Lindell, Per et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 3, 2020

15160154 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2020)

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.
15/160,154 05/20/2016 Per Lindell P47042 US2 2723
27045 7590 02/03/2020
ERICSSON INC.
6300 LEGACY DRIVE
M/S EVR 1-C-11
PLANO, TX 75024
EXAMINER
SAFAIPOUR, BOBBAK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/03/2020 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):
amber.rodgers@ericsson.com
michelle.sanderson@ericsson.com
pam.ewing@ericsson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PER LINDELL, HÅKAN PALM, and
PETER HEDMAN
Appeal 2019-000877
Application 15/160,154
Technology Center 2600

Before J. JOHN LEE, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–24. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-000877
Application 15/160,154

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The present invention relates generally to authorizing enhanced
coverage features for wireless devices. Abstract. Independent claim 1 is
illustrative of the claims on appeal and recites:
1. A method for authorizing utilization of enhanced
coverage, the method comprising:
receiving a first message indicating that a first wireless
device supports one or more enhanced coverage features;
obtaining an identification of the first wireless device; and
obtaining, based on the identification of the first wireless
device, an indication of whether the first wireless device is
authorized to access the one or more enhanced coverage features
or the first wireless device is not authorized to access the one or
more enhanced coverage features.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–11, 13–15, 17–19, and 21–23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lim.2 Final Act. 3–6.
Claims 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Lim. Id. at 7–10.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv), 41.39(a)(1).

2 Lim, US 2016/0338005 A1, published Nov. 17, 2016.
Appeal 2019-000877
Application 15/160,154

3
OPINION
Appellant’s arguments focus on the anticipation rejection of
independent claims 1, 9, and 17. Appellant contends the Examiner erred in
finding Lim discloses “an indication of whether the first wireless device is
authorized to access the one or more enhanced coverage features or the first
wireless device is not authorized to access the one or more enhanced
coverage features,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 9 and
17. Appeal Br. 7–10; Reply Br. 2–4. Specifically, Appellant argues that,
although Lim describes “the ability of the [user equipment (UE)] to support
enhanced coverage,” “an indication as to whether or not the wireless device
supports one or more enhanced coverage features” is not an “indication of
whether or not the wireless device is authorized to access the one or more
enhanced coverage features.” Appeal Br. 9–10. Appellant further argues
the claims require “two separate indications,” i.e., a support indication and
an authorization indication, but Lim only describes one indication, i.e., “the
indicator that the UE has enhanced coverage capability.” Reply Br. 3.
According to Appellant, “[t]he Examiner’s position is premised on the same
piece of information satisfying both indications.” Id. Still further, Appellant
argues “[b]ecause Lim does not explicitly discuss a UE not being authorized
to use enhanced coverage, the only indication that a UE would not use
coverage enhanced features is if the UE does not support them.” Id. at 4.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner finds
(Ans. 3–4), and we agree, that the completion of Lim’s “connection
procedure” (Lim ¶¶ 55, 60) discloses “an indication of whether the first
wireless device is authorized to access the one or more enhanced coverage
features or the first wireless device is not authorized to access the one or
Appeal 2019-000877
Application 15/160,154

4
more enhanced coverage features” (i.e., the authorization indication). As the
Examiner points out, Lim details a connection procedure in Figure 2 and the
corresponding disclosure. Final Act. 4. Initially, the UE transmits an
indication that it supports enhanced coverage mode features, e.g., a “CE
mode indicator.” Lim, Fig. 2; see id. ¶ 60. That indication of enhanced
coverage mode support is then stored by a mobility managed entity
(“MME”). Id. Later, when completing the connection procedure, the MME
transmits to base station eNB a different “enhanced coverage indicator” that
“will indicate if the user equipment has enhanced coverage capability,”
together with “a UE identifier [and] a low complexity capability indicator.”
Id. ¶ 60, Fig. 2. Completing this connection procedure allows base station
eNB to communicate with user equipment “using the appropriate signalling;
that is, . . . using repeated transmissions if it requires coverage enhanced
mode.” Id. ¶ 60, Fig. 2.
Appellant’s argument that “whether or not a UE supports coverage
enhanced mode does not disclose whether or not the UE is authorized to use
coverage enhanced mode” (Appeal Br. 9) ignores the Examiner’s finding
that Lim’s user equipment is “authorized to access” enhanced coverage
mode “[o]nce [Lim’s] connection procedure between the UE and [base
station] has been performed and a dedication channel [is] established.”
Ans. 4. That is, Appellant’s arguments address Lim’s indication of
capability or support for enhanced coverage mode, i.e., Lim’s CE mode
indicator, but the Examiner relies on the later completion of the connection
procedure to disclose the authorization indication. Id. In particular, the
Examiner points out (id.) that the UE in Lim may enter “an area that requires
the enhanced coverage mode,” and, after completion of a connection
Appeal 2019-000877
Application 15/160,154

5
procedure, the UE “will then be able” to communicate in the “require[d]
coverage enhanced mode” (Lim ¶¶ 53, 60). Because the completion of the
connection procedure allows access to the enhanced coverage area, we agree
with the Examiner that such completion discloses “an indication of whether
the first wireless device is authorized to access the one or more enhanced
coverage features.”
Further, Appellant’s argument that the claims require “two separate
indications” (Reply Br. 3) is not persuasive because the Examiner found that
Lim discloses separate indications. According to the Examiner, the UE’s
“signal to the network when it is operating in coverage enhanced mode,” i.e.,
the “CE mode indicator,” discloses the first indication. Final Act. 3–4
(citing Lim ¶ 28); see Lim, Fig. 2 (showing a first arrow showing a “CE
mode indicator” transmitted from UE to MME), ¶ 60. In addition, as
discussed above, the Examiner relies (Ans. 4) on Lim’s connection
procedure, which transmits a different “enhanced coverage indicator” with
“a UE identifier [and] a low complexity capability indicator” in order to
establish an enhanced coverage connection, to disclose the second
(authorization) indication—that the user equipment is “authorized to
access . . . enhanced coverage features” (Lim ¶ 60).
Appellant also argues that, when the device is not authorized, the
claims require the authorization indication to be an affirmative indication of
a lack of authorization. See Reply Br. 4. Thus, Appellant contends that Lim
does not disclose the recited authorization indication because “Lim does not
explicitly discuss a UE not being authorized to use enhanced coverage” and,
instead, discloses that no indication is provided when unauthorized. See id.
This argument, however, is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Appeal 2019-000877
Application 15/160,154

6
First, the claims recite an indication of whether the device is
authorized “or” is not authorized. Thus, Lim’s disclosure of an indication
that the UE is authorized meets this limitation. Additionally, neither the
claims nor the Specification define or limit how the authorization indication
is provided. Thus, an affirmative indication is not required, and an implicit
indication is sufficient. Lim’s connection procedure includes “an enhanced
coverage indicator, which will indicate if the user equipment has enhanced
coverage capability.” Lim ¶ 60. Thus, if the user equipment does not have
enhanced coverage capability, there is no enhanced coverage indicator,
which indicates that the user equipment “is not authorized to access”
enhanced coverage features. Moreover, Lim describes that its connection
procedure provides communication “using the appropriate signalling; that is,
with a reduced transport size block if the device is a low complexity device,
or using repeated transmissions if it requires coverage enhanced mode” (id.),
which indicates whether the user equipment will operate in enhanced
coverage mode (and, thus, is authorized) or whether it must operate in a
different mode (i.e., is unauthorized).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Lim
discloses “an indication of whether the first wireless device is authorized to
access the one or more enhanced coverage features or the first wireless
device is not authorized to access the one or more enhanced coverage
features,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 9 and 17.
Appellant does not present separate arguments for dependent claims 2–8,
10–16, and 18–24, and, thus, we also sustain the rejections of those claims.
See Appeal Br. 5–10.

Appeal 2019-000877
Application 15/160,154

7

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–7, 9–
11, 13–15,
17–19, 21–
23
102(a)(2) Lim 1–3, 5–7, 9–
11, 13–15,
17–19, 21–
23

4, 8, 12, 16,
20, 24
103 Lim 4, 8, 12, 16,
20, 24

Overall
Outcome
1–24

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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED