Martin Feuersaenger et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 13, 2020

14396713 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 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.
14/396,713 10/23/2014 Martin Feuersaenger 736456.418USPC 9769
125045 7590 03/13/2020
Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panasonic (PIPCA)
701 5th Avenue, Suite 5400
Seattle, WA 98104
EXAMINER
LINDENBAUM, ALAN LOUIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2020 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):
USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com
pairlinkdktg@seedip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN FEUERSAENGER, JOACHIM LOEHR, CHRISTIAN
WENGERTER, and PRATEEK BASU-MALLICK
Appeal 2018-005322
Application 14/396,713
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and AMBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
QUINN, 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6, 810, 1218, 2022, 25, 27, and
2931. See Final Act. 1. Claims 7, 11, 19, 23, 24, 26, and 28 have been
canceled. Claims Appendix. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Panasonic
Intellectual Property Corporation of America. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-005322
Application 14/396,713

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a coexistence interference reporting
mechanism. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
detecting, by a mobile terminal in a communication
system including a base station and a wireless communication
device, an interference condition between a communication
with the base station via a first resource and a communication
with the wireless communication device via a second resource;
reporting, by the mobile terminal, on the interference
condition to the base station to deactivate the first resource by
the base station;
receiving, by the mobile terminal, reconfiguration
information indicating a third resource for communication with
the base station and reconfiguring the communication with the
base station to the third resource;
detecting, by the mobile terminal, whether there is an
interference condition between the reconfigured communication
with the base station via the third resource and the
communication with the wireless communication device via the
second resource;
when there is no interference condition detected between
the reconfigured communication with the base station via the
third resource and the communication with the wireless
communication device via the second resource, reporting, by
the mobile terminal to the base station, an interference
avoidance of the detected interference condition between the
communication with the base station via the first resource and
the communication with the wireless communication device via
the second resource;
detecting, by the mobile terminal, whether the
interference condition persists for potential communications
Appeal 2018-005322
Application 14/396,713

3
with the base station via the first resource, and, in case the
interference condition has been resolved, reporting, by the
mobile terminal, on an interference resolution to the base
station for communications via the first resource to reactivate
the first resource; and
receiving, by the mobile terminal, reconfiguration
information indicating the reactivated first resource for
communication with the base station and reconfiguring the
communication with the base station to the first resource.
Appeal Br. 4647 (Claim Appendix).
REFERENCE
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Comsa US 2012/0207040 A1 Aug. 16, 2012
REJECTION
Claims 16, 810, 1218, 2022, 25, 27, and 2931 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Comsa. Ans. 2–10.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments
for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).

Appeal 2018-005322
Application 14/396,713

4
Claims 1, 13, and 27
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims
1, 13, and 27 is in error, because Comsa does not disclose one of the recited
reporting limitations. Appeal Br. 3742. Appellant’s arguments focus on
certain language of claim 1, which Appellant argues is identically recited in
claims 13 and 27. Id. at 43. We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments that
the Examiner erred. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments for the
reasons that follow.
Claim 1 recites three reporting limitations. First, a wireless terminal
reports “on the interference condition to the base station to deactivate the
first resource by the base station.” Id. at 46 (Claim Appendix). Second, the
wireless terminal reports “an interference avoidance of the detected
interference condition between the communication with the base station via
the first resource and the communication with the wireless communication
device via the second resource.” Id. Third, the wireless terminal reports “on
an interference resolution to the base station for communications via the first
resource to reactivate the first resource.” Id. All three reports are triggered
when the wireless terminal determines whether there is interference between
resources. Id.
The Examiner finds that Comsa discloses the three reports. As to the
first report, the Examiner finds that Comsa describes a wireless device that
detects or predicts an interference situation and then notifies the network of
the interference. Final Act. 3 (citing, for example, Comsa ¶¶ 59, 69);
Ans. 1011. The Examiner also points out that Comsa’s network receives
the notification and sends to the wireless device a reconfiguration message,
Appeal 2018-005322
Application 14/396,713

5
indicating, for example, instruction to handover or deactivate a carrier. Final
Act. 3 (citing Comsa ¶ 108).
As to the second report, the Examiner finds that Comsa describes the
wireless device’s notification to the network includes the indication “that [a]
previous interference stopped.” Id. at 4 (citing Comsa ¶ 83). As to the third
report, the Examiner finds that Comsa’s wireless device notifies the network
that an interference situation exists in the current serving frequency or in
another serving frequency. Id. (citing Comsa ¶ 83). The Examiner notes
that Comsa’s wireless device continuously reports or transmits notifications.
Id. (citing Comsa ¶ 97).
Appellant argues that Comsa does not disclose the second report.
Appeal Br. 40. According to Appellant, the disclosures cited by the
Examiner in Comsa allude to Comsa’s identification of interference with a
particular resource, not as to whether any reconfiguration has successfully
avoided interference. Id.; see also Reply 3 (“Comsa is directed to the status
of particular resources, without regard to whether any reconfiguration has
occurred which has successfully avoided interference.”). More particularly,
Appellant argues that Comsa’s notification that an interference situation may
have stopped is not “a reporting of an ‘interference avoidance’ . . . [because]
Comsa appears to be directed to reporting that the original configuration
which presented an interference condition no longer presents an interference
condition.” Id. at 41. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
The claimed second report requires an indication that the wireless
device has avoided the previously detected interference, i.e., between the
first and second resources. The claim language does not require the wireless
device to report that the reconfiguration to the third resource is the solution
Appeal 2018-005322
Application 14/396,713

6
to the previously detected interference between the first and second
resources. Although the Specification describes the “interference
avoidance” (or second) report as indicating that there is no interference
condition between the reconfigured communication (using the third
resource) and the second resource, the claim language focuses on a report
indicating avoiding interference that occurred between the first and second
resources. See Spec. 35: 18. Thus, Comsa’s report indicating that a
previous interference may have stopped discloses reporting the avoidance of
a previously detected interference, between the first and second resources, as
recited. When Comsa’s wireless device has performed a handover to
another resource, according to the reconfiguration message after the first
report, Comsa continues to transmit notification messages to the network,
including a notification that the previously detected interference may have
stopped, because the wireless device is no longer communicating using the
first resource. See e.g., Ans. 15 (the Examiner stating that Comsa satisfies
the second report limitation because its notification includes the information
that the first resource is not being used anymore).
Appellant argues further that the continuous transmission of Comsa
does not satisfy the timing required by the claim: that the second report
occurs “when there is no interference condition detected.” Appeal Br. 42.
We are not persuaded by this argument. As the Examiner explains, and we
agree, once Comsa reconfigures the wireless device to use another serving
frequency resource, it will continue to send interference reports regarding
the new serving frequency resource. Ans. 11 (citing Comsa ¶¶ 59, 68, 83,
97). Then, according to the Examiner, the wireless device measures the
potential interference involving the new (third) resource, and sends an
Appeal 2018-005322
Application 14/396,713

7
interference report triggered by that detection. Id. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding because Comsa describes sending a notification report
according to proactive triggers (¶ 69), which include that the device is about
to activate a new resource (¶ 72). Thus, Comsa satisfies the timing of the
claimed second report because the reconfiguration to the third resource is a
proactive trigger to detect or measure new interferences and notify the
network: (a) whether the third resource will cause interference (see, e.g.,
¶ 83 (discussing indication that an in-device interference will exist)); and (b)
whether a previous interference involving the first resource may have
stopped (¶ 83). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred in finding that Comsa discloses the
second reporting limitation recited in claims 1, 13, and 27.
Other than claim 2 (discussed below), Appellant does not argue any
dependent claims separately. Consequently, we find that Appellant has not
shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 36, 810, 1218,
2022, 25, 27, and 2931.
Dependent Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites that “detecting whether the
interference condition persists for potential communication with the base
station via the first resource is performed by the mobile terminal after the
reporting, by the mobile terminal, of the indication of interference
avoidance.” Appeal Br. 47 (Claim Appendix). Essentially, this claim
requires a specific order of steps: the second report occurs before the last
recited detection step. First, Appellant argues that because Comsa does not
disclose the second report, then Comsa does not disclose the required order.
Id. at 44. Second, Appellant argues that the Examiner improperly finds that
Appeal 2018-005322
Application 14/396,713

8
the same feature of Comsa discloses both the second report and the last
detecting step. Id. We are not persuaded by either of Appellant’s
arguments.
As stated above, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Comsa
discloses the second report when it describes that the notification includes an
indication that a previous interference situation may have stopped.
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s first argument.
As to the second argument, we note that the Examiner rejects claim 2
on the basis that Comsa’s notification includes an indication that previous
interference exists or has stopped. Final Act. 5 (citing Comsa ¶ 83). The
Examiner further explains that Comsa discloses transmitting multiple
reports, one after the other. Ans. 19. We agree with the Examiner because
Comsa discloses continuous transmission of notifications. Comsa ¶ 97.
Furthermore, as the Examiner’s rejection states, Comsa’s notification that
the interference may have stopped is a different notification of whether an
interference situation exists (such as in the current serving frequency or in
another serving frequency) or will exist (such as when a technology may be
activated in the future). Id. ¶ 83. Thus, as the Examiner finds, and our
understanding of Comsa confirms, after the wireless device sends the second
report (previous interference situation may have stopped), Comsa’s detection
and notifications will continue with regard to the first resource, and will
result in the notification to the network whether a potential interference with
the first resource will occur. See id. (explaining that notification provides
indication that an in-device interference situation exists or will exist in
addition to indicating whether a previous interference may have stopped);
Appeal 2018-005322
Application 14/396,713

9
see also id. ¶ 86 (explaining that the wireless device notifications include a
list of frequencies that it supports without interference).
In sum, because the notifications of Comsa are continuous, it is
reasonable to find, as the Examiner states, that the same report (previous
interference situation may have stopped) would be transmitted multiple
times: a first instance to indicate that due to inactivation the first resource is
no longer interfering; and a second instance to indicate that the first
resource, as a future activated resource, would not be interfering. The
subsequent report would also include listing the first resource with the
notification to indicate that the wireless device supports the first resource
without interference as Comsa describes. Accordingly, we find that the
Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 2 as anticipated by Comsa.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is sustained.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
16, 810,
1218,
2022, 25,
27, and
2931
102(e) Comsa 16, 810,
1218,
2022, 25,
27, and
2931

Appeal 2018-005322
Application 14/396,713

10
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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