Ex Parte Marupaduga et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 7, 2018

13871647 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 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.
13/871,647 04/26/2013 Sreekar Marupaduga 9072 5215
7590 02/09/201828004
SPRINT
6391 SPRINT PARKWAY
KSOPHTO101-Z2100
OVERLAND PARK, KS 66251-2100
EXAMINER
HAILE, FEBEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2474
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/09/2018 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):
6450patdocs @ sprint.com
steven.j.funk@sprint.com
sprint @ setterroche. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SREEKAR MARUPADUGA, NICHOLAS DAVID KULLMAN,
and ANDREW MARK WURTENBERGER1
Appeal 2017-009992
Application 13/871,647
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, BETH Z. SHAW, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 8—14, 16, and 18—20.2 We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Sprint Communications Company L.P., which,
according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 5, 7, 15, and 17 are cancelled. See Appeal Br. 3, 5.
Appeal 2017-009992
Application 13/871,647
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to Appellant, the claimed invention relates to a “base
station and user devices [that] exchange signaling and responsively
exchange user data over BS2D [Base Station-To-Device] traffic links.”
Spec. 14.3
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is exemplary of the
claimed subject matter and is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A method of operating a wireless communication
system to implement a plurality of Device-To-Device (D2D)
configurations, the method comprising:
wirelessly exchanging first control signaling between a
base station system and a plurality of user communication
devices over Base Station-To-Device (BS2D) signaling links,
and in response, wirelessly exchanging first user data between
the user communication devices and the base station system over
BS2D traffic links;
wirelessly exchanging second control signaling between
the base station system and the user communication devices over
the BS2D signaling links, and in response, wirelessly exchanging
second user data directly between the user communication
devices over direct D2D traffic links;
3 Throughout this Decision, we refer to: (1) Appellant’s Specification, filed
April 26, 2013 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed
May 4, 2016; (3) the Appeal Brief filed December 5, 2016 and Response to
Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief filed January 20, 2017
(“Appeal Br.”); (4) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), mailed May 19, 2017;
and (5) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed July 18, 2017.
2
Appeal 2017-009992
Application 13/871,647
selecting one of the D2D configurations based on
communication system conditions wherein the plurality of D2D
configurations have at least one of the user communication
devices as hub user device(s) and have the other user
communication devices as non-hub user devices; and
wirelessly transferring a D2D configuration instruction to
the user communication devices over the BS2D signaling links,
and in response, wirelessly exchanging third control signaling
and third user data using the selected D2D configuration,
wherein the selected D2D configuration comprises [at least one
of:] a first D2D configuration where the non-hub user devices
wirelessly transfer at least a portion of the third user data to one
another through the hub user device(s), and a second D2D
configuration where the non-hub user devices wirelessly transfer
at least a portion of the third control signaling to the base station
system through the hub user device(s).
Appeal Br. Claims Appendix 2.4
4 Claims 1 and 11 are incorrectly recited in Appellant’s claim appendix. In
the Amendment After Final filed August 4, 2016 Appellant requested that
the “at least one of’ limitation be deleted from claim 1 and 11. The
Examiner indicated in the Advisory Action mailed January 31, 2017 that
neither of these claim amendments were entered and therefore this limitation
should be, but is not, reflected in claims 1 and 11 of the claim appendix. In
the event the limitation is not deleted in a future Amendment, we agree with
the Examiner’s finding that a broadest reasonable interpretation requires that
only one of the two limitations following the “at least one of’ language need
be shown by the prior art. See Advisory Action mailed January 31, 2017,
Pg-2.
3
Appeal 2017-009992
Application 13/871,647
REFERENCE AND REJECTION
Claims 1—4, 6, 8—14, 16, and 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al. (US 2014/0198655 Al;
published July 17, 2014) (“Ishii”).5 Final Act. 4—12.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejection and
issues raised by Appellant. We have not considered other possible issues
that have not been raised by Appellant and which are, therefore, not before
us. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedures (“MPEP”) § 1205.02; 37
C.F.R. §§41.37(c)(l)(iv), 41.39(a)(1).
ISSUE
Does the Examiner err in finding Ishii teaches or suggests “the non­
hub user devices wirelessly transfer at least a portion of the third control
signaling to the base station system through the hub user device(s),” as
recited in claim 1 ?
ANALYSIS
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s factual findings. Specifically,
Appellant argues:
Ishii may teach the non-hub user devices wirelessly transferring
at least a portion of the third user data to one another through the
hub user device(s). However, Ishii fails to teach non-hub user
devices wirelessly transferring at least a portion of the third
control signaling to the base station system through the hub
user device.
Appeal Br. 5.
5 The Examiner erroneously indicates claims 1—20 are rejected (Final
Act. 4), but claims 5, 7, 15, and 17 are cancelled (See Appeal Br. 3, 5).
4
Appeal 2017-009992
Application 13/871,647
We are not persuaded. Ishii’s Figure 9 shows a local area radio access
system using small-node devices.
Sffltjif node rH
devics^OC^L-j
Access gate way
apparatus 300 {
_ H J CM
400i ....
(ABass station
200 V7-' b:Tia!i 11000
V device 50CM
JK100
Gateway
apparatus
310
] Center-smast-
L_' node device
510
O'Small node ;
device 500i I
FiG.9
Ishii’s Figure 9 illustrates backhaul links from the small-node devices
that route through a center small-node device. Ishii 125.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Ishii’s Figure 9 shows center-
node small-node device 510 acting as a hub for routing signals from small-
node devices 500 to base station 200. Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds,
and we agree, that “Ishii discloses that small node devices transmit control
signaling to base station notifying the base station that the D2UE connection
has been reconfigured.” Ans. 3 (citing Ishii 1189). Appellant notes in the
Reply that Appellant does not dispute the assertion that “Ishii teaches that
small-node device 500 transmits control signaling to base station 200.”
Reply Br. 2. Appellant clarifies, however, that “Appellant’s argument is that
the small-node device in Ishii does not receive and transfer control
5
Appeal 2017-009992
Application 13/871,647
signaling for the connected UEs to the base station. In other words, small-
node device 500 does not transmit control signaling for user equipment 100
to base station 200.” Reply Br. 2. Instead, Ishii teaches “small-node device
500 transmitting its own control signaling to base station 200.” Appeal
Br. 5.
We find this argument unpersuasive because Appellant’s do not rebut
the Examiner’s finding that “the control signaling is related to how both the
small-node device and the user equipment are configured to the D2UE
connection.” Ans. 5. Moreover, Appellant’s proposed interpretation is
inconsistent with the scope of claim 1, which merely indicates the non-hub
user devices wirelessly transfer third control signaling. Appellant provides
insufficient evidence to establish that the claimed third control signaling
refers only to control signaling “for the connected UEs” (Reply Br. 2,
emphasis removed) or for the claimed user communication devices.
As discussed, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s factual
findings or conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 1 as well as the
rejection of independent claim 11, which is argued for similar reasons as
independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6. Dependent claims 2—4, 6, 8—10, 12—
14, 16, and 18—20 are not argued separately and so the rejection of these
claims are sustained for the reasons given for independent claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 6.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6, 8—14, 16,
and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
6
Appeal 2017-009992
Application 13/871,647
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
7