14168737 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2020)

Rickard Ljung

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 13, 2020

14168737 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 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. 14/168,737 01/30/2014 Rickard Ljung PS13 1999US1 8044 23380 7590 01/13/2020 TUCKER ELLIS LLP 950 MAIN AVENUE SUITE 1100 CLEVELAND, OH 44113-7213 EXAMINER PANNELL, MARK G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2642 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/13/2020 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): patents@tuckerellis.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte RICKARD LJUNG ____________________ Appeal 2019-000582 Application 14/168,737 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DENISE M. POTHIER, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 through 17. Claims 2 and 5 have been canceled. 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). According to Appellant, Sony Corporation is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-000582 Application 14/168,737 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to a method to allow network base stations to receive information from mobile communication terminals about terminal-detected usage of unlicensed band utilization, e.g., due to uncoordinated Wi-Fi usage in combination with Long Term Evolution (LTE) deployments in unlicensed bands. Spec.; Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below. 1. A method for responding to an unlicensed cell neighbor reporting request, the method comprising: receiving, by a mobile terminal, a request for unlicensed cell neighbor reporting from a cellular network base station, wherein the request is part of a procedure that requests detection of neighboring cells associated with the base station; forwarding the request to a modem control unit, wherein the modem control unit is comprised in the mobile terminal; requesting an unlicensed band measurement by a short- range wireless modem unit that uses the unlicensed band, wherein the short-range wireless modem unit is comprised in the mobile terminal; scanning, by the short-range wireless modem unit, the unlicensed band to detect one or more signals; and transmitting, to the cellular network base station, one or more reports on the detected signals, wherein at least one of the reports is part of the procedure that requests detection of licensed neighboring cells associated with the base station and, wherein the one or more reports include (i) a summary of the detected signals on the unlicensed band, and (ii) an indication of which frequency bands associated with the detected signals the mobile terminal is actively transmitting data using a non- cellular network protocol, wherein the cellular network base station uses information in the report in determining mobile terminal-specific frequency scheduling for cellular network communication by the mobile terminal. Appeal 2019-000582 Application 14/168,737 3 EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2 The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3, and 6 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaswamy (US 2010/0246506 A1, Sept. 30, 2010), Sadek (US 2015/0063323 A1, Mar. 5, 2015) and Wang (US 2008/0214182 A1, Sept. 4, 2008). Non-Final Act. 3– 26. The Examiner has rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaswamy, Sadek, Wang and Song (US 2011/0249642 A1, Oct. 13, 2011). Non-Final Act. 26–27. The Examiner has rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaswamy, Sadek, Wang and Shi (US 2013/0137435 A1, May 30, 2013). Non-Final Act. 27–28. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of all of the disputed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant argues the combination of Krishnaswamy, Sadek, and Wang does not teach the claim 1 limitation directed to “transmitting, to the cellular network base station, one or more reports … wherein the one or more reports include… (ii) an indication of which frequency bands 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed June 13, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed October 16, 2018 (“Reply Br.”); Non-Final Office Action mailed October 25, 2017 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 16, 2018 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2019-000582 Application 14/168,737 4 associated with the detected signals the mobile terminal is actively transmitting data using a non-cellular network protocol.” Appeal Brief. 11– 17. Specifically, Appellant argues that Wang, the reference the Examiner relies upon to teach this limitation, does not teach the limitation, but rather teaches that the mobile station transmits a report on the quality of signals received by the mobile station, which is not a report of frequency bands the mobile station is actively transmitting on. Appeal Br 14–15. Reply. Br. 3–4. The Examiner finds Wang teaches generating a report including an indication of which frequency bands the mobile device is actively transmitting on. Non-Final Act 8–9 (citing Wang Fig. 5, ¶¶ 26, 29, 50, 51, 53, 56, and 60). Further, in response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner finds that Wang teaches the base station assigns a channel (time slot and subcarrier). Answer 2 (citing Wang ¶ 64). The Examiner finds that Wang teaches that the report of channel strength is transmitted on the assigned channel. Answer 2 (citing Wang ¶ 51). Thus, the Examiner concludes: Appellant’s claims includes the word “indicating”, which may be interpreted as any sort of reference to something. Since Wang’s channel measurement report refers to the channel assigned to the mobile station (MS1), the channel measurement report indicates the channel assigned to the mobile station (MS1). Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret Appellant’s indication of which frequency bands associated with the detected signals the mobile terminal is actively transmitting data to include Wang’s MS1 sending a channel measurement report indicating the channel quality of only the serving relay station. Answer 3. We disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Wang teaches the mobile unit transmitting a report indicating the frequency bands associated Appeal 2019-000582 Application 14/168,737 5 with detected signals the mobile terminal is actively transmitting data on using a non-cellular network protocol, as is recited in independent claim 1 (and similarly recited in independent claims 13 and 14). As argued by Appellant, the report in Wang transmitted by the mobile station is a channel measurement report, which indicates channel quality for signals received by the mobile station. Wang ¶ 51. Thus, the report is not indicative of the signals transmitted by the mobile station, let alone the frequency band associated with the signals as recited. Further, we disagree with the Examiner’s statement that a channel is allocated to the mobile unit and as such the report is also indicative of the signals transmitted by the mobile unit. The Examiner has not demonstrated how the report of measurement of channel quality includes or refers to a measurement of the assigned channel and thus indicates the channel frequency band. The channel assignment discussed in Wang’s paragraph 64, cited by the Examiner, are assignments of downlink channels (channels which are used by the base station to communicate with the mobile unit). Wang discusses the uplink channels are also assigned, see paragraphs 25, 30, 31, 70; however, the Examiner has not shown, nor do we find that that Wang teaches the uplink (UL) and down link (DL) channels are the same. Thus, we do not find that the Examiner has shown that independent claims 1, 13, and 14 are obvious over the combination of Krishnaswamy, Sadek, and Wang. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6 through 16. The Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 4 and 17 similarly rely upon the combination of Krishnaswamy, Sadek, and Wang to teach the limitations of independent claims 1, 13, and 14. The Examiner has not Appeal 2019-000582 Application 14/168,737 6 shown that the additional teachings of either Song and Shi, remedy the deficiency discussed above in the rejection of claims 1, 13, and 14. Accordingly, we similarly do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 17. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 6–16 103 Krishnaswamy, Sadek, Wang 1, 3, 6–16 4 103 Krishnaswamy, Sadek, Wang, Song 4 17 103 Krishnaswamy, Sadek, Wang, Shi 17 Overall Outcome 1, 3, 4, 6–17 REVERSED