Ex Parte Song et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2018

13084763 (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.
13/084,763 04/12/2011 Osok Song 101643US 1728
15055 7590 03/02/2018
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
VAN, JENKEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
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):
qu alcomm @ pattersonsheridan .com
PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OSOK SONG, ALEKSANDAR DAMNJANOVIC,
TINGFANG JI, PARAG ARUN AGASHE, JABER MOHAMMAD
BORRAN, MADHAVAN SRINIVASAN VAJAPEYAM, and
STEFAN GEIRHOFER
Appeal 2017-008720
Application 13/084,763
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—7, 10-21, 24—35, 38-49, 52—64, 66—78, 80-92,
94—106, 108-112. Claims 8, 9, 22, 23, 36, 37, 50, 51, 65, 79, 93, and 107
have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2017-008720
Application 13/084,763
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to an adaptive resource negotiation
between base stations for enhanced interference coordination. Spec. 12.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation in italics, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for wireless communications, comprising:
generating a resource status message indicating one or more
parameters related to resource status associated with a first base
station, the one or more parameters comprising at least one of a total
physical resource block (PRB) usage, a guaranteed bit rate (GBR)
PRB usage, a non-GBR PRB usage, an average number of user
equipment (UE) devices having queued dedicated traffic channel
(DTCH) data, an average cell data rate for GBR bearers, or an average
cell data rate for non-GBR bearers;
sending, from the first base station, the resource status message
to a second base station;
receiving, at the first base station from the second base station,
a message indicating a proposed resource partitioning between the
first and second base stations, wherein the proposed resource
partitioning is based on the resource status message and the one or
more parameters, and wherein the proposed resource partitioning
indicates a proposed partitioning of subframes between the first and
second base stations; and
scheduling resources at the first base station based on the
received resource partitioning.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, 24, 28, 29, 32, 33, 38, 42, 43, 46,
47, 52, 56, 57, 61, 62, 66, 70, 71, 75, 76, 80, 84, 85, 89, 90, 94, 98, 99, 103,
104, 108, and 112 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
2
Appeal 2017-008720
Application 13/084,763
anticipated by Michel et al. (US 2013/0003646 Al; published Jan. 3, 2013)
(“Michel”).
Claims 2, 3, 16, 17, 30, 31, 44, 45, 58-60, 72-74, 86-88, and 100-102
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Michel and “3GPP TS 36.423 version 9.1.0 Release 9”
(“3GPPv9”).
Claims 6, 7, 20, 21, 34, 35, 48, 49, 63, 64, 77, 78, 91, 92, 105, and 106
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Michel and Kuningas (US 2011/0201339 Al; published
Aug. 18,2011).
Claims 11-13, 25-27, 39-41, 53-55, 67-69, 81-83, 95-97, and 109—
111 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Michel and “3GPP TS36.300 version 10.2.0 Release 10”
(“RellO”).
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding Michel discloses “generating a
resource status message indicating one or more parameters related to
resource status associated with a first base station, the one or more
parameters comprising at least one of a total physical resource block (PRB)
usage, a guaranteed bit rate (BGR) PRB usage, a non-GBR PRB usage, an
average number of user equipment (UE) devices having queued dedicated
traffic channel (DTCH) data, an average cell data rate for GBR bearers, or
an average cell data rate for non-GBR bearers” and “sending from the first
base station, the resource status message to a second base station,” as recited
3
Appeal 2017-008720
Application 13/084,763
in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims
15,29, 43,57, 71,85, and 99?
The Examiner finds Michel’s load information message, sent from the
relay node to the base station, teaches the claimed generating and sending of
the resource status message to a second base station. Final Act. 7, citing
Michel ]Hf 42—50. The Examiner finds Michel’s teaching that the load
information message may include “preferably used resource blocks and sub-
frames . . . determined based on previously used resource blocks and sub-
frames” discloses the total physical resource block (PRB) usage parameter.
Final Act. 6—7, citing Michel 145.
Appellants argue “while Michel teaches that the d-eNB [base station]
may send scheduling information to the R[N] [relay node], there is simply
no indication that the RN (i.e., the mapped first base station) sends such
scheduling information to the d-eNB [base station].” App. Br. 14.
Appellants further argue “information regarding preferred resource blocks
and sub-frames does not indicate any particular PRB usage” and
“information related to the level of interference simply does not provide
information as to what PRBs are used.” App. Br. 15, 16; see Reply Br. 3.
According to Appellants, “a person having ordinary skill would understand
that an act of using, or usage, of a PRB includes employing the PRB for
some purpose.” App. Br. 16. Appellants argue “Michel makes clear that the
information about preferred resource blocks is based on interference, usage,
and quality information and is forward looking, describing resources the RN
would prefer to obtain, rather than providing any particular status
information as to what total PRBs are actually used under an existing
scheduling scheme.” App. Br. 17.
4
Appeal 2017-008720
Application 13/084,763
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Michel explicitly
describes “the load information message is sent from the relay node to the
base station comprising a partitioning request information.” Michel 142.
Michel explains “the relay node may inform the base station about its
preferred sub-frames and resource blocks (e.g., PRBs) to be used, e.g., by
sending bitmap information to the base station.” Michel 143. Michel
discloses “[i]t is noted that the preferably used resource blocks and sub-
frames may be determined by the relay node based on previous interference
measurements or based on previously used resource blocks and sub-frames
with no or minor disturbance.” Michel 145. Based on this information
obtained from the relay node, the base station may decide an appropriate
resource allocation and transmit the result of this decision back to the relay
node. Michel | 52.
Appellants’ argument that the “total physical resource block usage”
requires “what total PRBs are actually used under an existing scheduling
scheme” is not commensurate with the scope of the claim language. As the
Examiner finds, “’total physical resource block usage’ is a vague term and
not explicitly defined in the claims.” Ans. 4. Appellants have not directed
our attention to an explicit definition of the “total physical resource block
usage” in the Specification. Appellants’ Specification describes that “a
physical resource block (PRB) usage metric may be used to capture the
burstiness of traffic and load of a cell.” Spec. 177. Appellants’
Specification also describes, without more, that parameter values that may
include “DL/UL total PRB usage (% over available resources):
PRB_total(/,/)• Spec. 1 86. One relevant plain meaning of “usage” is “a
customary way of doing something; a custom or practice.” Webster’s
5
Appeal 2017-008720
Application 13/084,763
Universal College Dictionary 866 (1997). The same dictionary provides
additional definitions of the term as “habitual or customary use” and “an act
of using or employing; use.” Id. Based upon the plain and ordinary
meaning of the term “usage,” we do not understand the term to be limited to
presently existing, current actual use as argued by Appellants. Rather, it
may also encompass previous use, as in habitual or customary use.
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that Michel’s teaching of
providing preferably used resource blocks and sub-frames to be used which
were determined based on previously used resource blocks and sub-frames
discloses the claimed generating a resource status message indicating one or
more parameters related to resource status associated with a first base
station, where the parameter is a total physical resource block usage. We
note Appellants acknowledge that the information about preferred resource
blocks “is based on interference, usage, and quality information.” App. Br.
17, emphasis added. Appellants do not persuasively argue why the
foregoing does not disclose the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1, 15, 29, 43, 57, 71, 85, and 99 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e). For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejections of dependent claims 4, 5, 10, 14, 18, 19, 24, 28, 32, 33,
38, 42, 46, 47, 52, 56, 61, 62, 66, 70, 75, 76, 80, 84, 89, 90, 94, 98, 103, 104,
108, and 112, which were not separately argued.
With regard to dependent claims 2, 3, 16, 17, 30, 31, 44, 45, 58—60,
72—74, 86—88, and 100-102, Appellants argue 3GPPv9 is silent with regard
to the disputed limitation (App. Br. 19-20), such that we, likewise, sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of those claims for the same reasons.
6
Appeal 2017-008720
Application 13/084,763
With regard to dependent claims 6, 7, 20, 21, 34, 35, 48, 49, 63, 64,
77, 78, 91, 92, 105, and 106, Appellants argue Kuningas is silent with regard
to the disputed limitation (App. Br. 20), such that we, likewise, sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of those claims for the same reasons.
With regard to dependent claims 11—13, 25—27, 39-41, 53—55, 67—69,
81—83, 95—97, and 109—111, Appellants argue Rel 10 is silent with regard to
the disputed limitation (App. Br. 21), such that we, likewise, sustain the 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of those claims for the same reasons.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—7, 10—21, 24—35,
38-49, 52-64, 66-78, 80-92, 9^U106, 108-112.
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