Angelo Centonza et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 31, 2020

2019000101 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
14/890,340 11/10/2015 Angelo Centonza 1009-1618 / P44169 US2 1812
102721 7590 08/31/2020
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
CAIRNS, THOMAS R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2020 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 ANGELO CENTONZA and HAVISH KOORAPATY1
Appeal 2019-000101
Application 14/890,340
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR. and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 66–80, 82–100 and 102–105 (see Final
Action 1). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

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
LM Ericsson (publ), a Swedish company. Appeal Brief 2.

2 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s
determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 30, 2018), the
Reply Brief (filed September 27, 2018), the Final Action (mailed August 31,
Appeal 2019-000101
Application 14/890,340

2
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Introduction
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter is directed to
“wireless communication systems, and more specifically relates to
techniques for reducing interference to reference signals used for
synchronization procedures.” Specification 1.

Representative Claims3
66. A method, in a base station operating in a wireless
communications network, for facilitating over-the-air
synchronization with a neighboring base station, the method
comprising:
determining that a signal being transmitted by a first
neighbor cell of a plurality of neighbor cells is interfering with
or is likely to interfere with a signal, from a second neighbor cell,
that is used by the base station for synchronization; and

2017) and the Answers (mailed July 27, 2018; August 3, 2018), for the
respective details.

3 Appellant argues independent claims 66 and 88 as one group, along with
dependent claims 69, 75, 78, 95 and 98, focusing on subject matter in claim
66. See Appeal Brief 10–14. Appellant argues independent claims 79 and
99 as another group, along with dependent claims 84 and 85, focusing on
subject matter in claim 79. See Appeal Brief 14–18. Appellant argues
independent claims 86 and 104 as another group, along with dependent
claim 105, focusing on subject matter in claim 86. See Appeal Brief 18–20.
The remaining dependent claims are argued in the following groups: 67, 68,
80, 89 and 100; 70, 71, 90 and 91; and 72, 74, 76, 77, 82, 83, 92, 94, 96, 97,
102 and 103. See Appeal Brief 20–23. We select independent claims 66
and 79 as representative claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-000101
Application 14/890,340

3
sending towards the first neighbor cell, in response to said
determining, a request for activation of a reference signal muting
pattern by the first neighbor cell.
79. A method, in a base station operating in a wireless
communications network, for facilitating over-the-air
synchronization by a neighboring base station, the method
comprising:
receiving a request for synchronization information;
responding with synchronization information that includes
at least an indication that one or more reference signal muting
patterns is/are available, the one or more reference signal muting
patterns each corresponding to a pattern of subframes in which
all reference symbol signals are muted;
receiving a request for activation of a reference signal
muting pattern for a cell supported by the base station; and
activating the reference signal muting pattern in response to the
request.

References
Name4 Reference Date
Horn US 8,374,163 B2 February 12, 2013
Kwun US 2011/0300807 A1 December 8, 2011
Yi (“Yi ’310”) US 2016/0007310 A1 January 7, 2019
Yi (“Yi ’304”) US 2016/0192304 A1 June 30, 2016
Wu US 2016/0211955 A1 July 21, 2016

4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.

Appeal 2019-000101
Application 14/890,340

4
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 66, 69, 75, 78, 79, 84–88, 95, 98, 99, 104 and 105 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Horn and Yi ’304.
Final Action 4–11.
Claims 67, 68, 80, 89 and 100 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Horn, Yi ’304 and Kwun. Final Action 4–14.
Claims 70, 71, 90 and 91 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Horn, Yi ’304 and Yi ’310. Final Action 14–16.
Claims 72–74, 76, 77, 82, 83, 92–94, 96, 97, 102 and 103 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Horn, Yi ’304 and Wu.
Final Action 16–21.

We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
(see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)).

ANALYSIS
Claims 66, 69, 75, 78, 88 and 95
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Horn and Yi ’304 teaches, suggests or otherwise renders obvious
“determining that a signal being transmitted by a first neighbor cell of a
plurality of neighbor cells is interfering with or is likely to interfere with a
signal from a second neighbor cell, that is used by the base station for
synchronization” as recited in claims 66 and as commensurately recited in
claim 88. See Appeal Brief 11. Appellant argues Horn does not disclose the
Appeal 2019-000101
Application 14/890,340

5
signal from the second neighbor cell is used by the base station for
synchronization. See Appeal Brief 11.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Horn discloses “a node of
the first cluster may include an interference controller 510 that is configured
to determine whether a node of a neighboring asynchronous cluster is
interfering with or may interfere with communication at the first cluster.”
Horn column 7, lines 9–13. Horn describes a node may be a base station
(Horn column 4, lines 24–26; see Answer 5; see also Reply Brief 4) and a
cluster includes two or more nodes (Horn column 4, lines 43–45). Horn
further discloses communication between the various clusters may include
both data signals and synchronization signals (Horn column 5, lines 16–21,
column 6, lines 62–65). Consequently, Horn teaches or at least suggests that
a node of a neighboring asynchronous cluster (a signal transmitted by a first
neighbor cell) is interfering with or may interfere with communication
(including both data signals and synchronization signals) at the first cluster
(a second neighbor cell). Horn also discloses a synchronization signal may
be interfered with by the second neighbor cell, as claimed. Appellant’s
argument that “the nodes within a given cluster are already synchronized
with one another” (Appeal Brief 11) is not persuasive of Examiner error as
Horn teaches “a neighboring asynchronous cluster is interfering or may
interfere.” Horn column 7, lines 9–13.
Appellant further argues Horn fails to disclose “that the node
determines whether the neighboring node is interfering with or may interfere
with a signal used by a base station for synchronization.” Appeal Brief 12.
Horn, however, teaches:
Appeal 2019-000101
Application 14/890,340

6
each wireless node (e.g., node 500) in a system may broadcast
various signals in conjunction with establishing or maintaining
communication between nodes. For example, a node may
broadcast synchronization channel signals and pilot signals (e.g.,
channel reference signals) that may be used by other nodes for
synchronization and related purposes.
Horn column 6, lines 39–44. Thus, a node in Horn’s first cluster can be a
base station and can determine if another node is interfering with a signal
from a different node. Horn describes interfering with communication at the
first cluster. See Horn column 7, lines 9–13. Horn further describes signals
may include synchronization channel signals used by other nodes for
synchronization (See Horn column 6, lines 39–44).
Appellant argues Horn’s system “only monitor[s] these
synchronization signals to detect whether the nodes transmitting those
synchronization signals (e.g., from an asynchronous cluster) might interfere
with regular data transmissions among the cluster of the monitoring node”
Appeal Br. 12 (citing Horn, column 5, lines 42–46; column 6 line 62–
column 7 line 9; column 7, lines 13–16).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. As quoted above, Horn
discloses broadcasting “synchronization channel signals . . . that may be
used by other nodes for synchronization” as one example of signals
broadcast “in conjunction with establishing or maintaining communication
between nodes.” Horn column 6, lines 38–44 (emphasis added). Horn
further describes “[b]y monitoring these or other signals, a node may
determine whether it is receiving or may receive interfering transmissions
from an asynchronous neighboring node.” Horn column 7, lines 1–4. Thus,
Horn teaches or at least suggests the signals that are being monitoring
include synchronization signals. Horn column 6, lines 57–67. Although
Appeal 2019-000101
Application 14/890,340

7
Horn describes synchronization signals from the asynchronous node or
synchronizing two clusters of nodes, that does not preclude Horn from
teaching or suggesting interference of signals including synchronization
signals in a second node, as recited.
Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant that Horn only teaches or
suggests interference from “data communications,” not synchronization
signals. Reply Brief 6–7.
Appellant further argues because Horn allegedly discloses the nodes
are “already synchronized,” Horn fails to disclose “any interference with the
signals used by first node for synchronization.” Appeal Brief 12. The claim
does not preclude nodes already being synchronized. Further, as discussed
above, Horn discloses “maintaining” communication between nodes and
provides an example of “synchronization channel signals . . . that may be
used by other nodes for synchronization.” Horn column 6, lines 38–44.
Additionally, Appellant’s argument that Horn, despite disclosing that
nodes may transmit a variety of signal useful for, for example,
synchronization signals, “[t]here is no suggestion, however, that
‘maintaining communication’ requires the continued broadcasting of
synchronization signals.” Reply Brief 5. However, as discussed above,
Horn teaches or suggests both that synchronization signals are sent and a
synchronization signal may be interfered with by a different node. See
Horn, column 5, lines 16–21; column 6, lines 39–44, 62–65.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Horn and Yi ’304 teaches, suggests or otherwise renders
obvious the limitations as recited in claim 66 and commensurately recited
independent claim 88, not separately argued. Claims 69, 75 and 78 depend
Appeal 2019-000101
Application 14/890,340

8
from claim 66 and claim 95 depends from claim 88; therefore, these claims
fall with their respective independent claims. Thus, we sustain the rejection
of claims 66, 69, 75, 78, 88 and 95 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness
over Horn and Yi ’304.
Claims 79, 84, 85 and 99
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Horn and Yi ’304 teaches, suggests or otherwise renders obvious “receiving
a request for synchronization information; responding with synchronization
information that includes at least an indication that one or more reference
signal muting patterns is/are available” as recited in claim 79 and as
commensurately recited in claim 99. Appeal Brief 15. In particular,
Appellant argues the Examiner did not make any explicit findings that Yi
’304 teaches “receiving a request for synchronization information” and
rather, the Examiner states “for such information to have been provided, it
must have been requested.” Appeal Brief 15 (citing Final Action 8).
Further, according to Appellant, “the synchronization signals and pilot
signals discussed in Horn are transmitted as a matter of course, without any
request.” Appeal Brief 16 (citing Yi ’304 ¶ 95).
The Examiner cites Yi ’304’s Figure 7 and ¶¶ 170 and 172–174. See
Final Action 8–9. The Examiner finds Horn teaches “methods of a base
station facilitating over-the-air synchronization by a neighboring base station
where a node determines whether and how to synchronize with another
node.” Advisory Action 2 (citing Horn, column 6, lines 19–37). The
Examiner further finds Horn’s Figure 4 teaches “a node receives a reference
signal and advertises a new synchronization metric” and therefore, according
to the Examiner “the reference signal may be understood as a request for
Appeal 2019-000101
Application 14/890,340

9
synchronization information because synchronization information is
transmitted at least partially because of the node receiving the reference
signal.” Advisory Action 2 (citing Horn, Figure 4).
Appellant contends an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have found
it obvious to modify a node in Horn to request the synchronization signals
“because the synchronization signals were already being broadcast by
Horn’s nodes.” Appeal Brief 17. Appellant argues, “While Horn’s col. 6
(lines 42-44) describes a node that broadcasts synchronization signals that
other nodes can use for synchronization, Horn does not disclose or suggest
that this broadcasting node received a request to broadcast the
synchronization signals.” Appeal Brief 17. The Examiner further relies on
Yi ’304’s teaching of “eNBs using received SINRs [signal-to-interference-
and-noise ratio] received from each neighbor eNB for selecting a source
eNB for synchronization.” Advisory Action 2. The Examiner has not,
however, set forth with sufficient specificity where Horn or Yi ’304, taken
alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Indeed,
we are not persuaded an ordinarily skilled artisan, based on Horn’s teaching
of broadcasting a synchronization signal (Horn, column 6, lines 42–44), and
Yi ’304’s teaching of synchronization among nodes of a wireless network
(Yi ’304 ¶¶ 170, 172–174, Figure 7), would have found it obvious to modify
Horn’s system to receive a request and respond, as recited in claim 79. Nor
has the Examiner shown such a feature is necessarily present in either Horn
or Yi ’304 and therefore, has not shown the feature is inherent (See Advisory
Action 2; see also Cont’l Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d
1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Inherency, however, may not be established
by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result
Appeal 2019-000101
Application 14/890,340

10
from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient”); Trintec Indus., Inc. v.
Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting In re
Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“Inherent anticipation
requires that the missing descriptive material is ‘necessarily present,’ not
merely probably or possibly present, in the prior art”)).
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Horn and Yi ’304 teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders
obvious the limitations as recited in claim 79 and commensurately recited
independent claim 99. Claims 84 and 85 depend from claim 79 and thus,
stand with claim 79. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 79,
84, 85 and 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Horn and Yi
’304.

Claims 86, 87, 104 and 105
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Horn and Yi ’304 teaches, suggests or otherwise renders obvious “receiving
a first message from the first base station, the first message indicating that
reference signal muting by at least a second neighbor cell of the plurality of
neighbor cells is needed,” as recited in claims 86 and 104. See Appeal Brief
18–20. Appellant argues “rather than needing to mute reference signals,
Horn’s receiving node indicates to the transmitting nodes to refrain from
data transmissions entirely during the timeslot(s) when the receiving node is
receiving data.” Appeal Brief 19.
Horn teaches “an interfering node’s output at least mutes its reference
symbol signals during the requested timeslot, wherein a timeslot is
understood to comprise more than one subframe, because abstaining from
Appeal 2019-000101
Application 14/890,340

11
transmission is understood to require all signals to be muted/silenced during
the abstention.” Advisory Action 2 (citing Horn, column 8, lines 5–36;
Figure 3). Appellant argues there is no reason to believe Horn’s control
indication, “which request[s] that other nodes should stop transmitting
anything, during certain time slots, would be understood by the person of
ordinary skill to be an ‘indication that a reference signal muting pattern [is
needed].’” Reply Brief 13. The claim, however, does not preclude silence
of all transmissions. Moreover, as noted by the Examiner, Horn teaches
limiting transmission may include “abstaining from performing some other
related operation.” Answer 11 (citing Horn column 8, lines 9–15).
Appellant further argues no evidence or reason exists “to believe, for
example, that a ‘reference signal muting pattern,’ which would silence the
transmission of reference signals but not other transmissions, would be of
any benefit at all to Horn’s receiving node.” Reply Brief 13–14. Appellant
additionally argues Horn does not describe use of a reference signal muting
pattern and “Yi ’304’s disclosure of the existence of a reference muting
pattern” does not teach the limitation. Reply Br. 14–15.
Yi ’304 teaches a signal (i.e., the claimed “first message”), indicating
a radio synchronization failure (RSF) has occurred due to an excessive
signal-to-interference-and-noise-ratio (SNIR/SINR), may be transmitted to
neighboring nodes (Yi ’304 ¶¶ 179–181). In response, a neighboring node
which receives the message may activate a muting pattern to stop the
interference (Yi ’304 ¶ 181 (“One example of action can include activation
of muting where a muting pattern is given/exchanged via X2/Xn signaling
which can be activated via radio-interface.”); Final Action 6). Thus, Yi ’304
teaches activation of a muting pattern in response to interference.
Appeal 2019-000101
Application 14/890,340

12
Appellant further argues the Examiner uses improper hindsight in
combining the teachings of Horn and Yi ’304. Reply Brief 14–15. We are
not persuaded of Examiner error. Horn teaches determining whether another
node is interfering with or may interfere with communication of a first node.
See Horn column 7, lines 9–13. Yi ’304 teaches activation of a muting
pattern in response to interference. See Yi ’304 ¶ 181. Appellant has not
persuaded us of error in the determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Horn and Yi ’304
to arrive at the recited limitations.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Horn and Yi ’304 teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders
obvious the limitations as recited in claim 86 and commensurately recited
independent claim 104, not separately argued. Claim 87 depends from claim
86 and claim 105 from claim 104 and thus, these claims fall with their
respective independent claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims
86, 87, 104 and 105 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Horn and
Yi ’304.
35 U.S.C. § 103: Claims 67, 68, 80, 89 and 100
The issue presented by Appellant’s arguments is whether the
Examiner erred in concluding the combination of Horn, Yi ’304 and Kwun
teaches, suggests or otherwise renders obvious “subsequently determining
that the signal from the second neighbor cell is not needed or is unavailable
for synchronization and, in response, sending a message, towards the first
neighbor cell, indicating that the reference signal muting pattern may be
deactivated,” as recited in claims 67 and 89. See Appeal Brief 20–22.
Appeal 2019-000101
Application 14/890,340

13
Appellant argues Kwun does not teach or suggest “a base station
sending a message to an interfering neighbor cell indicating that a RSMP
(reference signal muting pattern) may be deactivated, much less in response
to determining that a signal from a second neighbor cell is not needed or is
unavailable for synchronization.” Appeal Brief 21. The Examiner cites
¶¶ 47, 51, 110, 56, 65, and 74 of Kwun to teach the argued features. See
Final Action 12. The Examiner further states “[o]ne having ordinary skill in
the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have
found it obvious to use [Kwun] to modify [Horn-Yi ’304] to stop
unnecessary synchronization, because stopping synchronization may
increase cell capacity of the base station/node/cell.” See Examiner Answer
12. We find that while the cited paragraphs teach wherein a “blanking
operation” (which presumably is being equated to the claimed “reference
signal muting pattern”) may be stopped when it is no longer needed, we are
unable to find that Kwun teaches “sending a message” towards the first
neighbor cell indicating the reference signal muting pattern may be
deactivated.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Horn, Yi ’304 and Kwun teaches, suggests or otherwise
renders obvious the limitations as recited in claim 67 and claim 89, not
separately argued. Claims 80 and 100 depend from independent claims 79
and 99 respectively, and thus, stand with their respective independent
claims.
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 67, 80, 89 and 100 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Horn, Yi ’304 and Kwun.
Appeal 2019-000101
Application 14/890,340

14
Claim 68, which depends from independent claim 66, was not
separately argued; therefore, claim 68 falls with claim 66 and we sustain the
rejection of claim 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

35 U.S.C. § 103: Claims 70, 71, 90 and 91
Claims 70, 71, 90 and 91 depend from independent claims 66 and 88,
respectively. Appellant did not separately argue these claims (Appeal Brief
14); therefore, these claims fall with their respective independent claims.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 70, 71, 90 and
91 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

35 U.S.C. § 103: Claims 72–74, 76, 77, 82, 83, 92–94, 96, 97, 102
and 103
Claims 72–74, 76 and 77 depend from independent claim 66 and
claims 92–94, 96 and 97 depend from independent claim 88. These claims
were not separately argued; therefore, these claims fall with their respective
independent claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 72–74, 76, 77, 92–94, 96 and 97 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 82 and 83 depend from independent claim 79 and claims 102
and 103 depend from independent claim 99. These claims stand with their
respective independent claims for the reasons set forth above. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 82, 83, 102 and 103
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2019-000101
Application 14/890,340

15
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
66, 69, 75, 78,
79, 84–88, 95,
98, 99, 104,
105
103 Horn, Yi ’304 66, 69, 75,
78, 86–88,
95, 98, 104,
105
79, 84, 85,
99
67, 68, 80, 89,
100
103 Horn, Yi ’304,
Kwun
68 67, 80, 89,
100
70, 71, 90, 91 103 Horn, Yi ’304,
Yi ’310
70, 71, 90, 91
72–74, 76, 77,
82, 83, 92–94,
96, 97, 102,
103
103 Horn, Yi ’304, Wu 72–74, 76,
77, 92–94,
96, 97
82, 83,
102, 103
Overall
Outcome:
66, 68–78,
86–88, 90–
98, 104, 105
67, 79, 80,
82–85, 89,
99, 100,
102, 103

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) (2010).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART