Wallentin, Pontus et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2020

14130820 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 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.
14/130,820 01/03/2014 Pontus Wallentin 1009-0786 / P34168 US1 8443
102721 7590 09/02/2020
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
PATEL, HARDIKKUMAR D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2020 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PONTUS WALLENTIN, ERIK ERIKSSON,
and PÅL FRENGER

Appeal 2019-001070
Application 14/130,820
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, BETH Z. SHAW, and
JENNIFER L. McKeown, Administrative Patent Judges.

McKEOWN, 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 33–54. 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
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ). Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001070
Application 14/130,820

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “handover, and in particular to handover
related signaling.” Spec. p.1, ll. 5–6.
Claim 33, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
33. A method performed by a first node in a communication
system, the method comprising:
receiving first measurement information from a User
Equipment (UE) being served via a first transceiver in the
communication system, the first measurement information
indicating measurements made by the UE on a first broadcast
signal transmitted by the first transceiver and on a second
broadcast signal transmitted by a neighboring, second
transceiver in the communication system;
initiating transmission of a directional signal between the
UE and the second transceiver, responsive at least to
determining from the first measurement information that the
second transceiver is a candidate for serving the UE;
receiving second measurement information from the UE
or the second transceiver, the second measurement information
indicating measurements made on the directional signal; and
controlling handover of the UE from the first transceiver
to the second transceiver in dependence on the second
measurement information.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Tigerstedt US 6,615,044 B2 Sept. 2, 2003
Chang US 2007/0032237 A1 Feb. 8, 2007
Johnson US 2009/0111381 A1 Apr. 30, 2009

Appeal 2019-001070
Application 14/130,820

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 33–35, 40, 42, 44–46, 51, and 53 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Chang and Tigerstedt. Final Act. 3–6.
The Examiner rejected claims 36–39, 41, 43, 47–50, 52, and 54 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Chang, Tigerstedt, and Johnson. Final
Act. 6–11.
ANALYSIS
THE 35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTION BASED ON CHANG AND TIGERSTEDT
Claims 33–35, 40, 42, 44–46, 51, and 53
The Examiner finds that Tigerstedt teaches or suggests “initiating
transmission of a directional signal between the [user equipement UE] and
the second transceiver. . . responsive at least to determining from the first
measurement information that the second transceiver is a candidate for
serving the UE . . .; receiving second measurement information from the UE
or the second transceiver, the second measurement information indicating
measurements made on the directional signal. . . ,” as recited in independent
claim 33 and recited similarly in independent claim 44. Final Act. 4. In
particular, the Examiner construes the claimed “directional signal” as “any
specific signal that is sent by the base station to the intended/directed UE.”
Ans. 12. As such, since Tigerstedt’s base station “sends [a] signal [to the]
mobile terminal to perform signal strength/quality measurement. . . ,”
Tigerstedt initiates transmission of a directional signal between the UE and
the base station. Ans. 12. According to the Examiner, Appellant’s
definition “of directional signal as beamformed transmission is not defined
in the claims.” Ans. 13.
Appeal 2019-001070
Application 14/130,820

4
Appellant, on the other hand, contends the Examiner’s construction is
unreasonably broad, as any signal sent by one node for reception by another
node is a directional signal. See, e.g., Reply Br. 3 (arguing that under the
Examiner’s construction, “any transmitted signal that has an intended
recipient is a directional signal” and, therefore, “a signal transmitted with
uniform radiating energy—i.e., an omnidirectional signal—is nonetheless a
directional signal according to the Examiner's claim construction.”).
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s interpretation of directional signal is
inconsistent with the claims and the Specification. For example, Appellant
points out that claims 33 and 44, as well as Figures 1 and 2, distinguish
between broadcast signals and “beamformed signals having narrower,
defined directions of transmission.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant also argues
that the Specification describes beamformed signals as an example of
directional signal transmissions. Appeal Br. 10.
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded of error. Namely, we
agree that the Examiner’s construction is unreasonably broad. As Appellant
points out, the claims and Specification distinguish between broadcast and
directional signals and the Examiner’s definition is so broad that it includes
broadcast signals. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 3–4. Additionally, the
Examiner’s claim construction analysis fails to consider the Specification.
For example, the Specification discloses “some of these downlink pilot
signals can be beam-formed [that is] concentrated in a given direction, e.g.,
to a particular user equipment.” Appeal Br. 10 (citing Spec., p. 14, ll. 30–
33); see also Ans. 13 (discussing generally claim construction case law, but
failing to cite or consider any portion of the Specification or Appellant’s
arguments). As such, we agree that the Examiner’s construction of the
Appeal 2019-001070
Application 14/130,820

5
claimed directional signal as “any specific signal that is sent by the base
station to the intended/directed UE” is unreasonably broad. Consequently,
we are constrained by the record to find that the Examiner erred in
concluding that Tigerstedt teaches the claimed directional signal.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we reverse the rejection
of claims 33–35, 40, 42, 44–46, 51, and 53.

THE 35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTION BASED ON CHANG, TIGERSTEDT,
AND JOHNSON
Claims 36-39, 41, 43, 47–50, 52, and 54
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in concluding that claims 36–39, 41, 43, 47–50, 52, and 54 are
unpatentable over Chang, Tigerstedt, and Johnson. As discussed above, we
determine that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 33 and 44 as
unpatentable over Chang and Tigerstedt. Johnson fails to cure the
deficiencies of this combination. Accordingly, we also are persuaded that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 36–39, 41, 43, 47–50, 52, and 54,
which depend from 33 or 44, as unpatentable over Chang, Tigerstedt, and
Johnson, and reverse the rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 33–54 are reversed.
Appeal 2019-001070
Application 14/130,820

6

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
33–35, 40,
42, 44–46,
51, 53
103 Chang, Tigerstedt 33–35, 40,
42, 44–46,
51, 53
36–39, 41,
43, 47–50,
52, 54
103 Chang, Tigerstedt,
Johnson
36–39, 41,
43, 47–50,
52, 54
Overall
Outcome
33–54

REVERSED