Ex Parte Narasimha et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2018

12976117 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 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.
12/976,117 12/22/2010 Murali Narasimha GP-101594-00-US 6841
124192 7590 03/0
GOOGLE
C/O Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4300
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
RIVERO, ALEJANDRO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2018 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):
googleu sinternal @ faegrebd .com
inteas @faegrebd.com
michelle.davis @ faegrebd.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MURALINARASIMHA, VIJAY NANGIA, COLIN D. FRANK,
and HYEJUNG JUNG
Appeal 2017-009653
Application 12/976,117
Technology Center 2600
Before NATHAN A. ENGELS, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants1 appeal from the
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 20—25, 27—29, and 40. Claims 1—
19, 26, 31—39, and 41 have been canceled. App. Br. 5.2 Claim 30 has been
allowed. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Google Technology Holdings LLC as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Claim 41 was canceled subsequent to the filing of the Appeal Brief. See
Reply Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-009653
Application 12/976,117
Introduction
Appellants describe the invention as addressing the problem of
interference caused by operating multiple wireless technologies in the same
device (e.g., Long Term Evolution (“LTE”), IEEE 802.11 (“WLAN” or
“Wi-Fi”), and IEEE 802.15 (“Bluetooth”))—i.e., “Interference due to
In-device Coexistence.” Spec. H 2, 12. A wireless terminal can provide to
a base station an indication of periodicity for a planned Wi-Fi/Bluetooth
transmission, and/or measurements such as Reference Symbol Receive
Power (“RSRP”), Reference Symbol Receive Quality (“RSRQ”), Block
Error Rate, and Frame Error Rate. Id. 1120, 38—39. The base station can
then determine whether there will be significant interference at the wireless
terminal and, in response, reschedule any downlink LTE transmission that
was scheduled to overlap with the terminal’s planned Wi-Fi/Bluetooth
transmission. Id. 20, 40. Also, the base station can schedule downlink
gaps on the wireless terminal’s LTE interface to enable the wireless terminal
to perform Wi-Fi transmissions during the gaps. Id. 145, Fig. 5.
Claim 25 is exemplary:
25. A method in a first base station of a first wireless
technology operating on a first frequency, the method
comprising:
receiving information from a wireless terminal comprising
an indication of a periodicity of a planned transmission by the
wireless terminal where interference may occur, [and]
performing, at the base station, interference avoidance to
avoid interference due to transmissions of signals of a second
wireless technology by the wireless terminal to reception of
signals of the first wireless technology by the wireless terminal,
by rescheduling downlink transmissions based on the indication
of a periodicity of a planned transmission by the wireless
terminal where interference may occur.
2
Appeal 2017-009653
Application 12/976,117
App. Br. App’x A (Claims App’x).
References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims
consists of eight patent publications:
Caspi et al. (“Caspi”) US 2006/0068815 Al Mar. 30, 2006
Wang et al. (“Wang”) US 2009/0005029 Al Jan. 1, 2009
Malladi et al. (“Malladi”) US 2009/0073922 Al Mar. 19, 2009
Kazmi US 2010/0290435 Al Nov. 18,2010
Thomas et al. (“Thomas”) US 2011/0058510 Al Mar. 10,2011
Dayal et al. (“Dayal_2”) US 2011/0243094 Al Oct. 6,2011
Dayal et al. (“Dayal_3”) US 2011/0256834 Al Oct. 20, 2011
Johansson et al. US 2013/0083672 Al Apr. 4, 2013
(“Johansson”)
Rejections3
1. Claims 25, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Dayal_3 and Malladi. Final Act. 6—9.
2. Claims 20 and 22—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Dayal_2, Johansson, and Dayal_3. Id. at 9-13.
3. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dayal_2, Johansson, Dayal_3, and Kazmi. Id. at 13—15.
4. Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dayal_3, Malladi, and Wang. Id. at 15—17.
3 The rejections of claim 41 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112, second paragraph
and 103(a) are moot in view of the cancellation of claim 41. See supra note
2.
3
Appeal 2017-009653
Application 12/976,117
5. Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dayal_2, Johansson, Dayal_3, and Caspi. Id. at 17—18.
ISSUES
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). Accordingly, the issues are whether the Examiner errs in
finding:
(1) the combination of Dayal_3 and Malladi teaches or suggests
“receiving information from a wireless terminal comprising an
indication of a periodicity of a planned transmission by the
wireless terminal where interference may occur” and
“rescheduling downlink transmissions based on the indication
of a periodicity of a planned transmission by the wireless
terminal where interference may occur,” as recited in claim 25
(App. Br. 11—18; Reply Br. 1^4);
(2) the combination of Dayal_3 and Malladi teaches or suggests
“transmitting a message configuring the wireless terminal to
perform one or more measurements during periods that overlap
periods during which the wireless terminal transmits signals of
a second wireless technology,” as recited in claim 27
(App. Br. 18-19);
(3) the combination of Dayal_2, Johansson, and Dayal_3 teaches or
suggests “based on the comparison, sending, by the wireless
terminal, an indication of a periodicity of a planned
transmission by the wireless terminal where interference may
occur,” as recited in claim 20 {Id. at 19-20; Reply Br. 4); and
(4) the combination of Dayal_2, Johansson, Dayal_3, and Caspi
teaches or suggests “wherein the wireless terminal is configured
to operate as a Wi-Fi access point and wherein the wireless
terminal indicates to the first base station that a planned Wi-Fi
transmission is expected to occur at a particular time,” as
recited in claim 40 (App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 4—5).
4
Appeal 2017-009653
Application 12/976,117
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions of reversible error. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions.
Instead, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasons for the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections, as set forth in the Final Rejection and in the Answer.
We highlight the following for emphasis.
Claims 25, 28, and 29
Appellants acknowledge Dayal_3 teaches specifying parameters
associated with a traffic pattern but argue it does not teach “an indication of
a periodicity of a planned transmission by the wireless terminal where
interference may occur,” as recited in claim 25. Reply Br. 1—2 (citing
Dayal_3 ]Hf 102—104); see also App. Br. 16—17 (contending the Examiner
engages in impermissible speculation in finding Dayal_3 teaches the
disputed claim language). Appellants further argue Dayal_3 ’s parameters
are not used by the base station for “rescheduling downlink transmissions,”
as further recited in claim 25, “but instead ... are used to create
‘measurement gaps’ ... for a handover determination.” Reply Br. 1—2
(emphasis omitted) (citing Dayal_3 ]Hf 86, 104); App. Br. 17—18.
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. We begin our analysis with
a brief review of Dayal_3. Similar to Appellants’ Specification, Dayal_3 is
directed to mitigating interference caused by multi-radio co-existence.
Dayal_3 ]Hf 6—8, 32. Dayal_3 describes embodiments in which LTE User
Equipment (“UE”) can send a message to an eNB (i.e., a base station)
indicating the UE is experiencing a coexistence issue (e.g., with Bluetooth or
a WLAN), or that some LTE events are being denied. Id. 32, 82, 85, 86,
89, 102. In the message, the UE may report the average number of uplink
5
Appeal 2017-009653
Application 12/976,117
and downlink subframes denied due to coexistence every T milliseconds. Id.
1102. The UE also may report parameters associated with the traffic pattern
on the interfering technology (e.g., mode of operation under Bluetooth). Id.
H 103—104. Having received the message from the UE, the eNB may
schedule a measurement gap pattern for the UE to mitigate interference by
creating measurement gaps (on the uplink, downlink, or both) in the radio
transmission, e.g., the eNB may instruct the UE to be silent for a certain
number of milliseconds of a cycle. Id. 86, 104.
Figures 12A and B of Dayal_3 are illustrative and are reproduced
below:
TTE frairteTS ms -b BT slots)....
Receive N;--!transrmt. ■ Receive X TtahsmT:; Receive 7/Transmit ■ Receive
1200 ^ (DL) (UU ; (DL) (Ulj j (DL) (DL)
4 4 4 4 4
XVX >/ VX X X v/Xv/XX XsXi'XXi'/X
1210 FIG. 12A
frame- (6 ms « 8 B1
1250
Receive
(DL)
Receive
(DLj :UL:
Receive
(DL)
Receive
(DL)
BT eSCO
Slave
4 J4
p|v< /XVn/
Figures 12A and B of Dayal_3 show exemplary timelines of UE Bluetooth
extended synchronous connection (BT eSCO) transmissions and LTE
transmissions between a UE and an eNB. Id. 131, Figs. 12A—B. Downlink
time slots are shown as solid, whereas uplink slots are shaded. Id. 190. The
slots with “X’s” represent lost packets, whereas the slots with “checkmarks”
6
Appeal 2017-009653
Application 12/976,117
represent successfully transmitted packets. Id. In Figure 12A, LTE and BT
eSCO transmissions are attempted over the same time period, resulting in
the loss of BT eSCO packets in three out of four 3.75ms intervals. Id. By
contrast, in Figure 12B, which illustrates an embodiment of Dayal_3’s
invention, in which the eNB has created a short term gap of 2ms every 5ms
in LTE, there are fewer lost Bluetooth packets. Id. 191.
We agree with the Examiner that Dayal_3’s disclosure that a UE can
provide an eNB with parameters associated with the traffic pattern on the
UE’s interfering technology (e.g., BT eSCO) teaches or suggests “an
indication of a periodicity of a planned transmission,” as recited. See Final
Act. 6 (citing Dayal_3 Tflf 103—104). We disagree with Appellants that the
Examiner’s rejection requires impermissible speculation because, as the
Examiner explains, the traffic pattern sent from the UE to the eNB in
Dayal_3 can be based on the BT eSCO technology, such that data is
transmitted and received with a fixed periodicity, as evidenced by Dayal_3 ’s
Figures 12A—B. Ans. 19-20 (citing Dayal_3 Figs. 12A—B, || 90-95, 102—
104). We note that Dayal_3’s disclosure of a BT eSCO traffic pattern
reflects both the periodicity of previous BT eSCO transmissions on the UE
and the periodicity of future or planned BT eSCO transmissions where
interference may occur. See Dayal_3 1102.
Further, the Examiner finds Dayal_3’s eNB may use the received
BT eSCO traffic pattern to configure measurement gaps on the downlink.
Final Act. 6—7 (citing, inter alia, Dayal_3 1104). The Examiner also finds
that Dayal_3’s measurement gaps are created and scheduled between LTE
time slots to mitigate LTE-Bluetooth interference issues experienced by the
UE. Id. (citing, inter alia, Dayal_3 86, 90, 91; Figs. 12A—B). We agree
7
Appeal 2017-009653
Application 12/976,117
with the Examiner that these disclosures satisfy “rescheduling downlink
transmissions based on the indication of a periodicity” as claimed, because
measurement gaps can be configured based on the BT eSCO traffic pattern
and because implementing such measurement gaps on the downlink between
LTE time slots changes the schedule of LTE downlink transmissions.
Figure 12B of Dayal_3 depicts LTE downlink frames with created and
scheduled measurement gaps between LTE time slots at time periods that
differ from those in Figure 12A. This technique is analogous to the teaching
of Appellants’ Specification, which discloses that the eNB can receive
indications of an expected WiFi transmission event and its periodicity, after
which the base station can create and schedule downlink gaps on the
wireless terminal’s LTE interface to enable the wireless terminal to perform
Wi-Fi transmissions during the gaps. See Spec. 20, 45, Fig. 5.
Regarding Appellants’ arguments that a handover in Dayal_3 is “not a
rescheduling of downlink transmissions based on an indication of a
periodicity,” as claimed, App. Br. 14, even if a handover of the UE’s LTE
communications to another channel occurs sometime after implementing the
measurement gaps, this does not affect the above teachings of Dayal_3.
Furthermore, claim 25 does not preclude such an additional handover step.
Accordingly, Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner errs in
rejecting claim 25, and we sustain its rejection. We also, therefore, sustain
the rejection of claims 28 and 29, which depend therefrom and for which
Appellants present no substantive arguments separate from those for claim
25.
8
Appeal 2017-009653
Application 12/976,117
Claim 27
Claim 27 recites “[t]he method according to claim 25 further
comprising transmitting a message configuring the wireless terminal to
perform one or more measurements.” The Examiner finds Dayal_3 teaches
or suggests this requirement by disclosing a UE that uses a cell-specific
reference signal (“CRS”) received from an eNB to perform RSRP and
RSRQ measurements. Final Act. 8 (citing Dayal_3, Tflf 52, 53, 78).
Appellants acknowledge Dayal_3 teaches an eNB sending a CRS to each
cell in the eNB used by UEs for, inter alia, RSRQ measurements, but argue
“[tjhere is no teaching of the eNB also sending a message that configures the
wireless terminal to perform one or more measurements during periods that
overlap periods during which the wireless terminal transmits signals of a
second wireless technology.” App. Br. 18—19 (citing Dayal_3 ]Hf 52, 53,
78). In response, the Examiner explains that the cited disclosure of Dayal_3
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation because “the UE does not
measure RSRQ and RSRP without the CRS.” Ans. 44.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
rejection as explained in the Examiner’s Answer. We agree with the
Examiner that transmitting the CRS provides the UE with symbols that
enable the UE to perform an RSRP measurement specific to those symbols
carrying the CRS, and thus Dayal_3 teaches, or least reasonably suggests,
the limitation of claim 27. See, e.g., Dayal_3 1 53 (“The eNB may send a
[CRS] for each cell in the eNB. The CRS may be sent in symbols 0, 1, and 4
of each slot in case of the normal cyclic prefix, and in symbols 0, 1, and 3 of
each slot in case of the extended cyclic prefix. The CRS may be used by
UEs for . . . [RSRP] and [RSRQ] measurements . . . .”).
9
Appeal 2017-009653
Application 12/976,117
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 27.
Claims 20—24
Independent claim 20 recites:
20. A method in a wireless terminal supporting operation
on a first wireless technology and a second wireless technology,
the method comprising:
performing a first set of measurements on a received signal
on first operating frequency of the first wireless technology,
wherein the first set of measurements are performed
during time periods that overlap time periods during which the
wireless terminal transmits signals of the second wireless
technology;
performing a second set of measurements on a received
signal on first operating frequency of the first wireless
technology,
wherein the second set of measurements are performed
during time periods that do not overlap time periods during
which the wireless terminal transmits signals of the second
wireless technology;
comparing the first set of measurements with the second
set of measurements; and
based on the comparison, sending, by the wireless
terminal, an indication of a periodicity of a planned transmission
by the wireless terminal where interference may occur.
App. Br. App’x A (Claims App’x) (disputed limitation emphasized). The
Examiner finds the combination of Dayal_2, Johansson, and Dayal_3
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Final Act. 9—12 (citing Dayal_2
11 8, 9, 53—55, 69, 75—78, 91, Fig. 7; Johansson H 44, 48, 52, 57; Dayal_3
11 82-95, 102-104, Figs. 12A-B).
Appellants argue “Dayal_3, Johansson and Dayal_2 do not teach,
inter alia, sending, by the wireless terminal, an indication of a periodicity of
10
Appeal 2017-009653
Application 12/976,117
a planned transmission by the wireless terminal where interference may
occur based on the comparison of the first set of measurements and the
second set of measurements as claimed.” App. Br. 20. In particular,
Appellants assert none of the cited portions of Dayal_3 teaches the disputed
limitation, but instead Dayal_3 “uses parameters associated with the traffic
pattern on the interfering technology to configure measurement gaps so that
the UE can perform interference measurement.” Reply Br. 4.
Appellants’ argument that Dayal_3 does not teach or suggest
“sending, by the wireless terminal, an indication of a periodicity of a
planned transmission by the wireless terminal where interference may
occur” is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim
25. Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s reliance on the combination of
Dayal_2 and Johansson for teaching the requirements for performing the
first and second measurements and then comparing the measurements as a
precedent for the step of sending. Final Act. 9-11. Thus, Appellants do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Dayal_3,
Johansson, and Dayal_2 teaches or suggests claim 20’s disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 20. We also, therefore,
sustain the rejection of its dependent claims 21—24, for which Appellants
present no substantive separate arguments.
Claim 40
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Dayal_3 teaches or
suggests “wherein the wireless terminal is configured to operate as a Wi-Fi
access point and wherein the wireless terminal indicates to the first base
station that a planned Wi-Fi transmission is expected to occur at a particular
11
Appeal 2017-009653
Application 12/976,117
time,” as recited in claim 40. App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 4—5. In particular,
Appellants assert
the cited portion of Dayal_3 uses a different approach wherein
the wireless devices serves as a slave and not as a Wi-Fi master
access point and the cited portions of the Dayal_3 and the other
reference [s] fail to teach sending an indication of the periodicity
of planned transmission indicating that a planned Wi-Fi
transmission is expected to occur at a particular time.
App. Br. 21.
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. First, Appellants’ argument
that Dayal_3 does not teach or suggest a Wi-Fi master access point is
unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on Caspi, not Dayal_3, as teaching
this element. Final Act. 18 (citing Caspi 53, 55, 63); Ans. 46. Second,
Appellants’ contention that Dayal_3 does not teach or suggest sending an
indication of a periodicity of a planned transmission is unpersuasive for the
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 25. Third, contrary to
Appellants’ assertions, the Examiner relies on Dayal_2, not Dayal_3, for
indicating that a planned Wi-Fi transmission is expected to occur at a
particular time. Final Act. 17—18 (citing Dayal_2 || 9, 69, 78, 84, 96).
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments do not persuasively rebut the
Examiner’s findings, reasoning, or conclusions in rejecting claim 40, and we
sustain its rejection.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
claims 20—25, 27—29, and 40.
12
Appeal 2017-009653
Application 12/976,117
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2016).
AFFIRMED
13