Ex Parte Sahlin et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 5, 2019

14407793 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/407,793 12/12/2014
102721 7590 04/09/2019
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Henrik Sahlin
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.
1009-1218 / P42020 USl 7851
EXAMINER
ROUDANI, OUSSAMA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2413
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/09/2019 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 ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HENRIK SAHLIN, JOHAN FURUSKOG,
STEFANPARKVALL, andQIANG ZHANG 1
Appeal2018-007088
Application 14/ 407, 793
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-14, 16, 18-21, 23-26, 29, and 30. Claims
2, 15, 27, and 28 are canceled. Appeal Br. 2. The Examiner indicates
claims 4, 9, 17, and 22 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form
to include all limitations in the claims from which they respectively depend.
Final Act. 19. We have jurisdiction under35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellant is the applicant and real party in interest, Telefonaktiebolaget
LM Ericsson (publ). Appeal Br. 2
Appeal 2018-007088
Application 14/407, 793
Invention
The Specification discloses creating a "guard period for switching
between uplink and downlink subframes ... by shortening an uplink
subframe, i.e., by not transmitting during one or more symbol intervals at the
beginning of the subframe interval." Abstract. "Agrant message includes
signaling indicating when a shortened subframe should be transmitted." Id.
Exemplary claims (key limitations emphasized)
1. A method in a frrst wireless node configured to transmit data
to and receive data from a second wireless node in subframes of
a Time Division Duplex system occurring at defined subframe
intervals and having a predetermined number of symbol
intervals, the method comprising:
determining that a transmit subframe is to be shortened, by
receiving, from the second wireless node, a grant message
indicating that the first wireless node is scheduled/or
transmission in the transmit subframe, the grant message
containing subframe-shortening infonnation indicating that the
transmit subframe is to be shortened relative to the
predetermined number of symbol intervals; and,
in response to said determining, shortening transmission of the
transmit subframe by not transmittingduringone or more
symbol intervals at the beginning of a subframe interval for the
transmit subframe and transmitting during the remainder of the
subframe interval.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
further determining that a further transmit subframe is to be
shortened relative to the predetermined number of symbol
intervals, by determining that a scheduled broadcast subframe
is to be received in a receive subframe preceding and
overlapping the further transmit subframe; and,
in response to said further determining, shortening
transmission of the further transmit subframe by not
transmitting during one or more symbol intervals at the
2
Appeal 2018-007088
Application 14/407, 793
beginning of a further subframe interval for the further transmit
subframe and transmitting during the remainder of the further
subframe interval.
13. The method of claim 7, further comprising transmitting a
scheduled broadcast subframe during a second subframe
interval and receiving a second shortened subframe during a
third subframe interval immediately succeeding the second
subframe interval.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5-7, 10-14, 18-20, 23-26, 29, and 30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Wei et al. (US 2013/0286907
Al; published Oct. 31, 2013) ("Wei") and Xu et al. (US 2013/0301570 Al;
published Nov. 14, 2013) ("Xu"). Final Act. 4--14.
TheExaminerrejectsclaims 3, 8, 16,and21 under35U.S.C. § 103as
being obvious over Wei, Xu, and Gao et al. (US 2014/0036718 Al;
published Feb. 6, 2014)("Gao"). Final Act. 14--19.
CLAIMS 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23-25, 29, AND 30
Wei discloses frequency division duplex user equipment that, when it
"receives a shortened uplink subframe configuration index and [a] subframe
number index" from radio resource control "signaling or other command
messages," forms an "uplink subframe assuming [a] shortened subframe
format." Wei ,r 77. Wei shortens subframes by transmitting nothing for
symbols positioned at the end of the subframe. Id. ,r,r 82-83, Fig. 10. Xu, in
contrast to Wei, discloses a shortened subframe format, used in "a system
including legacy control signaling and reference signals," where an "uplink
signal does not use the beginning symbols of the subframe." Xu ,r 115
( emphasis added).
3
Appeal 2018-007088
Application 14/407, 793
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner fmds that Wei's
received shortened uplink subframe configuration index and subframe
number index teach or suggest a grant message indicating that the first
wireless node is scheduled for transmission in the transmit subframe, the
grant message containing subframe-shortening infonnation. Final Act. 5
( citing Wei ,r 77, Fig. 10). The Examiner further fmds that Wei's
transmission of a shorted subframe, as modified by Xu' s shortened subframe
format (i.e., a subframe where beginning symbols are not used), teaches or
suggests not transmitting during one or more symbol intervals at the
beginning of a subframe interval. Final Act. 6 (citing Wei ,r,r 82-83; Xu
,r 115). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to an artisan of
ordinary skill to modify Wei in this manner "to efficiently identify and limit
potential interference conditions by restricting resources based on the
identified potential interference." Id. ( citing Xu ,r 7); see also id. at 4 ( the
proffered modification would have provided "Wei's system with more
patterns for controlling interference between uplink/downlink
transmissions"); Ans. 6.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "the cited art fails to
disclose or suggest the claim limitation that a transmit frame is shortened
due to the reception of a grant message that includes subframe-shortening
information." Appeal Br. 10. Specifically, Appellant submits that "a grant
message provides an indication that a wireless node is scheduled for
transmission in a transmit subframe," (id. at 11) but Wei merely describes
"providing a configuration for a particular subframe index within a
(repeated) frame structure" (id. ( citing Wei ,r 77)). That is, Appellant argues
"Wei's messages appear to identify subframes, by using indices, within, e.g.,
4
Appeal 2018-007088
Application 14/407, 793
a frame, that should be shortened if and when those subframes are
scheduled for transmission from a" device. Reply Br. 3; see also Appeal Br.
12.
Despite Appellant's arguments, we agree with the Examiner that Wei
discloses user equipment that "is granted/allocated a subframe/resources in
the resource space for uplink transmission." Ans. 5. This is evident in
Wei's teaching that"[ w ]hen the [ frequency division duplex user equipment]
receives a shortened uplink subframe configuration index and the subframe
number index ... the [ frequency division duplex user equipment] will form
the uplink subframe assuming the shortened subframe format." Wei ,r 77
( emphases added). That is, the user equipment forms the shortened uplink
subframe in direct response to receipt of the pertinent message (i.e., Wei's
received indicies ). Appellant does not identify any grant or scheduling
message in Wei that the user equipment must also receive before forming
the shortened uplink subframe.
Appellant further argues "one skilled in the art would not find it
obvious to modify Wei's techniques to move its blanked transmit symbols
from the end of a subframe to the beginning of a subframe" because "[ s ]uch
a modification of Wei's techniques would fail to accomplish Wei's primary
goals, which are directed to avoiding interference that uniquely occurs at the
end of a (special) subframe." Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive because the Examiner does
not rely on Xu to teach or suggest moving the position of unused transmit
symbols from the end of a subframe ( as disclosed in Wei) to the beginning
of a subframe (as disclosed in Xu). Rather, the Examiner concludes Xu
would have rendered obvious modifying Wei to include "more patterns for
5
Appeal 2018-007088
Application 14/407, 793
controlling interference between uplink/downlink transmissions." Final
Act. 4 ( emphasis added).
As Appellant acknowledges and even emphasizes, Wei and Xu
address different interference problems. See Reply Br. 3 ("introducing Xu' s
techniques into Wei's system does not address the interference problems
described within Wei .... Similarly, introducing Wei's techniques into Xu's
system does not address the problems Xu seeks to mitigate"). Wei addresses
possible interference related to simultaneous transmissions between time
division duplex user equipment and frequency division duplex user
equipment. Wei ,r,r 82-83. Xu, in contrast, addresses "a potential
interference condition based at least in part on an uplink/downlink
configuration mismatch" (Xu ,r 7}--e. g., "legacy control signaling and
reference signals in a region 1720 at the beginning of the uplink/downlink
transmissions" (id. ,r 115).
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to an
artisan of ordinary skill to modify Wei using Xu's teachings so that Wei's
received "shortened uplink subframe configuration index and the subframe
number index" (Wei ,r 77) indicate whether to shorten the subframe by not
transmitting symbols at the beginningofthe subframe, thus enabling Wei to
also address the interference problem identified in Xu. See Final Act. 6.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 1, and the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 3, 5, 7, 8,
10-12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23-25, 29, and 30, which Appellant does not
argue separately, except to note that claims 7, 20, and 29 are directed to the
transmission of a grant message indicating a subframe is to be shortened,
rather than receiving such a grant message. See Appeal Br. 16-17.
6
Appeal 2018-007088
Application 14/407, 793
CLAIMS 6 AND 19
Claim 6 recites shortening a "further transmit subframe" in response
to "determining that a scheduled broadcast subframe is to be received in a
receive subframe preceding and overlapping the further transmit subframe"
( emphasis added). The meaning of "preceding and overlapping" relates to
time, as evidenced by the preamble recitation of claim 1 (from which claim
6 depends) directed to "subframes of a Time Division Duplex system
occurring at defined subframe intervals and having a predetermined number
of symbol intervals." As the Specification discloses, in a time division
duplex system, "downlink and uplink transmission take place in different,
non-overlapping time slots." Spec. 2, 1. 14--15 ( emphasis added); see also id.
Fig. 1. Therefore, given a reasonably broad interpretation, in light of the
Specification: (1) a scheduled broadcast subframe precedes a further
transmit subframe if the scheduled broadcast subframe begins in an earlier
time slot than the further transmit subframe's timeslot and (2) the scheduled
broadcast subframe overlaps the further transmit subframe if the scheduled
broadcast subframe continues into at least part of the further transmit
subframe's time slot.
The Examiner finds that Xu' s use of a shortened subframe format to
reduce the impact of "legacy control signaling and reference signals in a
region 1720 at the beginning of the uplink/downlink transmission" discloses
both: (1) "determining that a scheduled broadcast subframe is to be received
in a receive subframe preceding and overlapping the further transmit
subframe" and (2) shortening the further transmit subframe in response to
the determination. Final Act. 8 ( citing Xu ,r 115, Fig. 17B). The Examiner
fmds specifically that Xu illustrates that the legacy signaling and reference
7
Appeal 2018-007088
Application 14/407, 793
signals region 1720 overlaps in frequency with multiple channels that share
the same frequency band. See Ans. 7 ( citing Xu ,r 115).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Xu's legacy signaling
and reference signals region 1720 represents one of several "different
regions of the same subframe" (Reply Br. 5), rather than "a scheduled
broadcast subframe ... received in a receive subframe preceding and
overlapping a further transmit subframe" ( Appeal Br. 17 ( emphasis added)).
We agree with Appellant the Examiner erred. As discussed above, a
received subframe precedes and overlaps a further transmit subframe based
on the timing of when the received subframe begins and ends, and how such
timing relates to the time slot of the further transmit subframe. Xu,
however, merely illustrates that legacy control signaling and reference
signals region 1720 is part of (i.e., overlaps) a time division duplexing/
frequency division duplexing subframe. Compare Xu Fig. 17B with id.
Figs. 17 A, C; see also id. Fig. 4 (illustrating subframes having multiple slots
and channels). The Examiner does not show that Xu' s region 1720 begins
before (i.e., precedes) the time slot of the subframe. Moreover, the
Examiner's fmding that region 1720 overlaps with multiple channels sharing
the same frequency band is not pertinent to the disputed recitations because
preceding and overlapping, as claimed, relates to time, not frequency.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 6, and claim 19, which has similar recitations.
CLAIMS 13 AND 26
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 because,
whereas claim 6 describes "techniques within a first wireless node ... ,
claim[] 13 ... describe [ s] corresponding techniques within a second wireless
8
Appeal 2018-007088
Application 14/407, 793
node." Appeal Br. 19; see also Reply Br. 4--5. Appellant does not show,
however, that the recitations of claim 13 correspond to the dis positive
recitations of claim 6.
Claim 13 recites "transmitting a scheduled broadcast subframe during
a second subframe interval and receiving a second shortened subframe
during a third subframe interval immediately succeeding the second
subframe interval." This recitation lacks the specific, dispositive preceding
and overlappingrelationship recited in claim 6. Moreover, Appellant does
not proffer any other persuasive argument with respect to claim 6 that is
applicable to claim 13. Therefore, Appellant's arguments regarding claim 6
do not show error in the Examiner's reliance on Xu, in combination with
Wei, to teach or suggest the recitations of claim 13. See Final Act. 10 ( citing
Xu ,r 115, Fig. 17B).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 13, and claim 26, which Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal
Br. 19.
DECISION
We affrrm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10-
14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23-26, 29, and 30.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 6 and 19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9