Ex Parte Elmdahl et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 201914115654 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/115,654 11/05/2013 102721 7590 03/04/2019 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson 1255 Crescent Green Suite 200 Cary, NC 27518 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR PerElmdahl 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. 1009-0751 I P38741 US2 4409 EXAMINER FAYED,RASHAK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2413 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/04/2019 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): official@mbhiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PER ELMDAHL, SAMUEL AXELSSON, RASMUS AXEN, and FREDRIK GUNNARSSON Appeal2018-001927 Application 14/115,654 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 17-31 and 33, which constitute all claims pending in this application. 1 Appeal Br. 2. Claims 1-16 and 32 have been canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2018-001927 Application 14/115,654 Introduction According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter relates to a method for evaluating the performance of a radio network supporting radio communication between wireless devices (104, 202) and a network node ( 400), which employs carrier aggregation with multiple carriers used in multiple corresponding cells. Spec. ,r,r 1, 11-15, Figs. 1--4. One of the aggregated cells acts as a primary cell ("Pcell") and the remaining cells act as secondary cells ("Scells"). Id. ,r,r 27-28, Fig. 2. In particular, upon retrieving statistical information regarding a Scell usage of radio resources ( 4: 1) within an identified cell, the network node ( 400) reports the retrieved statistical information to an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) node ( 404), which evaluates how the Scell usage impacts the measured performance (4:2, 4:3) of the radio network. Id. ,r,r 48--49, Fig. 4. O&\l "-! 102 ;-·············································1 '-l Network \:fanager I ' ! Fig. l Figure 1 depicts a communication scenario illustrating an architecture for network management. 2 Appeal2018-001927 Application 14/115,654 Pccll I J ' ' r-·,,, Scell 2 ---' '>, _ Scell 3 _r--,,,~ ~~~ ~~ ---. ---. -· -- --- CC2 CC3 ) (202 ...................... [gJ Fig. 2 Figure 2 is a schematic view of a network node using carrier aggregation in radio communication with a wireless device. Figure 4 is a communication scenario illustrating an example of actions and signal flows when the solution is employed in a network node and an O&M node. 3 Appeal2018-001927 Application 14/115,654 Representative Claim Claims 17, 24, 31, and 33 are independent. Independent claim 17 is representative, and is reproduced below with the limitation at issue italicized: 1 7. A method performed by a network node of a radio network, for supporting evaluation of performance of the radio network in radio communication between wireless devices and the network node, wherein the network node employs carrier aggregation with multiple carriers used in corresponding multiple cells, the method comprising: retrieving statistical information regarding utilization of radio resources in the radio communication, wherein the statistical information indicates secondary cell use of radio resources in a particular cell in the radio communication; and reporting the statistical information to an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) node serving the radio network, thereby enabling the O&M node to use the statistical information for evaluating how a measured performance of the radio network is related to secondary cell usage. Zhang Kazmi References Relied Upon US 2012/0163338 Al US 2013/0322395 Al June 28, 2012 Dec. 5, 2013 Rejection on Appeal Claims 17-31, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kazmi and Zhang. Final Act. 2-34. 4 Appeal2018-001927 Application 14/115,654 ANALYSIS 2 Section 103 (a) forbids issuance of a patent when "the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,406 (2007) ("KSR"). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and ( 4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over the combination of Kazmi and Zhang because neither of the cited references teaches or suggests "retrieving statistical information indicating secondary cell use of radio resources in a particular cell," as recited in independent claim 17. Appeal Br. 12-13. In particular, Appellants argue although Kazmi' s disclosure of measuring "cell load" or "traffic load" can be reasonably considered as retrieving information regarding radio resource utilization, as admitted by the Examiner, such statistical information does not pertain to a Scell. Id. Further, Appellants argue that although Zhang mentions a secondary serving cell, it is silent about a node retrieving statistical information, and reporting such information to an O&M node. Id. 2 We refer to Appellants' arguments and the Examiner's findings and conclusions set forth in the Final Office Action (mailed October 20, 2016) ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief (filed July 7, 2017) ("Appeal Br."), the Answer (mailed October 18, 2017) ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief (filed December 18, 201 7) ("Reply Br.") for the respective details. 5 Appeal2018-001927 Application 14/115,654 at 13. Further, Appellants argue that the Examiner's motivation to combine the teachings of Kazmi and Zhang to provide "higher data transfer speeds and capacity to associated UMTS networks" does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would take Zhang's indicator that a Scell is using the same carrier as a Pcell and forward that information to a UE instead of an O&M node. Id. at 16. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because they are tantamount to an individual attack against the references. One cannot show non- obviousness by attacking the references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981 )( explaining the relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references). In this case, the Examiner relies upon Kazmi for its teaching, undisputed by Appellants, of retrieving a measure of resources utilized within a cell, and reporting the retrieved statistical information to an O&M node. Ans. 4---6 (citing Kazmi ,r,r 98, 113, 210,243,244,249). Further, the Examiner relies upon Zhang's disclosure, undisputed by Appellants, of handing over channels and carriers utilized by a secondary serving cell. Id. at 7 ( citing Zhang ,r,r 80, 81 ). We agree with the Examiner that the proposed combination of the cited references would predictably result in a first node retrieving resources consumed by a Pcell and Scells for transmission to an O&M node for the purpose of network planning and node configuring. Id. at 10 ( citing Kazmi ,r 98, Zhang ,r 98). We find the Examiner's proposed combination of the cited teachings of Kazmi and Zhang is no more than a simple arrangement of 6 Appeal2018-001927 Application 14/115,654 old elements, with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. The ordinarily skilled artisan, being "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton," would be able to fit the teachings of the cited references together like pieces of a puzzle to predictably result in a first node retrieving resources consumed by a Pcell and Scells for transmission to an O&M node for the stated purpose of network planning and node configuring. Id. at 420-21. Because Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner's proffered combination would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art," we agree with the Examiner that the proposed modification would have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Consequently, we are satisfied that, on the record before us, the Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Kazmi and Zhang renders claim 17 unpatentable. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 17. Regarding the rejection of claims 18-31, and 33, because Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, those claims fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 17-31, and 33. 7 Appeal2018-001927 Application 14/115,654 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). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation