layers of relay nodes" is both
reasonable and consistent with Appellants' Specification. Appellants have
not persuasively rebutted the Examiner's finding that Suh teaches
transmitting a pilot symbol to a terminal device and a plurality of relay
nodes 121, 122, 123, and 124. Final Act. 4 (citing Suh ,r,r 39--40, Fig. 1)
( emphasis added).
Appellants further argue Courtice fails to teach or suggest that the
recited "second forwarding threshold" is different from the "first forwarding
threshold," as claim 1 requires. Br. 6-7. Appellants also argue Courtice
3 We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
4
Appeal2018-006564
Application 14/181,995
does not use the thresholds of Table 1 to define any layer of relay nodes, but
rather uses the collection of thresholds to evaluate each link. Id.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner found
Courtice's radio nodes (control comm 156) function as
repeaters/relays/nodes. Ans. 32 ( citing Courtice, Fig. 2); Final Act. 4.
Specifically, the Examiner mapped Courtice's Control Comm 1 and Control
Comm 3 to claim 1 's recited "first layer," and Courtice' s Control Comm 2
and Control Comm 4 to the recited "second layer relay." Id. The Examiner
also mapped Courtice's different threshold values established between the
source and the destination, based on "metrics due to different paths or links
or hops or layer of nodes," to the claimed "signal quality exceeding a second
forward threshold different from the first forward threshold," as recited in
claim 1. Id. We agree with the Examiner's mapping at least because, under
a broad but reasonable interpretation, the scope of claim term "signal
quality" covers Courtice's signal strength. See Courtice, Fig. 3, Table 1,
,r,r 57---60.
The Examiner concludes, because the claim term "test signal" is not
defined by Appellants, any signal used for evaluating the threshold value by
the processor implementing the algorithm can be considered the "test
signal." Ans. 33. Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner's
claim construction is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with
Appellants' Specification.
Moreover, the test for obviousness is not whether the claimed
invention is expressly taught in any one or all of the references, but whether
the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary
skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In
5
Appeal2018-006564
Application 14/181,995
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). Appellants do not persuasively
address the combined teachings of Suh and Courtice. Nor do Appellants
persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings and explanations in the Answer,
as Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief. Arguments not made are waived.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 11, 20, and 23, which Appellants argue are patentable
for similar reasons. App. Br. 7. We also sustain the Examiner's separate
rejections of dependent claims 2, 8, and 12; claims 3, 1 0, 13, and 19;
claims 9 and 18; and claims 7 and 17, not argued substantively and
separately with particularity. Id. at 7-8. Arguments not made are waived.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 7-13, 17-20,
and 23.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6