Ex Parte Centonza et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 27, 2018

14385784 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/385,784 09/17/2014 102721 7590 06/29/2018 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson 1255 Crescent Green Suite 200 Cary, NC 27518 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Angelo Centonza 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. CONFIRMATION NO. 1009-1110 / P4 l 126 US2 2226 EXAMINER WILLIAMS, ELTON S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2465 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/29/2018 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 CENTOZA, LARS LINDBOM, ERIK ERIKSSON, and XINGHUA SONG Appeal2017-010351 Application 14/385,784 1 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, NABEEL U. KHAN, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Final Rejection ofclaims 109--113, 117,118, 121-141, 145,146, 149--167, 171,172, 175- 194, 198, 199, and 202-216. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2017-010351 Application 14/385,784 BACKGROUND THE INVENTION According to Appellants, the invention relates to "a communication network that implements a flexible subframe structure, and in particular to methods and network nodes for use in a communication network for exchanging information about the configuration of flexible subframes with other network nodes." Spec. 1:4--7. Exemplary independent claim 109 is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized. 109. A method of operating a network node in a communication network, the method comprising: determining a preferred configuration for one or more flexible subframes in a frame, the frame comprising one or more subframes allocated to uplink transmissions, one or more subframes allocated to downlink transmissions and one or more flexible subframes that can each be dynamically allocated to either uplink transmissions or downlink transmissions; and transmitting a message to a neighboring network node in the communication network through an inter node interface, the message indicating the preferred configuration for the one or more flexible subframes, wherein the message includes two information elements (!Es), with the first IE indicating which subframes in the frame are flexible subframes and the second IE indicating the uplink or downlink configuration for the indicated flexible subframes. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS 1. Claims 109--113, 135-141, 163-167, 189--194, and 216 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Parkvall (US 2011/0149813 Al, published June 23, 2011). Final Act. 3-10. 2 Appeal2017-010351 Application 14/385,784 2. Claims 117, 118, 128, 145, 146, 156, 171, 172, 182, 198, 199, 208, and 209 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Parkvall and Wang (US 9,084,275 B2, issued July 14, 2015) (hereinafter "Wang '275"). Final Act. 10-13. 3. Claims 121, 149, 175, and 202 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Parkvall, Wang and 3GPP TS 36.423 vl 1.5.0, 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E- UTRAN); X2 application protocol (X2AP), (2013-06). Final Act. 14--15. 4. Claims 122-134, 150-155, 157-162, 176-181, 183-188, 203- 207, and 210-215 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Parkvall, Wang, and Wang (US 2016/0007232 Al, published Jan. 17, 2016) (hereinafter "Wang '232"). Final Act. 15-33. DISCUSSION Claim 109 recites "wherein the message includes two information elements (IEs ), with the first IE indicating which subframes in the frame are flexible subframes and the second IE indicating the uplink or downlink configuration for the indicated flexible subframes." The Examiner finds that although Parkvall does not explicitly teach this disputed limitation it would have been obvious over Parkvall's disclosure. Final Act. 4--5. In particular, the Examiner finds that Parkvall seeks to avoid inter-cell interference by not having contradicting usage of flexible subframes. Final Act. 4. According to the Examiner, Parkvall avoids inter-cell interference by having base stations exchange inter-cell communication/coordination messages about their intended usage of the flexible subframes so that they influence the scheduling and/or uplink and downlink transmission. Final Act. 4 ( citing 3 Appeal2017-010351 Application 14/385,784 Parkvall ,r 45). Examiner explains "[t]he only way [one base station] can avoid scheduling a downlink transmission during a time that [ another base station] is using a flexible subframe as [an] uplink [transmission] is to be informed somehow of when the flexible subframe is used and if it is for uplink or downlink transmission." Ans. 5. The Examiner thus finds, [i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to see that in order for intercell coordination to take place an interfering base station must be informed of which cell is treated as a flexible subframe and if that subframe will be an uplink or downlink subframe. Final Act. 5. Appellants respond to the Examiner's findings by noting that in Parkvall the frame structure used for communication between a user equipment (UE) and a base station includes one or more subframes that are preconfigured as downlink subframes and one or more subframes that are preconfigured as uplink subframes .. . . Thus, while it is correct that Parkvall' s base station must know which subframes in the frame structure are flexible subframes, Parkvall simply assumes that this is pre-configured - there is no suggestion in Parkvall that a message sent to a base station communicates both information about which subframes are allocated as 'flexible' subframes and information specifying how each flexible subframe is currently being used. Reply Br. 3. In other words, Appellants argue there is no need in Parkvall to include a first IE in a message informing other nodes which subframes are flexible because, presumably, other nodes would already know this information since these subframes are preconfigured to be flexible. We find Appellants' argument to be persuasive. Initially, we note the Examiner does not find that Parkvall explicitly teaches a message with both a first IE indicating which subframes are 4 Appeal2017-010351 Application 14/385,784 flexible, and a second IE indicating the uplink or downlink configuration for the indicated flexible subframes. Final Act. 4. Instead, the Examiner finds that, in order to avoid scheduling conflicts, the nodes must necessarily be "informed somehow" of when the flexible subframe is used and if it is for an uplink or downlink transmission. Ans. 5. From this, the Examiner infers that an inter-cell message must include both these pieces of information (i.e. when a subframe is flexible and whether that flexible subframe is uplink or downlink). Although we do not disagree with the Examiner that nodes must be informed somehow of when a flexible subframe is used, the Examiner does not provide sufficient explanation for why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so as an IE in a message to neighboring nodes. Moreover, Appellants have identified in Parkvall an alternative reason why nodes would know which subframes are flexible subframes, without having to exchange this information as part of the inter-cell messages. According to Appellants, Parkvall uses a frame structure where subframes are preconfigured as either uplink, downlink, or flexible. App. Br. 13-14 (citing Parkvall ,r,r 47, 49). We find Appellants' arguments to be consistent with Parkvall' s disclosure. Parkvall describes a frame structure that includes one or more downlink subframes preconfigured as a downlink subframe, one or more uplink subframes preconfigured as an uplink subframe, and one or more flexible subframes, where a flexible subframe is dynamically allocated to be an uplink subframe in one instance of a frame and a downlink subframe in another frame instance. Parkvall ,r 21. We agree with Appellants that, here, the dynamic allocation refers to whether the flexible subframe will be either uplink or downlink, not 5 Appeal2017-010351 Application 14/385,784 to whether or not a subframe will be flexible. Thus, we find Appellants have sufficiently rebutted the Examiner's findings. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 109, and the other pending claims which were rejected on the same basis. See Final Act. 10, 14, and 16 (relying on the findings as they pertain to claim 109). DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 109-113, 117, 118, 121-141, 145, 146, 149-167, 171, 172, 175-194, 198, 199, and 202-216 are reversed. REVERSED 6