Ex Parte Sachs et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 18, 2019

14427556 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/427,556 03/11/2015
102721 7590 04/22/2019
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joachim Sachs
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.
1009-1301 / P37843 USl 8928
EXAMINER
MOUTAOUAKIL, MOUNIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/22/2019 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOACHIM SACHS, MIKAEL PRYTZ, and
YNGVESELEN
Appeal2018-007536
Application 14/427 ,556 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and
IFTIKHAR AHMED, Administrative Patent Judges.
AHMED, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 25--44, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Technology
The application relates to "Device-to-Device (D2D) communication
for devices in the cellular radio communication network," and specifically to
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget
LM Ericsson (publ). App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-007536
Application 14/427,556
"managing radio resources dedicated to beacon signaling in conjunction with
D2D discovery." Spec. 1:6-9.
Illustrative Claim
Claim 25 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations
at issue emphasized:
25. A method, in a network node, for managing radio resources,
wherein the radio resources are dedicated for beacon signaling,
by a first device and a second device, in conjunction with device-
to-device (D2D) discovery, wherein the first device is stationary
and the second device is non-stationary, the method comprising:
App. Br. 16.
selecting a first and a second set of radio resources out
of the radio resources, wherein the first and second sets
each comprise a plurality of radio resources and are
dedicated for beacon signaling by the first device and the
second device, respectively, wherein the first set of radio
resources is non-overlapping with the second set of radio
resources;
scheduling a specific radio resource of the first set of radio
resources to the first device;
sending information about the scheduled specific radio
resource to the first device; and
sending information indicating the second set of radio
resources to the second device, whereby the second device
restricts its radio resources usable for beacon signaling to
the second set of radio resources.
Rejections
Claims 25-28, 30-33, 35-38, and 40-43 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over the combination of over Palanki (US
2010/0165882 Al; July 1, 2010) in view of Van Phan (US 2012/0265818
Al; Oct. 18, 2012). Final Act. 3.
2
Appeal2018-007536
Application 14/427,556
Claims 29, 34, 39, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
obvious over the combination of Palanki, Van Phan, and Van Phan '338 (US
2016/0007338 Al; Jan. 7, 2016). Final Act. 6.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Palanki teaches or suggests a
"first set of radio resources [that] is non-overlapping with the second set of
radio resources," as recited in claim 25?
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 25 and 3 5 recite selecting a first and a second set
of radio resources out of the radio resources dedicated for beacon signaling,
"wherein the first set of radio resources is non-overlapping with the second
set of radio resources." The Examiner finds that "Palanki teaches a
technique for centralized control ... of peer discovery pilot transmission
where stations are directed, by a central unit, to transmit a peer discovery
pilot, beacon signaling, to allow one or more stations in the network to
detect the proximity of the one or more stations." Ans. 3 ( emphases
omitted). As part of this technique, the Examiner finds, Palanki teaches an
evolved Node B ("eNB") that "allocates resources for stations in P2P
communication based on role." Id. (citing Palanki Figs. 1, 2; ,r,r 23,
25-32, 39, 63---69). With reference to the embodiment shown in Figure 2 of
Palanki, the Examiner explains that if two stations (A and B) wanted to
communicate with each other, the "eNB assign[ s] resources for both stations
in such a way that station A becomes an eNB for station B and only
station B." Id. In such a setup, the Examiner determines, "the assigned
resources are (must be) non-overlapping." Id. ( emphasis added). The
3
Appeal2018-007536
Application 14/427,556
Examiner reasons that "interference ... can be caused in the case of
assigning identical resources," and, therefore, the eNB "has to
allocate/schedule different resources for [user equipment] depending on their
role in the P2P communication." Id. at 3, 4.
Appellants argue that although Palanki teaches an eNB assigning
resources to two stations for peer-to-peer ("P2P") communications, Palanki
"does not suggest that these resources are dedicated for beacon signaling,
and does not describe how these are selected and signaled." App. Br. 7
( citing Palanki ,r 28) ( emphasis omitted). Appellants agree that Palanki
teaches a "peer discovery pilot," which may reasonably be considered
beacon signaling, and that Palanki teaches time-frequency resources that
may be reserved for transmitting the peer discovery pilot. Id. at 8 ( citing
Palanki ,r 59). Appellants however argue that Palanki "fails to describe or
suggest the selecting of non-overlapping first and second time-frequency
resources ( or non-overlapping first and second sets of time-frequency
resources)." Id. ( emphases omitted). Appellants further argue that although
Palanki teaches that other resources, e.g., frequency channels, may be
reserved for P2P communication between two stations, it "doesn't suggest
that these 'frequency channels' are dedicated for beacon signaling or discuss
how any of these resources are selected." Id. (citing Palanki ,r 41).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not sufficiently
explained how Palanki teaches or suggests selection of a first and a second
set of radio resources dedicated for beacon signaling, wherein the "first set
of radio resources is non-overlapping with the second set of radio
resources." We agree with the Examiner that the embodiment depicted in
Figure 2 of Palanki teaches an eNB assigning resource to two stations that
4
Appeal2018-007536
Application 14/427,556
decide to use peer-to-peer communications. However, this assignment
occurs after P2P discovery has been completed. See Palanki ,r,r 33, 34
( explaining that after the eNB receives pilot measurements from stations A
and B, it "may determine that P2P communication is better and may assign
resources to stations A and B for P2P communication"). The claim,
however, requires selecting radio resources "dedicated for beacon
signaling," i.e., in conjunction with the device to device discovery process.
As to beacon signaling resources, Palanki does teach use of peer
discovery pilots, which Appellants acknowledge is beacon signaling, but
Palanki does not teach or suggest selecting sets of radio resources related to
those peer discovery pilots that are non-overlapping for each of two given
stations. The portions of Palanki cited by the Examiner further disclose that
some resources, e.g., time-frequency resources, may be reserved for peer
discovery pilot transmission (Palanki ,r 65), and that an eNB may send
configuration information to P2P stations, including parameters for
resources used to transmit a peer discovery pilot (id. ,r 68), but Palanki does
not disclose requiring a unique set of those resources for each of two given
stations. More generally, Palanki discloses using possibly dedicated radio
technologies, e.g., frequency channels/spectrum for peer discovery pilot
transmission----different than the ones used for P2P communication between
stations or WW AN communication between the stations and the eNBs (id.
,r,r 40, 41 ), but it does not teach or suggest assigning different sets of
channels ( or other radio resources) to each of the two stations. Although we
agree with the Examiner that the claim term "radio resources" should be
given its broadest reasonable construction (Ans. 5), it is not clear from the
record before us that Palanki teaches or suggests selecting non-overlapping
5
Appeal2018-007536
Application 14/427,556
sets of radio resources dedicated for beacon signaling, as recited in claim 25.
The Examiner does not rely on Van Phan as meeting this claim limitation.
Ans. 2-5.
Accordingly, given the record before us, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 25 and 35, and their dependent
claims 26-34 and 36-44.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 2 5--44.
REVERSED
6