Petteri Lunden et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 29, 2020

14497017 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 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.
14/497,017 09/25/2014 Petteri Lunden 39700-959001US/
NC84285US
4744
12358 7590 07/29/2020
Mintz Levin/Nokia Technologies Oy
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
EXAMINER
DANIEL JR, WILLIE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2020 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):
IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com
IPFileroomBOS@mintz.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETTERI LUNDEN, ELENA VIRTEJ, and ESA MALKAMAKI
Appeal 2019-000564
Application 14/497,017
Technology Center 2400
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and STEVEN M.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1,2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. Appeal Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.

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 Nokia
Technologies Oy. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Action (Final Act.) mailed
July 10, 2017, the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed May 10, 2018, the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed September 6, 2018, and the Reply Brief
(Reply Br.) filed October 31, 2018.
Appeal 2019-000564
Application 14/497,017

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed “to wireless communications and, in
particular, mobility” (Spec. ¶ 1), including those concerned with user
equipment (UE) (e.g., mobile unit, smart phone, tablet) implementing “dual
connectivity to different wireless access points” (id. ¶ 3; see id. ¶¶ 4, 23).
The Specification explains UE can enter a power savings state
referred to as Discontinuous Reception (DRX), which includes “reduced
measurement requirements” (id. ¶¶ 2, 14). For example, when the UE is
configured with a DRX cycle, it may be available to perform measurement
functions (e.g., read a physical downlink control channel) for only part of the
DRX cycle (e.g., when active or in Active Time). See id. ¶¶ 2, 34. “The
longer the duration of the DRX cycle, the greater the power savings.
However, too long a DRX cycle may negatively affect mobility . . . .” Id.
¶ 2. “The measurement requirements may be defined by the need to allow a
user equipment to save power during DRX and, on the other hand, the need
to perform mobility measurements needed to ensure robust mobility.” Id.
¶ 14. As one example, the UE may operate with a shorter DRX cycle when
the UE is active in a smaller cell (e.g., 112B) and operate with a longer DRX
when the UE is not active in the smaller cell. Id. ¶¶ 35–36, Fig. 1.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
applying, at a user equipment configured to communicate
with a macro wireless access point, at least a first discontinuous
receive mode for communication with a macro cell served by
the macro wireless access point, in response to the user
equipment being active in a secondary cell served by a
secondary wireless access point, the first discontinuous receive
mode comprising a first discontinuous receive cycle pattern;
and
Appeal 2019-000564
Application 14/497,017

3
applying, at the user equipment, a second discontinuous
receive mode for communication with the macro cell, in
response to the user equipment not being active in the
secondary cell, the second discontinuous receive mode
comprising a second discontinuous receive cycle pattern,
wherein the first discontinuous receive cycle pattern is shorter
in duration than the second discontinuous receive cycle pattern.

Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Lindoff WO 2014/094885 A1 June 26, 2014

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER LINDOFF
The Examiner finds that Lindoff teaches all the limitations in claim 1.
Final Act. 3–4 (citing Lindoff 4:32–35, 5:1–6, 5:8–12, 11:15–26, 12:2–7,
12:18–21, 13:4–10, 13:12–20, 15:9–17, 15:19–26, 16:14–17, 17:9–15,
17:22–28, 18:17–20, 19:12–14, 19:20–22, 19:26–28, Figs. 3, 7–8).
Appellant argues Lindoff fails to teach both “applying, at the user
equipment, a second discontinuous receive mode for communication with
the macro cell, in response to the user equipment not being active in the
secondary cell” and “the first discontinuous receive cycle pattern is shorter
in duration than the second discontinuous receive cycle pattern” recited in
claim 1. Appeal Br. 9–12. Appellant contends Lindoff teaches the opposite
of what is claimed. Id. at 11 (reproducing annotated Figure 7 in Lindoff);
Reply Br. 2–3 (citing Lindoff 5:8–12).

Appeal 2019-000564
Application 14/497,017

4
ISSUE
Under § 102(a)(2), has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Lindoff discloses:
applying, at the user equipment, a second discontinuous receive
mode for communication with the macro cell, in response to the
user equipment not being active in the secondary cell, . . .
wherein the first discontinuous receive cycle pattern is shorter in
duration than the second discontinuous receive cycle pattern

as claim 1 recites?
ANALYSIS
On the record before us, we are persuaded the Examiner has erred.
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations and quotations
omitted). We therefore begin by interpreting the phrases “the user
equipment being active in a secondary cell” and “the user equipment not
being active in the secondary cell” in claim 1 in light of the disclosure.
The Specification states “[t]he active user equipment may be at least
one of making measurements, receiving data, and transmitting data.” Spec.
¶ 6. Similarly, the Specification provides examples of “actively
receiving/transmitting data, making measurements and the like” “[w]hen the
user equipment is active in the small cell.” Id. ¶ 17. The Specification also
describes “Active Time” as “actively receiving/transmitting data as well as
making measurements” (id. ¶ 15) and that “the user equipment 114 may be
considered active when the user equipment is in Active Time as defined for
example in in DRX section of 3GPP TS 36.321, Evolved Universal
Appeal 2019-000564
Application 14/497,017

5
Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Medium Access Control (MAC)
protocol specification, Release 11 (TS 36.321).” Id. ¶ 34. Consistent with
the disclosure, the recited phrase “the user equipment being active in a
secondary cell” in claim 1 means the UE is actively receiving/transmitting
data or making measurements in a secondary cell, and conversely, the
recited phrase “the user equipment not being active in the secondary cell” in
claim 1 means the UE is not actively receiving/transmitting data or making
measurements in the secondary cell.
Lindoff teaches network 10 having wireless communication device 20
(e.g., user equipment), macro node 14 (e.g., a macro wireless access point)
corresponding to macro cell 16 (e.g., a macro cell), and pico node 12 (e.g., a
secondary wireless access point) corresponding to pico cell 18 (e.g., a
secondary cell). Lindoff 1:25–2:6, 10:32–35, Figs. 1, 3. In Figure 3,
wireless communication device 20, located in the coverage area of pico node
12, may be simultaneously connected to pico node 12 and macro node 14
and may “alternately communicate[] with pico node 12 and macro node 14
in accordance with communication periods and pauses.” Id. at 12:3–6,
12:18–21; see id. at 4:2–5, 12:21–24. Lindoff thus teaches a UE (e.g., 20)
that is (1) active with a secondary cell served by a secondary wireless access
point (e.g., the UE communicates with pico cell 18 served by node 12), and
(2) not active with the secondary cell (e.g., the UE communicates with
macro cell 16 served by node 14) at other times.
Lindoff’s Figures 3 and 6 further show wireless communication
device 20 may be configured to maintain (1) an anchor carrier, associated
with a first/anchor carrier frequency f1, to macro node 14 and (2) a booster
carrier, associated with a second/barrier carrier frequency f2, to pico node
Appeal 2019-000564
Application 14/497,017

6
12. Id. at 3:14–19, 14:9–12, Figs. 3, 6. Lindoff describes “that the
communication pattern defining the communication pauses and the
communication periods is at least partially defined by a DTX[3] and/or
DRX[4] scheme that is separately defined for each of the anchor carrier
frequency f1 and the booster carrier f2.” Id. at 14:27–30, Figs. 6–7; see id.
at 5:1–5.
Lindoff’s Figure 7 is an exemplary DRX scheme, including a
dedicated DRX subpattern for each of anchor carrier frequency f1 and the
booster carrier frequency f2. Id. at 14:35–15:2, Fig. 7. When discussing
Figure 7 (id. at 15:9), Lindoff states a long DRX cycle is used for
communication between wireless device 20 and macro node 14, “which
[also] corresponds to long communication pauses.” Id. at 15:12–14.
Additionally, Lindoff’s Figure 7 shows (1) a long DRX cycle is used for
communication periods between wireless device 20 and macro node 14 (see
id., Fig. 7 (indicating “Long DRX” with arrows corresponding to f1); see
also Appeal Br. 11 (labelling this region as “MACRO CELL LONG
DRX”)), (2) a short DRX cycle for other communications between wireless
device 20 and macro node 14 (see id. (indicating “Short DRX” with arrows
corresponding to f1); see also Appeal Br. 11 (labelling this region as
“MACRO CELL SHORT DRX”)), and (3) communication pauses of the
long DRX cycles on the anchor carrier (see id. at 15:14–15).
As such, Lindoff’s Figure 7 describes and shows both a long and short
DRX mode/cycle being applied when the user equipment is not active within
a secondary cell (e.g., when communicating with the macro cell).

3 Discontinuous transmission (DTX). Id. at 5:2–3.
4 Discontinuous reception (DRX). Id. at 5:1.
Appeal 2019-000564
Application 14/497,017

7
Additionally, when addressing Figure 7, Lindoff explains wireless
communication device 20 listens to the anchor carrier during the long DRX
cycles (step 804) and communicates on the booster carrier during the long
inactive periods on the anchor carrier DRX (e.g., during a long DRX cycle)
(step 808). Id. at 17:8–15, Figs. 7–8; see id. at 15:14–17. Thus, during long
DRX cycles, Lindoff teaches the user equipment is active in a secondary cell
(e.g., pico cell 18), which as Appellant indicates is opposite to what claim 1
recites. See Appeal Br. 11 (noting “Lindoff uses a long DRX when there
is activity in the pico cell (which Lindoff equates to the secondary cell)”).
Alternatively, Lindoff teaches, if an event requires an extension of the
communication period on the anchor carrier (step 806), the user equipment
transmits a message to node 12 (e.g., start and stop time of the short DRX
cycle), enters the short DRX cycle where communication on the anchor
carrier to macro cell 16 occurs (step 812), terminates the extended
communication on the anchor carrier (step 814), and proceeds to
communicate with booster node 12, “return[ing] to long DRX cycles” (step
808). Id. at 17:9–11, 17:30–18:22, Figs. 3, 8. Thus, once again, Lindoff
discusses using long DRX cycles for communications with pico cell 18. We
thus disagree with the Examiner that Lindoff teaches the user equipment
communicates on the booster carrier through pico node 12 during pauses in
short DRX cycles on the anchor carrier. See Ans. 11 (labeled “Example
#1”).
Based on the above explanation, Lindoff does not disclose a
“discontinuous receive cycle pattern,” when “the user equipment [is] being
active in a secondary cell[,]” that “is shorter in duration” than another
“discontinuous cycle pattern” as claim 1 requires.
Appeal 2019-000564
Application 14/497,017

8
The Examiner assert various passages in Lindoff disclose applying
long and short DRX cycles on a macro node and pico node. Final Act. 3–4
(citing Lindoff 16:14–17, 18:17–20, 19:12–14, 19:20–22, 19:26–28, Fig. 8);
Ans. 12 (citing the same). Lindoff’s page 16 discusses “the usage long and
short DRX cycles” without regard to a node (Lindoff 16:16) and aligning
“the cycles for the anchor carrier and the booster carrier” (id. at 16:18–19),
but does not address explicitly using a shorter DRX cycle for pico cell
18/node 12 than for a macro cell 16/node 14. Page 18, as previously
discussed, addresses using a long DRX cycle when the UE is active with
pico cell 12. See id. at 18:17–22. Furthermore, the cited passages on page
19 disclose wireless communication device 20 indicates to boosting pico
node 12 that device 20 is using a short DRX cycle on the anchor carrier
(e.g., on the macro cell) (see id. at 19:12–14) or is using the long DRX cycle
again (see id. at 19:20–22, 19:26–28).
The Examiner also states Lindoff discloses there may not be any data
for the pico cell to receive, and thus the wireless device is inactive with the
pico cell. Ans. 12 (citing Lindoff, pp. 20–21, Figs. 2–3, 6 under “Example
#2”). Lindoff discusses halting pico node (e.g., 12) communications on a
boosting carrier (Lindoff 20:29–21:2) but does not address specifically what
DRX mode/cycle pattern is being used during this communication (see id.).
We have also reviewed other citations provided by the Examiner (see Final
Act. 3–4 (citing Lindoff 4:32–5:6, 5:8–12, 12:2–7, 12:18–21, Figs. 7–8)),
but these passages do not teach the disputed “shorter duration” recitation in
claim 1.
Lastly, whether or not the passages cited by the Examiner and
Lindoff’s Figure 7 suggest under 35 U.S.C. § 103—not 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
Appeal 2019-000564
Application 14/497,017

9
presented—scenarios for applying a shorter DRX cycle pattern when the UE
is active in a pico cell (e.g., on a booster carrier) than when the UE is active
in a macro cell (e.g., on the anchor carrier) is not before us. Based on the
record, we are constrained to determine that Lindoff does not necessarily
disclose the recited “first discontinuous receive cycle pattern is shorter in
duration than the second discontinuous receive cycle pattern” in claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the
rejection of (1) independent claim 1, (2) independent claims 9 and 17, which
recite commensurate limitations, and (3) the dependent claims for similar
reasons.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 102 Lindoff 1–20

REVERSED