Ex Parte Gävert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 10, 2019

15035645 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 15/035,645 05/10/2016 27045 7590 ERICSSON INC. 6300 LEGACY DRIVE MIS EVR 1-C-11 PLANO, TX 75024 01/14/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Bjorn Gilvert 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. P41360 USl 1086 EXAMINER PHU, PHUONG M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2632 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/14/2019 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): michelle.sanderson@ericsson.com pam.ewing@ericsson.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BJORN GA VERT and GORAN NILSSON Appeal2018-005452 Application 15/035,645 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KAL YANK. DESHPANDE, and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 1 Appellants indicate the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. App. Br. 1. Appeal2018-005452 Application 15/035,645 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I34(a) from a final rejection of claims 1--4, 7-10, and 13-16. The Examiner has indicated claims 5, 6, 11, 12, and 17 "would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims." Final Act. 12. Appellants have cancelled claim 18. App. Br. 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. Illustrative Claim Illustrative claim 1 under appeal reads as follows ( emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added): 1. A method in a fixed point-to-point radio link transceiver, the method comprising the steps of: [A.] receiving a first signal from a far end transceiver in a first frequency band, [B.] detecting the presence of interference in the received first signal, [C.] transmitting a second signal to the far end transceiver, the step of transmitting comprising including, in the second signal, a request to reduce transmission symbol rate in the far end transceiver when interference is detected in the received first signal. Reference2 Bergholm et al. US 2008/0273622 Al Nov. 6, 2008 2 All citations herein to this reference are by reference to the first named inventor only. 2 Appeal2018-005452 Application 15/035,645 Rejections3 A. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 7-10, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Bergholm. Final Act. 2-8. Appellants argue separate patentability for claim 1. Appellants do not argued separate patentability for claims 7-10, 14, and 15. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address claims 7-10, 14, and 15 further herein. B. The Examiner rejects claims 2--4, 13 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bergholm in various combinations with additional references. Final Act. 8-12. Appellants do not present arguments for claims 2--4, 13 and 16. Thus, the rejections of these claims tum on our decision as to claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the Â§ 103 rejections of claims 2--4, 13 and 16 further herein. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. 3 All citations herein to the "Final Action" are to a Final Action mailed on May 26, 2017. 3 Appeal2018-005452 Application 15/035,645 (1) Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) because: Bergholm discloses that in response to interference, the receiver selects a new frequency and then sends a command to the transmitter to change to the selected frequency. This is the opposite of what is recited in Claim 1 wherein the receiver includes a request to make a change. Although not claimed, one would understand that the transmitter is then responsible for determining how to modify the signal. App. Br. 5 (Appellants' emphasis omitted, our emphasis added). [I]n Claim 1, the receiver detects the presence of interference in the received first signal and then includes a request to reduce the transmission symbol rate. Although not claimed, one skilled in the art would understand that it is then up to the transmitter to determine how to reduce the transmission symbol rate. As can be appreciated, moving the determination to the transmitter reduces the burden on the receiver, as compared to Bergholm. App. Br. 6 (Appellants' emphasis omitted, our emphasis added). [T]he change to Bergholm would require a complete flip in the responsibilities of the transmitter and receiver. That is, Bergholm would have to be modified such that rather than the receiver making the selection of the new information rate ( as currently recited in Bergholm), the transmitter would need to make the selection in response to receiving a second signal that includes a request to reduce the transmission symbol rate in the far end transceiver, as recited in Claim 1. App. Br. 8-9 (Appellants' emphasis omitted, our emphasis added). As to Appellants' assertion, we disagree. Appellants' argument repeatedly admits that the argued transmitter for determining limitation is "not claimed." App. Br. 5. That is, the argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim language. The steps of claim 1 are not explicitly so limited, nor do Appellants explain how claim 1 would be inherently so 4 Appeal2018-005452 Application 15/035,645 limited, nor do we find alternative language that would similarly mandate the argued limitation. Rather, nothing in claim 1 precludes the "receiver determining" process, as set forth by Bergholm. Further, Appellants' argument is not consistent with the Specification. The Specification discloses "reducing the transmission symbol rate of the transceiver 110 by a pre-configured amount" (Spec. 14:13-14; emphasis added) and that other "pre-configured" amounts are "set during deployment of the radio link" (Spec. 15:8) (i.e., determined during initial setup and not determined by the transmitter as argued by Appellants). (2) Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) because: What is more, because the receiver in Bergholm is responsible for selecting a new frequency, it is sending a command, and not a request. App. Br. 6. As to Appellants' above assertion, we disagree. Appellants' Figure 2 shows that Appellants' request (in step S6) is treated the same as a command, in that the request is always implemented to either reduce or increase the rate. See Spec. 13: 18-29. We determine there is no meaningful difference between Appellants' request and Bergholm's command. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1--4, 7-10, and 13-16 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). (2) Claims 1--4, 7-10, and 13-16 are not patentable. 5 Appeal2018-005452 Application 15/035,645 DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 7-10, and 13-16 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6