Ex Parte Hoymann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2016

13003123 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2016)

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.
4015-7283 /P25428-US1 6621
EXAMINER
DANIEL JR, WILLIE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/003,123 11/11/2011
24112 7590 12/14/2016
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
Christian Hoymann
12/14/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTIAN HOYMANN, MAGNUS ALMGREN,
PER SKILLERMARK, and ARNE SIMONS SON
Appeal 2015-006410
Application 13/003,123
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, 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 16—18, 20, 21, 23—28, 30, 31, and 33—35. Claims 1—15, 19, 22, 29,
and 32 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2015-006410
Application 13/003,123
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 16, reproduced below with emphasis added, is representative of
the claimed subject matter:
16. A self-optimizing repeater for use in a wireless
communication network that comprises a plurality of cells and
that uses predetermined carrier communication resources per
cell, the self-optimizing repeater comprising circuitry
configured as:
an amplifier configured to amplify a first subset of
communication resources selected from said predetermined
carrier communication resources;
a monitoring unit configured to monitor traffic load on
the first subset of communication resources; and
an adjustment unit configured to adjust the first subset of
communication resources as a function of the monitored traffic
load by performing one of:
extending the first subset of communication
resources when the monitored traffic load comprises a
relatively high traffic load and reducing the first subset of
communication resources when the monitored traffic
load comprises a relatively low traffic load; or
increasing the amplification of the first subset of
communication resources when the monitored traffic
load comprises a relatively high traffic load and
decreasing the amplification of the first subset of
communication resources when the monitored traffic
load comprises a relatively low traffic load.
THE REJECTION
Claims 16—18, 20, 21, 23—28, 30, 31, and 33—35 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Dean et al. (US
2007/0015462 Al; Jan. 18, 2007) and Lappetelainen et al. (US
2008/0075178 Al; Mar. 27, 2008).
2
Appeal 2015-006410
Application 13/003,123
Grouping of Claims
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the principal Brief, we decide the
appeal of claims 16—17, 20, 21, 23—28, 30, 31, and 34—35 on the basis of
representative independent claim 16. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We
address dependent claims 18 and 33 separately, infra. To the extent
Appellants have not advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular
claims and/or limitations, or other issues, such arguments are considered
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner cites the combination of Dean and Lappetelainen as
teaching claim 16, including the claimed “monitoring unit configured to
monitor traffic load on [a] first subset of communication resources” and the
claimed “adjustment unit configured to adjust the first subset of
communications resources as a function of the monitored traffic load.” Final
Act. 3^4; Ans. 4. Specifically, the Examiner cites Dean as teaching a
repeater that “monitors a data path to adjust communication resources (e.g.,
forward/reverse link) for managing communications that can travel in
forward/reverse link direction” (Ans. 12—13 (citing Dean 145); see also
Final Act. 3 (citing Dean H 42, 45)), and finds that similarly monitoring
“traffic loads” was well known at the time of Appellants’ invention, as
evidenced by Lappetelainen (191; abstract; Figs. 1—3 and 7). Final Act. 3—
4.
Appellants first argue Dean teaches monitoring a transmission
schedule, not traffic load as claimed. App. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2—3.
Further, Appellants argue neither Dean nor Lappetelainen discloses an
3
Appeal 2015-006410
Application 13/003,123
adjustment unit configured to either (a) extend/reduce the first subset of
communication resources, or (b) increase/decrease the amplification of the
first subset of communication resources, when the monitored traffic load
comprises a relatively high traffic load or a relatively low traffic load. App.
Br. 5—6. Appellants’ arguments interpret the extending/reducing limitations
as “changing] what resources are amplified” and the increasing/decreasing
limitations as relating “not to the amount of resources that are amplified, but
instead to how much those resources are amplified (i.e., a degree of
amplification of the resources).” App. Br. 6.
We disagree with the claim interpretations advanced in Appellants’
arguments. Appellants’ Specification describes the term “communication
resources” to at least include channel frequencies and time slots, “e.g.,
TDMA time slots, FDMA sub-channels, or FDMA resource blocks.” Spec.
3; accord Spec. 11 (“resources, which are composed of certain frequency
channels and certain time slots”), 20 (“In TDMA systems a resource is a
time slot, in FDMA it is a sub-channel, and in OFDMA systems a resource
consists of one or more subcarriers and one or more OFDM symbol
durations.”). Appellants’ Specification does not, however, define a “subset
of communication resources” nor extending/reducing or
increasing/decreasing the first subset of communications resources.
Notably, Appellants’ cite no definition in the claim or Specification, or other
evidence that would limit claim 16 to the interpretations advanced in
Appellants’ arguments. See App. Br. 5—8.
Interpreting the language of claim 16 in light of Appellants’
Specification, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed “first subset of
communication resources” includes communication resources on an uplink
4
Appeal 2015-006410
Application 13/003,123
or forward link. See Spec. 18 (“step S14 [of Figs. 3—5] to adjust the first
subset of communication resources may be executed in a similar manner on
the downlink and on the uplink”), 28 (“in wireless communication networks
based on FDD the desired self-optimizing repeater system can be applied in
the downlink DL and/or in the uplink UL channel separately”; “in TDD
based wireless communication networks the channel is separated in sub-
frames dedicated to downlink DL and to UL”); cf. Ans. 18—19 (reflecting the
Examiner’s interpretation of communication resources on Dean’s forward
link as the first subset of communication resources; “extending the first
subset (e.g., forward link) of communication resources (e.g., forward/re verse
link)”).
Further, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Dean and
Lappetelainen teaches the claimed adjustment unit configured to perform
one of extending/reducing or increasing/decreasing the first subset of
communication resources as a function of the monitored traffic flow in view
of Dean’s disclosures of a repeater configured to adjust the size and/or
number of time slots in the forward direction and/or the reverse direction of
a communication path according to a schedule, where the schedule indicates
the expected flow of data. See Final Act. 2—3 (citing Dean Fig. 6, ^fl[ 40, 42,
45); Ans. 12—13, 17—19 (citing Dean H 41, 42, 45); see also Dean Fig. 9
(depicting a repeater’s act of adjusting the schedule as a function of sensed
parameters), 163 (“Repeater 1000 includes a sensing component 1002 that
monitors a frequency, code channel, data path, etc. for communications, and
dynamically determines which direction the communications are traveling
[and] can dynamically amplify communications upon detection/analysis of a
received signal.”).
5
Appeal 2015-006410
Application 13/003,123
The Examiner additionally finds, and Appellants do not rebut, that it
was well known to monitor traffic load, citing Lappetelainen as teaching a
relay station that dynamically allocates resources as a function of traffic
load. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Lappetelainen Figs. 1—3, 7 (depicting
determining the actual amount of uplink and downlink data being
communicated and allocating transmission periods accordingly), || 7, 91);
Ans. 20 (citing Lappetelainen || 91, 96 (describing Fig. 7)).
Appellants argue the teachings of Lappetelainen and Dean are not
properly combinable because Dean teaches Time Division Duplexing
(“TDD”) systems that only repeat in either the uplink or downlink direction
at a given time while Lappetelainen teaches relaying in the downlink and
uplink directions at the same time. See App. Br. 8—9; see also Reply Br. 2—
4. The Examiner’s rejection, though, does not require incorporation of
Lappetelainen relay into the system of Dean; the Examiner cites
Lappetelainen as evidence that monitoring traffic loads was well known at
the time of Appellants’ invention. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference.”).
Accordingly, having considered the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16
in view of each of Appellants’ arguments and the evidence of record, we
agree with the Examiner and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings,
conclusions, and explanations consistent with the above. We sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 16, as well as the rejection of
claims 17, 20, 21, 23—28, 30, 31, 34, and 35, which Appellants do not
address separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
6
Appeal 2015-006410
Application 13/003,123
Claims 18 and 33
Addressing dependent claims 18 and 33, Appellants additionally
argue Dean does not teach or suggest “the monitoring unit is configured to
monitor traffic load by measuring the total input or output power of the
amplifier or by measuring the received or transmitted power per
communication resource in the first subset of communication resources,” as
required by claim 18 and similarly required by claim 33. App. Br. 10; see
also Reply Br. 5. Appellants argue the cited portions of Dean discuss
“power” in the sense of an amplifier being powered on or off, not measuring
input or output power or transmitted power per communication resource as
claimed. App. Br. 10 (citing Dean || 40, 42, 45). Having considered the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 18 and 33 in light of Appellants’ arguments
and the evidence of record, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner
erred. As explained by Appellants (App. Br. 10), Dean does not describe
measuring power as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 18 and 33.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18 and 33.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16, 17, 20, 21, 23—28,
30, 31, 34, and 35.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7