Ex Parte Baghel et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 14, 2019

13877834 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/877,834
23990 7590
DOCKET CLERK
FILING DATE
04/04/2013
02/19/2019
P.O. DRAWER 800889
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sudhir Kumar Baghel
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
Pl8814-US
(SAMSOS-18814)
CONFIRMATION NO.
7265
EXAMINER
CLARK, ROSENE S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2412
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2019 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@munckwilson.com
munckwilson@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUDHIR KUMAR BAGHEL, NITIN JAIN, and
VENKATESWARARAOMANEPALLI 1
Appeal2018-004093
Application 13/877 ,834
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, DAVID J. CUTITTA II, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 36-44 and 67-69. App. Br. 13-24. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants list Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief 4, filed September 27, 2017 ("App. Br.").
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above-mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents, for their respective details: the Final Action mailed
April 28, 2017 ("Final Act."); the Advisory Action Before the Filing of an
Appeal Brief mailed July 19, 2017 (Adv. Act."); the Examiner's Answer
mailed January 11, 2018 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed March 9, 2018
("Reply Br.").
Appeal2018-004093
Application 13/877,834
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as follows:
The present invention provides a method and apparatus of
handling in-device co-existence interference in a wireless
communication environment. In one embodiment, a method
includes detecting in-device co-existence interference between a
[long-term evolution cellular communications (LTE)] module
and an [industrial, scientific, and medical radio bands (ISM)]
module in user equipment. The method further includes
identifying subframes and corresponding [hybrid automatic
repeat request (HARQ)] processes in a set of subframes allocated
to the L TE module [that] are affected by the ISM module
operation. Additionally, the method includes reserving the
remaining subframes and corresponding HARQ processes in the
set of subframes for the L TE module operation. Furthermore,
the method includes indicating to a base station that the
remaining subframes and the corresponding HARQ processes
are reserved for the L TE module operation to resolve the in-
device co-existence interference. Moreover, the method includes
receiving [a] scheduling pattern indicating subframes and
corresponding HARQ processes reserved for the L TE operation
or derived ( discontinuous reception [DRX]) parameters from the
base station based on the indication.
Abstract.
Independent claim 3 6, reproduced below with emphasis added to the
disputed language, illustrates the claimed invention:
36. A method of handling an in-device co-existence
interference in a user equipment, the method comprising:
detecting an in-device co-existence interference between a
long term evolution (L TE) module and an industrial, scientific
and medical (ISM) radio band module in a user equipment; and
transmitting, to a base station, an in-device co-existence
indication message including a set of parameters associated with
the L TE module,
2
Appeal2018-004093
Application 13/877,834
wherein the set of parameters includes a pattern that
indicates one or more subframes and corresponding hybrid
automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes for resolving the in-
device co-existence inteiference between the LTE module and the
ISM radio band module.
App. Br. 13; see also id., App'x A, p. 1. 3
Claims 36-44 and 67----69 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2012/0082077 Al; published Apr. 5,
2012) ("Zhang") and Dayal et al. (US 2011/0243047 Al; published Oct. 6,
2011) ("Dayal"). Final Act. 3-9.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential).
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Zhang discloses a method of handling an in-
device co-existence interference in a user equipment that includes
transmitting a message to a base station, as recited in the last two limitations
of independent claim 36, but that "Zhang explicity does not address the step
of actually detecting in-device co-existence interference." Final Act. 3--4.
The Examiner finds that Dayal teaches a user equipment that comprises a
coexistence manager to detect in-device co-existence interference, as
3 Appellants also reproduce a proposed amendment to claim 3 6 that was
filed after the Final Action (App. Br. 13), but the Examiner denied entry of
that proposed claim amendment. See Advisory Action dated July 19, 2017.
Accordingly, we consider only the current version of claim 16, which
actually is before us on appeal.
3
Appeal2018-004093
Application 13/877,834
claimed. Id. at 4. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious
to incorporate Dayal's detection functionality into Zhang's system. Id.
The Examiner subsequently elaborates on how she is interpreting the
term "corresponding HARQ processes" (Ans. 4--5; see also Adv. Act. 2-3),
as well as how, more generally, she is interpreting the entire above-
emphasized claim limitation (Adv. Act. 2--4; Ans. 3-7). Specifically, the
Examiner explains that Zhang discloses bitmaps of 1 s and Os that signify,
respectively, which subframes of the coexistence active cycle 502 constitute
the coexistence active interval 504 and which subframes are not in the active
interval. Adv. Act. 2-3. The Examiner further explains that the HARQ
processes may occur in the subframes of the coexistence active cycle that are
not in the active interval 504---that is, the subframes represented by the Os of
Zhang's bitmap. Id. at 3. As best as we can understand, the Examiner's
position appears to be that the claim limitation of transmitting a set of
parameters, the parameters including "one or more subframes and
corresponding [HARQ] processes for resolving ... interference," interpreted
broadly, reads on Zhang's disclosure of providing a bitmap that indicates in
which subframes HARQ-process transmissions may occur. Adv. Act. 2-3;
see also Ans. 5---6 ( citing Zhang ,r 51 ).
Appellants argue, inter alia, that "Zhang teaches only signaling
subframes, not corresponding HARQ processes as well." App. Br. 17. In
Appellants' view, "Zhang describes only considering HARQ processes, not
also signaling the HARQ processes." Id.
4
Appeal2018-004093
Application 13/877,834
ANALYSIS
As a threshold matter, we need not decide whether we agree with the
Examiner (see Ans. 4) that both of the following interpretations of
claim 36's disputed limitation are reasonable:
I. transmitting a message including a set of parameters "wherein the set
of parameters includes [ (1)] a pattern that indicates one or more
subframes and [ (2) the set of parameters includes] corresponding
[HARQ] processes;"
II. transmitting a message including a set of parameters "wherein the set
of parameters includes a pattern that indicates [both ( 1)] one or more
subframes and [ (2)] corresponding [HARQ] processes" ( emphasis
added).
Under either interpretation, the Examiner's further interpretation of the
meaning of "and corresponding hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ)
processes" is unreasonably broad.
Both interpretations reasonably require that the user equipment
specify to the base station a particular HARQ process that would resolve the
detected interference. Neither interpretation reasonably reads on the act of
merely indicating the time or subframe at which some unidentified HARQ
process occurs. The cited passage of Zhang regarding the bitmap, upon
which the Examiner relies, merely indicates a plurality of subframes in
which unidentified HARQ processes can operate. Zhang ,r 51, cited in Adv.
Act. 2.
To be sure, Zhang does disclose the user equipment transmits various
parameters, such as discontinuous reception parameters, to the network.
Zhang ,r,r 41, 42. But even if any of the parameters disclosed by Zhang
5
Appeal2018-004093
Application 13/877,834
reasonably may be interpreted as constituting indications of HARQ
processes, the Examiner does not cite to sufficient evidence that Zhang's
user equipment transmits these parameters to the base station in the same
message as the pattern that indicates one or more subframes, as claimed.
Furthermore, the rejection before us is premised on the theory that Zhang
discloses a message that indicates both the subframes and HARQ
processes-not that it would have been obvious to transmit two disparate
pieces of information within a single message.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in
the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 36. We also are
persuaded of error in the obviousness rejection of independent claim 42,
which recites similar language. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of those independent claims or of
claims 37--41, 43, 44, and 67----69, which depend from claim 36 and 42.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 36--44 and 67----69 is
reversed.
REVERSED
6