Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 17, 2020

2019002790 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 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.
14/846,598 09/04/2015 Boon Loong Ng 2014.09.004.SR0 8770
106809 7590 07/17/2020
Docket Clerk - SAMS
P.O. Drawer 800889
Dallas, TX 75380
EXAMINER
DETSE, KOKOU R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/17/2020 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):
munckwilson@gmail.com
patent.srad@samsung.com
patents@munckwilson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BOON LOONG NG, ARIS PAPASAKELLARIOU and
THOMAS DAVID NOVLAN
____________________

Appeal 2019-002790
Application 14/846,598
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ERIC B. CHEN, and JEREMY CURCURI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–9, 11–17, 19, and 20, which
constitute all of the claims pending in this appeal.2 Appeal Br. 3. Claims 2,

1 We refer to the Specifications, filed Sept. 4, 2015 (“Spec.”); the Final
Office Action, mailed Jan. 4, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed
Aug. 27, 2018 (“Appeal Br”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Dec. 26, 2018
(“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Feb. 22, 2019.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002790
Application 14/846,598

2
10, and 18 has been cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a
method and system for configuring a user equipment (UE) in an eNodeB
(eNB) associated with a long-term evolution (LTE) cell to transmit/receive a
discovery reference signal (DRS) in an unlicensed wireless communication
spectrum. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 4–7, Fig. 1.
Figure 3A, discussed and reproduced below, is useful for
understanding the claimed subject matter:

Figure 3A illustrates UE in eNB (102) associated with LTE cell in an
unlicensed wireless communication system to transmit/receive DRS. Spec.
¶ 16.

Appeal 2019-002790
Application 14/846,598

3
As depicted in Figure 3A above, upon determining the DRS
measurement timing configuration (DMTC), controller (324) in UE (102)
identifies a detection/measurement gap duration and a periodicity of the
DRS during which transceiver (304) in UE (102) listens for the DRS on a
carrier in an unlicensed spectrum. Id. ¶¶ 89, 119–123. Transceiver (304)
subsequently applies a listen-before-talk (LBT) protocol on the DRS before
transmitting the DRS for reception at another UE (102). Id. This
configuration of the UE is intended to exploit an unlicensed spectrum based
on a signal quality evaluation determined from DRS to facilitate fast
transition of a small LTE cell from OFF state to ON state. Id.
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with
disputed limitations emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
A method for receiving a discovery reference signal (DRS), the
method comprising:
identifying, based on a DRS measurement timing configuration
(DMTC), a DRS detection/measurement gap duration and a
periodicity; and
listening for the DRS on a carrier in an unlicensed spectrum
during the identified gap duration at the identified periodicity,
wherein the DRS is transmitted in at least one of a number of time
positions within the identified gap duration subject to application of a
listen-before-talk (LBT) protocol.

Appeal Br. Appendix A1.

Appeal 2019-002790
Application 14/846,598

4
III. REFERENCES RELIED UPON
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Number Publ’d/Issued
Gaal US 2015/0110066 A1 Apr. 23, 2015
Han US 2016/0100404 A1 Apr. 7, 2016
You US 2016/0234762 A1 Aug. 11, 2016
You (“You2”) US2016/0057784 A1
Yi US 2017/0070312 A1 Mar. 9, 2017
Dresden (R1-
143170)
3GPP TSG RAN WG
1Meeting #77, 78
May 10, 2016

IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3 and 5–20 as follows:
1. Claims 1, 3–6, 9, 11–14, and 17–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of You, Dresden
(R1-143170), Gaal, and You2. Final Act. 5–10.
2. Claims 7, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of You, R1-143170, Gaal, You2,
and Cheng. Final Act. 10–11.
3. Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of You, R1-143170, Gaal, You2,
and Yi. Final Act. 11.

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-002790
Application 14/846,598

5
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 8–19 and the Reply Brief, pages 2–9.4 We are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated
herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief. Final Act. 2–11; Ans. 3–12. However, we highlight and address
specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Claim 1
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues that the
combination of You, R1-143170, Gaal, and You2 does not teach or suggest
(1) listening for an [LTE] DRS transmitted in an unlicensed spectrum (i.e.,
not on LTE frequencies) during an identified DMTC gap duration
/periodicity, and (2) applying a LBT protocol on the DRS before
transmission. Appeal Br. 11, Reply Br. 2, 3. In particular, Appellant argues
that although Gaal discloses transmitting data in an LTE network within a
licensed/unlicensed spectrum, it does not teach discovering an LTE DRS
during an identified time gap, and applying LBT protocol thereon before
transmission of the DRS. Id. at 11, 12, 15, 16 (citing Gaal ¶ 76). Further,
Appellant argues that You2’s disclosure of using sense before submit (SBS)
or listen before talk (LBT) protocol to avoid signal collision in WiFi does
not teach a non-contention based communication (e.g., 3GPP LTE/LTE-A)

4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
Appeal 2019-002790
Application 14/846,598

6
or a control access grant (e.g., LTE). Id. at 12 (citing You2 ¶ 31).
Additionally, Appellant argues that although R1-143170 describes a DMTC
and measurement gap, it does not teach discovering (during that gap) the
DRS in an unlicensed spectrum or applying LBT before transmitting the
DRS. Id. at 15. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible
Examiner error because they are tantamount to separate attacks against the
references individually, and not as the combination proposed by the
Examiner. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
As a preliminary matter, we agree with Appellant that although the
disputed claim limitations do not specify LTE DRS, references in the claims
to DMTC, DRS measurement/detection gap pertain to LTE signals. Reply
Br. 3. In this case, the Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, that
You discloses a cell search procedure to listen for DRS on a carrier based on
DMTC information transmitted to a terminal through RRC signaling. Final
Act. 5, 6 (citing You ¶¶ 236, 256, 468). Further, the Examiner finds, and
Appellant does not dispute, that R1-143170 teaches configuring a UE by
measuring a DMTC time gap for transmitting DRS. Final Act. 6, Ans. 11
(citing R1-143170, 2: section 3.1, Observation2), Appeal Br. 15.
Furthermore, the Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, that Gaal
teaches transmitting a signal in on an LTE network within an unlicensed
spectrum. Id. at 11 (citing Gaal ¶ 76). Additionally, the Examiner finds,
and Appellant does not dispute, that You2 teaches using a LBT protocol to
avoid collision in a WiFi network. (citing You2 ¶ 31). We find the
Appeal 2019-002790
Application 14/846,598

7
Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited teachings of You, R1-143170,
Gaal, and You2 is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements with
each performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding
no more than what one would expect from such an arrangement. See KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Therefore, the ordinarily
skilled artisan, being “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,”
would have been able to fit the teachings of the cited references together like
pieces of a puzzle to predictably result in a UE that listens for an [LTE] DRS
transmitted by cells in an unlicensed spectrum during a DMTC
detection/measurement gap to apply on the DRS a LBT protocol before
transmission thereof to another UE. Id. at 420–21. Because Appellant has
not demonstrated that the Examiner’s proffered combination would have
been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,”
we agree with the Examiner that the proposed modification would have been
within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. See Leapfrog Enters.,
Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR,
550 U.S. at 418). Consequently, we are satisfied that, on the record before
us, the Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the
combination of You, R1-143170, Gaal, and You2 teaches the disputed claim
limitations. Because we are not persuaded of Examiner error, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over the combination
of You, R1-143170, Gaal, and You2.
Regarding the rejection of claims 3–9, 11–17, 19, and 20, Appellant
has not presented separate patentability arguments or has reiterated
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for the
Appeal 2019-002790
Application 14/846,598

8
patentability of claim 1. As such, claims 3–9, 11–17, 19, 20 fall therewith.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
VI. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1, 3–9, 11–17, 19, 20.
VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References s Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–6, 9, 11–
14,17–19 103
You, R1-143170,
Gaal, You2
1, 3–6, 9, 11–
14, 17–19
7, 15, 20 103 You, R1-143170, Gaal, You2, Cheng 7, 15, 20
8, 16 103 You, R1-143170, Gaal, You2, Yi 8, 16
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–9, 11–17,
19, 20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED