NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 4, 2022

2022001019 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2022)

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. 16/951,559 11/18/2020 Aliye KAYA 059864.03301 8235 11051 7590 01/04/2022 SQUIRE PB (Nokia) Nokia Technologies Oy ATTN: IP Department 2550 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 EXAMINER SIDDIQUI, KASHIF ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2415 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2022 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): IP-Squire@SquirePB.com sonia.whitney@squirepb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALIYE KAYA and HARISH VISWANATHAN ___________ Appeal 2022-001019 Application 16/951,559 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JAMES B. ARPIN, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 10, and 15. Final Act. 1.2 Appellant withdraws claims 11-14 and 18-from consideration, and the Examiner 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2012). Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Nokia Technologies Oy. Appeal Br. 4 2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed October 4, 2021) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed December 3, 2021); the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed May 4, 2021), the Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.,” filed July 30, 2021), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 15, 2021); and the Specification (“Spec.,” filed November 18, 2020). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents. Appeal 2022-001019 Application 16/951,559 2 objects to each of claims 4-9, 16, and 17 as dependent on a rejected base claim.3 Id. at 1, 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claimed apparatus and methods “relate to the field of wireless communications and, particularly, to detecting a preamble at an access node.” Spec. ¶ 1. As noted above, claims 1-3, 10, and 15 are on appeal. Claims 1 and 15 are independent. Appeal Br. 21 (claim 1), 24-25 (claim 15) (Claims App.). Claims 2, 3, and 10 depend directly from claim 1. Id. at 21-23. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative. 1. An apparatus for an access node of a wireless network, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to perform: transmitting a message to a first terminal device connected to the access node, the message instructing the terminal device to carry out a random access procedure towards the access node; 3 “The practical difference between a rejection and an objection is that a rejection, involving the merits of the claim, is subject to review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while an objection, if persisted, may be reviewed only by way of petition to the Director of the USPTO.” MPEP § 706.01 (9th Ed., Rev. 10.2019, Last Rev’d June 2020). Consequently, except to the extent we address the patentability of their base claims, we do not consider the patentability of claims 4-9, 16, and 17 in this appeal. Appeal 2022-001019 Application 16/951,559 3 receiving a signal from the first terminal device during the random access procedure, the signal comprising a random access preamble; using the received signal as a training input in a random access preamble detection process; and using the random access preamble detection process trained with the training input in detection of a random access preamble from a second terminal device not connected to the access node. Id. (emphases added). Independent claim 15 recites limitations corresponding to the disputed limitations of claim 1. Id. at 24-25. REFERENCES AND REJECTION The Examiner relies upon the following references: Name4 Reference Published Filed Moser US 2014/0376374 A1 Dec. 25, 2014 June 25, 2013 Jeon US 2018/0324716 A1 Nov. 8, 2018 May 4, 2018 The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 10, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Jeon and Moser. Final Act. 4-8. We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Arguments not made are forfeited.5 Unless otherwise 4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. 5 See In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Because Google failed to present these claim construction arguments to the Board, Google forfeited both arguments.”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013) (“Except as provided for in §§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal.”). Appeal 2022-001019 Application 16/951,559 4 indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action, the Advisory Action, and the Answer as our own and add any additional findings of fact for emphasis. We address the rejection below. ANALYSIS Obviousness over Jeon and Moser 1. Independent Claims 1 and 15 The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings of Jeon and Moser. Final Act. 3-7. With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Jeon teaches or suggests, An apparatus for an access node of a wireless network, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to perform: transmitting a message to a first terminal device connected to the access node, the message instructing the terminal device to carry out a random access procedure towards the access node; [and] receiving a signal from the first terminal device during the random access procedure, the signal comprising a random access preamble; as recited in claim 1. Id. at 4-5 (citing Jeon ¶¶ 157, 167, Figs. 1-4, 9). Nevertheless, the Examiner finds, Jeon does/do not appear to explicitly disclose using the received signal as a training input in a random access preamble detection process; and using the random access preamble detection process trained with the training input in detection of a random access preamble from a second terminal device not connected to the access node. Appeal 2022-001019 Application 16/951,559 5 Id. at 5. The Examiner finds, however, Moser teaches or suggests these missing limitations. Final Act. 5-6 (citing Moser ¶¶ 19, 79, 80, 83, 84, 96). In particular, Moser discloses: The [random access channel (RACH)] optimizer module 332 can make RACH parameter adjustments to improve communication performance. The RACH optimizer module 332 may use RACH information from the [radio resource management (RRM)] module 343 and the RACH optimizer module 332 may provide RACH parameters back to the RRM module 343. Example RACH parameters that may be configured by the RACH optimizer module 332 include RACH physical resources, RACH preamble allocation for different sets (e.g., dedicated, random- low, and random-high), RACH persistence level and backoff control, and RACH transmission power control[.] Id. ¶ 80 (emphasis added); cf. Spec. ¶¶ 2 (“Such a random access process may be based on the access node defining a limited set of preambles that are dedicated sequences ‘tickets’ to be used during the random access. The terminal device may select one of the preambles and transmit the preamble to the access node. The access node searches for the limited set of preambles and, upon detecting the preamble, responds to the terminal device with a random access response message.”), 5 (“The processor is further configured to execute the instructions of determining a random access preamble and a physical random access channel (PRACH) resource via resource selection from the optimal downlink transmission beam.”); 69 (“The access node 104 may indicate a set of random access resources, e.g.[,] random access preambles, to use in the random access procedure.”). Further, Moser discloses: The RACH optimizer module 332 can also use information about [random access (RA)] attempts. For example, the RRM module 343 may inform the RACH optimizer Appeal 2022-001019 Application 16/951,559 6 module 332 of the number successful RA attempts, number of unsuccessful RA attempts, percentage of successful RA attempts, or other statistics. The RA statistics can be for each of multiple preamble groups. The RACH optimizer module 332 may use the RA statistics to estimate channel loading and to make decisions to adjust channel configuration and preamble split. The RACH optimizer module 332, in an embodiment, signals the RRM module 343 when to start reporting RA statistics and what interval to use for the statistics. The RACH optimizer module 332 can also use information about RA attempts from [user equipment (UEs)]. The RRM module 343 may, for example, query a UE after an admission request to report on the number of RA preamble transmissions that were transmitted before successful completion of the RA operation. The UE may also report whether any of the retransmissions were due to collisions. The RRM supplies the information about RA attempts from the UE to the RACH optimizer module 332. Id. ¶¶ 83-84; cf., e.g., Spec. ¶ 82 (“The access node 104 may select a high number of terminal device[s] to acquire sufficient statistics for the training, e.g. dozens or hundreds of terminal devices at various traffic and/or channel conditions.” (emphasis added)).6 Thus, the Examiner finds Moser teaches or suggests using signals received in a random access preamble detection process from the first terminal device or devices that are connected to an access node to train the random access preamble detection process in 6 We interpret “a first terminal device” and “a second terminal device” to recite one or more first or second terminal devices. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.) (emphases added). “That ‘a’ or ‘an’ can mean ‘one or more’ is best described as a rule, rather than merely as a presumption or even a convention. The exceptions to this rule are extremely limited: a patentee must ‘evince[ ] a clear intent’ to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one.’” Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted); see also Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Appeal 2022-001019 Application 16/951,559 7 detection of a random access preamble from a second terminal device or devices that are not connected to the access node. Final Act. 5-6. The Examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Jeon and Moser “to provide the ability to determine an adjustment to a preamble transmit power based upon prior preamble transmission (i.e.[,] training) for subsequent random access procedures” and, thereby, to achieve the methods of claim 1. Id. at 6. The Examiner further finds, “[t]he motivation for the combination is merely the application of [a] known method of optimizing a RACH procedure to another known method utilizing a RACH procedure to yield predictable results.” Id. (emphases added). Appellant contends the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 for the following reasons. Reply Br. 4-8; see Appeal Br. 10-13. As discussed below, Appellant does not persuaded us the Examiner errs. First, Appellant contends the Examiner improperly considers the disputed limitations in isolation. Reply Br. 4-5; Appeal Br. 11. In particular, Appellant contends Moser does not teach or suggest that the training inputs come from devices connected to the access node nor does Moser teach or suggest that the training inputs are used by devices that are not connected to the access node. Appeal Br. 11 (“[I]t is respectfully submitted that Moser does not disclose or suggest that the RACH optimizer module 332 uses a random access preamble detection process trained with training input to detect a random access preamble from a second terminal device not connected to an access node.”); see Ans. 3. The Examiner finds, however, because Moser’s goals are with respect to an optimization for subsequent RACH transmissions/attempts[, t]hat would mean the optimization is Appeal 2022-001019 Application 16/951,559 8 directed for future RACH transmissions/attempts that are yet to occur (i.e.[,] in the future). Moser discloses . . . that the RACH optimizer 332 can also use information about RA attempts from UEs after an admission request on the number of RA preamble transmissions that were transmitted before successful completion of the RA operation. Ans. 4 (citing Moser ¶¶ 81, 84). Thus, the Examiner finds that Moser teaches or suggests the use of information from previous, successful random access attempts by connected devices to achieve Moser’s goals, including “maximizing the rate of successful Random Access (RA) attempts, minimizing the number of RA re-transmissions per RA attempt, maximizing the amount of radio resources available for uplink data transmissions, minimizing the inter-cell interference caused by RACH transmissions, and minimizing the UE power output for RACH transmissions,” with respect to subsequent RA attempts by other, unconnected devices. Id. at 4-5; Adv. Act. 2 (“The Examiner points out that RA preambles transmitted prior to admission would implicitly be from a UE seeking a connection with the network node. That is to say, the UE is not yet connected to the network node. Subsequent to its admission, the RACH optimizer 332 uses the number of RA preamble transmissions (among other parameters) to optimize RACH resources so as to reduce connection setup times and achieve at least the goal of maximizing the rate of successful RA attempts ([Moser ¶ 81]).”); see Moser ¶ 81. We agree with the Examiner. Second, Appellant contends the Examiner finds, “[t]he connectivity of the first terminal is only mentioned in a preceding limitation which was indicated as being disclosed by Jeon” (Ans. 5), so “a person of ordinary skill in the art would be led by the combination of Jeon and Moser to arrive at the claimed invention. In other words, the Examiner’s Answer has just Appeal 2022-001019 Application 16/951,559 9 implicitly conceded the point that Jeon’s ‘first terminal’ is a connected first terminal, whereas the alleged ‘first terminal’ of Moser is not” (Reply Br. 5). See Appeal Br. 13 (“Moser fails to disclose or suggest using a random access preamble detection process trained with training input received from a UE connected to an access node . . . .” (emphasis added)). As explained above, however, the Examiner finds Jeon, not Moser, teaches or suggests, “transmitting a message to a first terminal device connected to the access node, the message instructing the terminal device to carry out a random access procedure towards the access node.” Ans. 5; Final Act. 4 (citing Jeon ¶ 167, Fig. 9). In particular, the Examiner finds: The connectively of the first terminal is only mentioned in a preceding limitation which was indicated as being disclosed by Jeon. To that end, although Moser relates to UEs that are not yet connected to an access node, the rejection of record is the combination of Jeon in view of Moser. Appellant appears to argue Moser individually without giving any consideration to the combination with Jeon. Jeon was relied upon to teach that a first terminal device connected to the access node is instructed to perform a random access procedure (see Final [Act. 5 (]Section 5)). Moser was relied upon to teach how a preamble detection process can be improved for future detections after completing a successful random access procedure. Thus, when taken together, the resultant combination would be to perform an optimization of the preamble detection process after a connected UE is instructed to perform a random access procedure. Ans. 5-6 (emphases added); see also Reply Br. 6-7 (“Jeon does not disclose or suggest at least, ‘using the random access preamble detection process trained with the training input in detection of a random access preamble from a second terminal device not connected to the access node.’”). Appellant cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on combined teachings of the references. See In Appeal 2022-001019 Application 16/951,559 10 re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Thus, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error by this second contention. Third, Appellant contends the Examiner errs in the order of combining the references. Reply Br. 6. As noted above, the Examiner finds Jeon teaches or suggests a first terminal connected to an access node. See Ans. 5; Final Act. 4. “[A]lthough Moser relates to UEs that are not yet connected to an access node, the rejection of record is the combination of Jeon in view of Moser.” Ans. 5. In view of the Examiner’s findings, Appellant contends: The rejection is based on Jeon in view of Moser, not Moser in view of Jeon. So, Moser was offered to modify Jeon, not vice versa. Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the art considering Jeon in view of Moser can apparently continue to practice Jeon (on connected devices) while additionally practicing Moser (on unconnected devices), each separately without any need to form some kind of hybrid. Reply Br. 6. Initially, we note, where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961). Consequently, Appellant’s contention regarding the order of the combination of the references’ teachings is not persuasive of Examiner error. To the extent Appellant contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had reason to combine the teachings of Jeon and Moser Appeal 2022-001019 Application 16/951,559 11 to achieve the apparatus of claim 1, the Examiner finds reason for their combination. Final Act. 6 (“The motivation for the combination is merely the application of an known method of optimizing a RACH procedure to another known method utilizing a RACH procedure to yield predictable results.”); see In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references in an obviousness determination is a pure question of fact.”). Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s findings. Ans. 6 (“Appellant appears to be silent with respect to the Jeon reference as well as the combination of Jeon with Moser, thus Examiner is unable to determine and/or infer any disagreement with said combination.”). On this record, we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Jeon and Moser to achieve the apparatus of claim 1. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Fourth, Appellant contends: that even assuming that (as alleged in the Examiner’s Answer) Jeon discloses that a first terminal device connected to the access node is instructed to perform a random access procedure, and even assuming that (as alleged in the Examiner’s Answer) Moser teaches how a preamble detection process can be improved for future detections after completing a successful random access procedure, the result of such reliance is not the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 7. In particular, Appellant contends Jeon does not teach or suggest that “using the random access preamble detection process trained with the training input in detection of a random access preamble from a second terminal device not connected to the access node.” Id. Appellant Appeal 2022-001019 Application 16/951,559 12 further contends, even if Moser teaches how a preamble detection process may be improved for future detections after completing a successful random access procedure, Moser does not teach or suggest that such improvement arises from “using the random access preamble detection process trained with the training input in detection of a random access preamble from a second terminal device not connected to the access node.” Id. We disagree with Appellant. As the U.S. Supreme Court explains, “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Here, the Examiner finds reason for a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art to have combined the teachings of Jeon and Moser to achieve the apparatus of claim 1. Final Act. 6; see Ans. 6 (“Thus, when taken together, the resultant combination would be to perform an optimization of the preamble detection process after a connected UE is instructed to perform a random access procedure.”); see also Ans. 8 (discussing the reason to combine the teachings of Jeon and Moser to achieve the apparatus of claim 10). Appellant does not directly challenge the Examiner’s findings, and Appellant’s naked assertion that the combined teachings of Jeon and Moser do not achieve the apparatus of claim 1 does not persuade us of Examiner error. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In view of the foregoing analysis, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings of Jeon and Moser, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim. For the same reasons, we also are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 15 as obvious over the combined teachings of Appeal 2022-001019 Application 16/951,559 13 Jeon and Moser. See Appeal Br. 17; Ans. 9. Consequently, we also sustain the rejection of claim 15. 2. Claims 2 and 3 Claim 2 recites that, in the apparatus of claim 1, “the message comprises at least one information element indicating the random access preamble to be transmitted by the terminal device in the random access procedure.” Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). Claim 3 recites that, in the apparatus of claim 1, “the message further comprises at least one information element indicating an uplink resource in which the terminal device shall perform the random access procedure.” Id. at 21-22. With respect to each claim, the Examiner finds Jeon discloses: In example, a base station may transmit a [physical downlink control channel (PDCCH)] order (a [downlink control information (DCI)]) comprising one or more parameters indicating a number(s) of random access preamble transmissions. The PDCCH order may comprise one or more random access preamble indices, one or more mask indices, one or more PRACH resources, and/or the like. In an example, S may be the number of [synchronized signal (SS)] blocks. Jeon ¶ 250. Thus, the Examiner finds Jeon teaches or suggests the additional limitations of claims 2 and 3. Final Act. 6-7; see Ans. 6-7. Appellant contends the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 2 and 3: (1) because of the deficiencies noted above in the combination of teachings of Jeon and Moser to reject independent claim 1, and (2) because the Examiner “improperly conflates the functionality of two disparate message.” Appeal Br. 14-16. Appellant’s contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error. Appeal 2022-001019 Application 16/951,559 14 First, for the reasons given above, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 1. Thus, Appellant’s contention does not persuade us the rejection of claim 2 or 3 is in error. Second, with respect to claim 2, Appellant contends the Examiner finds that transmitting a PDCCH order (a DCI) indicating a number of [random access preamble (RAP)] transmissions in Jeon discloses the transmitted message indicating a RAP of claim 1. Thus, preamble 602 is sent in response to a PDCCH order 601 indicating a number of RAP transmissions - the preamble itself does not indicate any number of RAP transmissions. Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis added). Similarly, with respect to claim 3, Appellant contends the Examiner finds that transmitting a PDCCH order (a DCI) indicating a number of PRACH resources in Jeon discloses the transmitted message indicating an uplink resource of claim 3. Thus, preamble 602 is sent in response to a PDCCH order 601 indicating a number of PRACH resources - the preamble itself does not indicate any PRACH resources. Id. at 15 (emphasis added). Nevertheless, with respect to each claim, the Examiner responds that Appellant misunderstands the rejection. Ans. 6-7. Specifically, Appellant misunderstands the Examiner to assert “that the message relied upon in the rejection of Claim 1 is different than the message relied upon in the rejection of Claim 2 [or 3].” Id. at 6. Instead, the Examiner finds, “message 601, NOT message 602 is relied upon as being the message that instructs the UE to perform a random access procedure. The rejection of Claim 2 refers to the same message (i.e.[,] the PDCCH order message 601) comprising the contents as claimed by claim 2.” Id. at 7; see id. (With respect to claim 3, “the Examiner notes that Appellant appears to rely upon the same argument Appeal 2022-001019 Application 16/951,559 15 as given with respect to Claim 2.”). Appellant does not reply to the Examiner’s response in the Reply Brief, and we agree with the Examiner’s response. Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 2 and 3 as obvious over the combined teachings of Jeon and Moser, and we sustain that rejection. 3. Claim 10 Claim 10 recites that, in the apparatus of claim 1, “the at least one memory and computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to repeat said transmitting a message and said receiving a signal for a plurality of terminal devices to acquire sufficient statistics for the training.” Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Moser teaches or suggests the additional limitation of claim 10 and that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Jeon and Moser to achieve the claimed apparatus. Final Act. 7-8. In particular, the Examiner finds Moser discloses: The RACH optimizer module 332 can also use information about RA attempts from UEs (Examiner points out the plurality of UEs). The RRM module 343 may, for example, query a UE after an admission request to report on the number of RA preamble transmissions that were transmitted before successful completion of the RA operation. The UE may also report whether any of the retransmissions were due to collisions. The RRM supplies the information about RA attempts from the UE to the RACH optimizer module 332). Id. (quoting Moser ¶ 84; italics and underlining added). Further, as noted above, Moser discloses: Appeal 2022-001019 Application 16/951,559 16 The RACH optimizer module 332 may use the RA statistics to estimate channel loading and to make decisions to adjust channel configuration and preamble split. The RACH optimizer module 332, in an embodiment, signals the RRM module 343 when to start reporting RA statistics and what interval to use for the statistics. Moser ¶ 83 (emphases added). Thus, the Examiner finds Moser teaches or suggests the additional limitation of claim 10. Appellant contends, “Moser merely discloses that UE reports whether any of the retransmissions were due to collisions, but fails to disclose any type of statistics.” Appeal Br. 16. The Examiner responds: Regarding disclosing statistics for the training, the Examiner notes that no further detail is found within the claim language regarding the nature of said statistics. The only detail claimed is that said statistics are intended to be used for the training procedure. To that end, at the very least, Moser discloses ([Final Act. 8-9]) that information about the RA attempts is provided to the RACH optimizer. As noted in the rejection of Claim 1, from which Claim 10 depends (see Final [Act. 6-7]) Moser discloses that the information about the RA attempts includes statistics. Ans. 8 (emphasis added). Appellant replies that the Examiner over broadly construes “statistics” to include any information about the RA attempts. Reply Br. 8-9. Nevertheless, we are not persuaded the Examiner misinterprets Moser or over broadly construes the term: “statistics.” Moser clearly discloses the collection of statistics from a plurality of terminal devices sufficient “to adjust channel configuration and preamble split,” as well as “when to start reporting RA statistics and what interval to use for the statistics.” See Moser ¶¶ 83, 84. Further, Moser is not limited to “UE reports whether any of the retransmissions were due to collisions.” Appeal Br. 16; see Moser ¶ 84 Appeal 2022-001019 Application 16/951,559 17 (quoted above with emphasis added). Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 10 as obvious over the combined teachings of Jeon and Moser, and we sustain that rejection. DECISION 1. The Examiner does not err in claims 1-3, 10, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Jeon and Moser. 2. Thus, on this record, claims 1-3, 10, and 15 are not patentable. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 10, and 15. In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 10, 15 103 Jeon, Moser 1-3, 10, 15 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) (2013). AFFIRMED