Ex Parte Dahlman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

14427044 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017)

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.
14/427,044 03/10/2015 Erik Dahlman 9900-37851US1 1093
146825 7590 09/05/2017
S»aae Patent fTrnnn/Telefnnaktiehnlaaet T M F,ries;s;nn
EXAMINER
PO BOX 30789
RALEIGH, NC 27622-0789
LETT, THOMAS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2677
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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):
instructions @ sagepat. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIK DAHLMAN, STEFAN PARKVALL, GABOR FODOR,
LEIF WILHELMS SON, and GORAN N. KLANG
Appeal 2017-001421
Application No. 14/427,0441
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, LARRY J. HUME, and JOHN P. PINKERTON,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellants’ claimed invention is a method for transmitting a beacon
signal to be detected by at least one second user equipment for Device-to-
Device (D2D) communication in a wireless communication network. First
user equipment transmits the beacon signal in transmission bursts with a first
energy level, wherein the transmission bursts are transmitted continually
1 The real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ).
Appeal 2017-001421
Application No. 14/427,044
over time in order to enable detection of the beacon signal by the at least one
second user equipment. The first user equipment then increases the energy
of the transmission bursts at one or more intervals to a second energy level
such that bursts with the first energy level are alternated with bursts with the
second energy level, and such that bursts with the first energy level recur
more frequently over time than bursts with a second energy level. Spec. 3^4.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method in a first user equipment for transmitting a
beacon signal to be detected by at least one second user
equipment for Device-to-Device, D2D, communication in a
wireless telecommunications network, said method comprising:
transmitting the beacon signal in transmission bursts at a
first energy level or at a second energy level,
wherein the transmission bursts are transmitted over time
for detection of the beacon signal by the at least one second user
equipment,
wherein the beacon signal is transmitted for one or more
time intervals at the first energy level and for one or more time
intervals at the second energy level such that the transmission
bursts at the first energy level are interspersed with transmission
bursts at the second energy level, and
wherein the transmission bursts at the first energy level
recur more frequently than the transmission bursts at the second
energy level.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Wang US 2011/0051687 A1 Mar. 3,2011
Claims 1—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Wang.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Apr. 12, 2016), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
2
Appeal 2017-001421
Application No. 14/427,044
Nov. 1, 2016), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Oct. 19, 2016)
for their respective details.
ISSUE
1. Does Wang disclose transmitting a beacon signal for one or more
time intervals at the first energy level and for one or more time intervals at
the second energy level, such that the transmission bursts at the first energy
level are interspersed with transmission bursts at the second energy level?
2. Does Wang disclose that transmission bursts at the first energy
level recur more frequently than the transmission bursts at the second energy
level?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1,3,5,6, 8,10,11,13,14, and 16
Wang Figure 4’s disclosure builds on the disclosure expressed in
Figures 1 and 3. Each of these Figures illustrates an “access probe,” which is
a series of signals that are disclosed as intended to be repeated if necessary
in order to establish or initiate communication. Wang uses ellipses (“. . .”)
throughout the Figures to indicate portions or sections of an access probe
pattern that may repeat. For example, in Figure 1, additional, un-illustrated
access probes may occur between access probe 3 and access probe Np of
each probe sequence. Additional, un-illustrated probe sequences may occur
between probe sequence 2 and probe sequence Ns. We find that the ellipses
at the right edge of Figures, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 11 communicate the same
concept: that further, un-illustrated repetitions of the probe sequences shown
in the respective Figures are to continue as necessary until acknowledgement
of the access probe is received from the service network via the wireless
module. See Abstract.
3
Appeal 2017-001421
Application No. 14/427,044
Wang Figure 4 is reproduced below:
Figure 4 is a schematic diagram illustrating the operation of mobile
communications device 210 during an access procedure. Wang 117.
Wang Figure 4 discloses a sequence of five bursts at a first power
level (which we term “power level 1,” or simply “1”) followed by four
bursts at a second power level (which we term “power level 2,” or simply
“2”). Expressed in shorthand, the bursts in Wang Figure 4 follow the pattern
“11111 2222.” Noting the ellipses at the right edge of Figure 4, and
incorporating Wang’s disclosure that the access probe is repeated as
necessary, the pattern follows the form “11111 2222 11111 2222 11111
2222 11111 2222 11111 2222
We find, as a result, that the access probe illustrated in Wang Figure 4
discloses a beacon signal that is transmitted for one or more time intervals
(“probe sequences”) at a first energy level and for one or more time intervals
(“probe sequences”) at a second energy level, such that the transmission
bursts at the first energy level are interspersed with transmission bursts at the
second energy level. In the pattern “11111 2222 11111 2222,” the “1 ’s” are
interspersed with the “2’s.”
4
Appeal 2017-001421
Application No. 14/427,044
We further find the access probe illustrated in Wang Figure 4
discloses transmission bursts at the first energy level that recur more
frequently than the transmission bursts at the second energy level. In the
“11111 2222” pattern, there are five transmission bursts at the first energy
level and four transmission bursts at the second energy level.
Appellants’ argument the doctrine of inherency does not provide the
teachings missing from Wang is not persuasive. See App. Br. 16. First, we
need not rely on any “generic” teachings regarding gain adjustment to find
that Wang teaches the claim limitations under appeal. See Wang 126.
Second, the Examiner states that he no longer relies on inherency in
rejecting the claims over Wang. Ans. 11. Third, we do not regard the
Examiner’s misstatement to the contrary, that “a transmission device that is
configured to transmit a particular sequence can inherently repeat/retry/
retransmit that same sequence,” as error requiring reversal of the rejection.
See Ans. 10; Reply Br. 2—3. Under our interpretation of Wang’s use of
ellipses, Wang explicitly, not merely inherently, discloses a sequence having
the claimed characteristics.
Appellants’ argument that Wang is not directed to “Device-to-Device”
communication, as recited in the preamble, is unpersuasive. See App.
Br. 21—22. Wang discloses signal transmission by a mobile communications
device, to be received by other devices. Wang’s “Machine-to-Machine”
technology enables “communications between remote machines for
exchanging information and operating without human intervention.” Wang
| 5. We find a mobile communications device transmitting signal beacons in
an attempt to set up communication with another device corresponds to the
exchange of information, without human intervention. Appellants have not
5
Appeal 2017-001421
Application No. 14/427,044
provided evidence sufficient to establish that Wang’s communication does
not correspond to the claimed “Device-to-Device” communication.2
We find that Wang discloses all the limitations of the independent
claims, and that the Examiner did not err in rejecting independent claims 1,
6, 11, and 14, as well as dependent claims 3, 5, 8, 10, 13, and 16 not
separately argued. We sustain the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection.
Claims 2 and 7
The Examiner finds Wang Figure 4 teaches two time intervals (“probe
sequence 1” and “probe sequence 2”), “with the second interval having a
second energy level higher than that of the first energy/power level. That is
the nth (the 2nd) sequence has a second energy level.” Ans. 13.
The Examiner’s finding fails to correspond to the claim limitation.
Claim 2 requires that “for each periodic time interval, every n:th
transmission burst is a transmission burst at the second energy level, wherein
n is a positive integer greater than one.” Because, for the first periodic time
interval (“probe sequence 1”), none of the transmission bursts is a
transmission burst at the second energy level, Wang fails to disclose the
limitation of claim 2.
We find the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2 and 7 as being
anticipated by Wang, and we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 102(b)
rejection.
2 As a matter of claim construction, we give the claim its broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "In the patentability context, claims
are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations . . . limitations are
not to be read into the claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988
F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
6
Appeal 2017-001421
Application No. 14/427,044
Claims 4,9,12, and 15
The Examiner cites paragraph 27 of Wang in support of the finding
that Wang discloses “determining the one or more time intervals at which
energy of the transmission bursts is at the second energy level, based on a
number of the at least one second user equipment detecting the beacon
signal from the first user equipment.” See Ans. 14. The Examiner finds
Wang teaches a determination of the “waiting period of time” Tp’, and that
this “reads on interval.” Ans. 14; see Wang 127.
We find the Examiner erred in equating this section of Wang with the
claim limitation. Wang discloses the calculation of Tp’, which is “the
waiting period of time between the transmissions/retransmissions of access
probes.” Wang 127. Wang does not disclose determining or calculating the
time intervals at which energy of the transmission bursts is at the second
energy level. Instead, Wang teaches calculating the amount of time to wait
in between “probe sequences,” i.e., sets of transmission bursts. Because
Wang does not teach all the limitations of claims 4, 9, 12, and 15, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection.
Claim 17
Appellants argue “Figures 3 and 4 of Wang illustrate that the waiting
period between transmissions of the access probe is varied. However,
Figures 3 and 4 of Wang fail to disclose or suggest that ‘consecutive ones of
the transmission bursts are equally spaced in time.’” App. Br. 25. Appellants
fail to provide further support for this second sentence. We have reviewed
Wang, and we do not find any disclosure to the effect that Wang varies the
amount of time between consecutive transmission bursts (e.g., between the
7
Appeal 2017-001421
Application No. 14/427,044
five bursts in probe sequence 1 in Figure 4, or between the four bursts in
probe sequence 2 in Figure 4).
We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 17, which
depends from claim 1, and we sustain the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of
claim 17.
Claim 18
Appellants argue:
[Njeither Figures 1, 3, 4, or 5 of Wang disclose or suggest that
“the beacon signal is transmitted for two or more time intervals
at the first energy level immediately after the beacon signal is
transmitted at the second energy level for one time interval, and
wherein the beacon signal is transmitted for two or more time
intervals at the first energy level immediately before the beacon
signal is transmitted at the second energy level for one time
interval.”
App. Br. 2 (emphasis omitted).
We find Appellants’ argument to be persuasive. As discussed supra,
Wang teaches a time interval (“probe sequence”) with transmission bursts of
“11111,” followed by a time interval with transmission bursts of “2222.” As
discussed, this pattern repeats, which means that Wang discloses no set of
two consecutive time intervals (“probe sequences”) having beacon signals at
the first energy level.
Thus, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18 as being
anticipated by Wang, and we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 102(b)
rejection.
8
Appeal 2017-001421
Application No. 14/427,044
Claim 19
Appellants argue:
[Njeither Figures 1, 3, 4, or 5 of Wang disclose or suggest that
“a first one of the transmission bursts at the second energy level
is immediately preceded by a second one of the transmission
bursts at the first energy level and is immediately succeeded by
a third one of the transmission burst at the first energy level,” as
recited in claim 19.
App. Br. 28.
The Examiner relies on Figure 4 to support a finding that Wang
discloses this limitation, without articulating a particular set of bursts that
meet these criteria. See Ans. 17—18. We have reviewed Wang Figure 4, and
we find that Wang does not teach such a “1-2-1” sequence (consistent with
the notation used earlier in this decision).
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 as
being anticipated by Wang.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Wang discloses transmitting a beacon signal for one or more time
intervals at the first energy level and for one or more time intervals at the
second energy level, such that the transmission bursts at the first energy
level are interspersed with transmission bursts at the second energy level.
2. Wang discloses that transmission bursts at the first energy level
recur more frequently than the transmission bursts at the second energy
level.
9
Appeal 2017-001421
Application No. 14/427,044
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1,3,5, 6, 8, 10,
11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and we reverse the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10