Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (publ)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 21, 2020

2019002896 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 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.
14/885,261 10/16/2015 Iana Siomina 4015-9332 / P31649-US4 8428
24112 7590 12/21/2020
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
TALUKDER, MD K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IANA SIOMINA and
MUHAMMAD ALI KAZMI
Appeal 2019-002896
Application 14/885,261
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOYCE CRAIG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, 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 14–17. See Final Act. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002896
Application 14/885,261

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to interference management in a wireless
communications network by controlling the muting of reference signals
transmitted by base stations. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 14, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
14. A method in a radio apparatus of controlling measurement of
positioning reference signals that are transmitted by a wireless
communication network at recurring positioning occasions, said
method comprising:

receiving signaling from the wireless communication
network that conveys a muting occasion parameter indicating
positioning occasions to which muting applies, wherein each of
the positioning occasions comprises two or more consecutive
subframes and the positioning occasions recur at a pre-set
periodicity; and

controlling positioning reference signal measurement by
the radio apparatus, in accordance with the received muting
occasion parameter.

Appeal Br. 12 (Appendix of Claims).
REJECTION
Claims 14–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Frank et al. (US 2011/0039583 A1, published Feb.
17, 2011) (“Frank”) and Herring (US 6,011,806, issued Jan. 4, 2000). Final
Act. 3.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the § 103(a) rejection of claims 14–17 in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this
Appeal 2019-002896
Application 14/885,261

3
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 waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
With respect to independent claim 14, Appellant contends, among
other things, that the cited portions of Frank do not teach or suggest a
“muting occasion parameter . . . indicat[ing] positioning occasions to which
muting applies.” Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). Specifically, Appellant
argues that “Frank’s muting pattern or MPSI parameter informs the UE
which sub-frame or sub-frames to mute.” Id. at 7. As such, “Frank does not
disclose the recited muting occasion parameter that indicates which
positioning occasions to which muting applies.” Id. Appellant further
argues that “Herring fails to solve this deficiency” and “the Examiner does
not rely on Herring for the muting occasion parameter limitations.” Id.
On the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner
has not shown that the combination of Frank and Herring teaches or suggests
the disputed limitation. When read in light of the Specification, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of a “positioning occasion” is a periodic occasion,
comprised of multiple subframes, in which positioning reference signals are
sent by a wireless communication network. See Spec. ¶ 11 (“If PRSs are
used, they are transmitted in pre-defined positioning subframes grouped by
several consecutive subframes, with NPRS subframes in each positioning
occasion. The positioning occasions are recurring, e.g., repeated according
to a defined periodic interval having a certain periodicity of N subframes.”).
Accordingly, the claimed “muting occasion parameter” indicates those
occasions in a repeating pattern of occasions in which positioning reference
signals are muted. Based on the Examiner’s cited portions of Frank,
Appeal 2019-002896
Application 14/885,261

4
however, it appears that Frank teaches indicating the subframes in each
positioning occasion—not particular positioning occasions—in which
positioning reference signals from base stations are muted. For example,
Frank describes “[t]he base station may transmit the positioning reference
transmission with zero power in certain positioning subframes, or mute
certain positioning subframes.” Frank ¶ 44. “The positioning subframe to be
transmitted or muted may be indicated by a subframe index of the muting
pattern, or the muting pattern subframe index (MPSI).” Id. ¶ 48. As evident
here, Frank does not indicate the positioning occasions in which muting
occurs, but rather the subframes.
Although the Examiner attempts to bolster the rejection by pointing to
what the Examiner finds to be “Applicant admitted prior art” (Ans. 5, citing
Spec. ¶ 11), the cited portion of the Specification does not close the gap in
the prior art combination of Frank and Herring. For example, the
Specification describes that “positioning occasions are recurring, e.g.,
repeated according to a defined periodic interval having a certain periodicity
of N subframes.” Spec. ¶ 11. Even if considered prior art, we see no
disclosure here of a muting occasion parameter, but simply a description of
positioning occasions. Although not cited by the Examiner, the Specification
also describes that “it is known to mute PRSs, where ‘muting’ means
transmitting with zero power (or low power) at certain positioning
occasions.” Id. ¶ 14. Notably, however, the Specification provides that “to
date, the 3GPP standards do not specify how muting is to be implemented,
nor do they specify signaling for communicating muting information.” Id.
We thus disagree with the Examiner’s finding, based on the
Specification, that “receiving signaling from the wireless communication
Appeal 2019-002896
Application 14/885,261

5
network that conveys a muting occasion parameter indicating positioning
occasions to which muting applies . . . is well known in wireless
communication system[s].” Ans. 5. Moreover, the Examiner has not
specifically explained why it would have been obvious to use a parameter to
indicate muting of positioning reference signals at certain positioning
occasions, based on Frank and Herring, in view of any prior art admitted in
the Specification.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 14, as well as the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 16, which recites similar limitations. We also reverse the
Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of dependent claims 15 and 17 for the same
reasons as the independent claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14–17.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
14–17 103(a) Frank, Herring 14–17

REVERSED