Ex Parte Mildh et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 4, 201713993557 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/993,557 06/12/2013 Gunnar Mildh 1009-0576 / P32760 US1 5301 7590 12/06/2017 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson 1255 Crescent Green Suite 200 Cary, NC 27518 EXAMINER SKRIPNIKOV, ALEX ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2416 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/06/2017 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): official@mbhiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GUNNAR MILDH, GABOR FODOR, TOMAS HEDBERG, and JARI VIKBERG Appeal 2016-008501 Application 13/993,557 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-008501 Application 13/993,557 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 13—26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to methods and user equipment for providing information about a connection state. Claim 13, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 13. A method in a first user equipment for providing information about at least one of a first and a second connection state, the first connection state being related to a first connection between the first user equipment and a radio network node, the second connection state being related to a second connection between the first user equipment and a second user equipment, wherein a radio communication system based on Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) comprises the radio network node and the first and second user equipments, wherein the method comprises: encoding information about at least one of the first and second connection states into a synchronization signal for synchronizing the second user equipment to the first user equipment; and sending the synchronization signal to at least the second user equipment, thereby providing information about at least one of the first and second connection states. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Luo et al. Jung et al. Hooli et al US 2008/0273522 Al US 2011/0098052 Al US 2011/0117907 Al Nov. 6, 2008 Apr. 28,2011 May 19, 2011 2 Appeal 2016-008501 Application 13/993,557 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 13—15, 19—22, and 26 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Hooli. Claims 16, 17, 23, and 24 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hooli in view of Jung. Claims 18 and 25 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hooli in view of Luo. ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 102 Independent claims 13 and 19 With respect to independent claims 13 and 19, these two independent claims are directed to “encoding,” and Appellants argue the claims together. (App. Br. 8). As a result we select independent claim 13 as the representative claim for the group and address Appellants’ arguments thereto. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants argue: Claims 13 and 19 are directed to techniques in a first user equipment for providing information about a first and/or second connection state to a second user equipment. The first connection state relates to a connection between the first user equipment and a radio network node (e.g., base station), and the second connection state relates to a connection between the first user equipment (e.g., a potential relay terminal) and the second user equipment. 3 Appeal 2016-008501 Application 13/993,557 (App. Br. 8—9). Appellants further contend “Hooli does not disclose or suggest techniques for encoding information about a first and/or second connection state into a synchronization signal, and sending such a synchronization signal to a second user equipment, as described by the above steps of claim 13.” (App. Br. 9). We disagree with Appellants and find the two different RNTI signals would represent different connection states. Appellants further contend paragraph 54 “does not provide any additional information regarding the contents of Hooli’s beacon signal. More particularly, Hooli’s paragraph [0054] does not disclose that its beacon signal includes any encoded information about a first and/or second connection state, as described in claim 13.” (App. Br. 10) (underlining deleted). Additionally, Appellants argue: Note that Hooli’s paragraph [0056] merely describes the use of an RNTI (“RRC idle” or “RRC connected”) for purposes of terminals identifying each other; there is no suggestion that this identifier would or could also be used to transmit information about the connection state between the relay terminal and a base station. (App. Br. 11) (emphasis deleted). Appellants further contend: Hooli merely discloses that an “RRC idle RNTI” may be used to identify a terminal when the terminal is idle relative to the base station, and that an “RRC connected RNTI” may be used when the terminal is connected to the base station. However, Hooli does not provide any indication of how or whether the contents of its “RRC idle RNTI” and “RRC connected RNTI” differ from one another. (App. Br. 11) (emphasis deleted). 4 Appeal 2016-008501 Application 13/993,557 Hooli’s mere use of the terms “RRC idle RNTI” and “RRC connected RNTI” does not disclose that these identifiers contain different information. In order to disclose the claim 13 aspect of “encoding information about . . . connection states,” these identifiers would need to include, either explicitly or implicitly, information about a connection state. Neither Hooli nor the other art on the record discloses or suggests that such information is conveyed in RNTIs. (App. Br. 12). Appellants dispute whether the RNTIs contain information regarding the state and Appellants present additional extrinsic evidence which identify the standard used in the Hooli reference as the 3 GPP specifications for long-term evolution (LTE) and further contend: Given the context of Hooli’s disclosure['] and the fact that Hooli does not describe the contents of its RNTIs, one skilled in the art would look to the 3 GPP specifications for long-term evolution (LTE) to provide further detail regarding RNTIs. Within LTE and its associated specifications, RNTI is understood to be encoded as a 16-bit value. The RNTI value does not include any indication of the RNTI type for those RNTIs that are assigned to individual UEs.[2] See Table 7.1-1 from 3GPP 36.321, which is replicated below, for details. (App. Br. 12—13) (footnotes deleted). Appellants further contend that The 3GPP specifications do not explicitly describe an “RRC idle RNTI” and “RRC connected RNTI,” as disclosed in Hooli, but individually-assigned RNTIs (e.g., Cell RNTI (CRNTI), Temporary C-RNTI) are assigned from the range 0x000l-0xFFF3. A reasonable assumption is that Hooli’s “RRC idle RNTI” and “RRC connected RNTI” might be assigned from this range. As with the other types of individually-assigned RNTIs, however, the RNTI value itself does not indicate its type. 5 Appeal 2016-008501 Application 13/993,557 (App. Br. 13) (emphasis added). We note Appellants argue there is error in the Examiner’s finding of anticipation, but we find Appellants’ additional evidence regarding 3GPP specifications to be speculative and unavailing. We find Appellants’ argument to be based upon an assumption that there is some additional content included into a synchronization signal which may then be decoded along with the synchronization signal at the other end after transmission. Yet, the language of independent claim 13 does not require any specific information or plural items of contents to be encoded and transmitted in addition to the claimed information. (See generally Ans. 3— 5). Consequently, we find the signal itself corresponds to a “connection state” which would be encoded with information and convey the at least one of the first and second connection states without any additional content encoded into the signal. As a result, we find two separate signals for two different states (“RRC idle RNTI” and “RRC connected RNTI”) meets the language of independent claim 13 regarding the claimed “encoding information about at least one of. . . .” We find Appellants’ arguments go beyond the express language of independent claim 13 which merely requires “encoding information about at least one of the first and second connection states into a synchronization signal for synchronizing the second user equipment to the first user equipment.” Consequently, we disagree with Appellants. We determine independent claim 13 does not specifically require any additional signal content in addition to whatever signal content was previously present in a specific signal, but merely encodes a signal which includes information about a first and second connection state in a synchronization signal. 6 Appeal 2016-008501 Application 13/993,557 For example, the language of independent claim 13 does not require any features of a synchronization signal, nor does claim 13 require the synchronization be performed, the language of claim 13 only requires that information content is encoded. As a result, we agree with the Examiner the Li reference discloses encoding information about at least one of the first and second connection states, and Appellants’ arguments do not show error in the Examiner’s factual finding or the Examiner’s finding of anticipation of representative independent claim 13. Independent claims 20 and 26 With respect to independent claims 20 and 26, directed to “decoding,” Appellants argue the claims together. (App. Br. 14—16). We select independent claim 20 as the representative claim for the group and address Appellants’ arguments thereto. Appellants rely upon similar arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 13, but regarding decoding a synchronization signal to “thereby obtaining information about said at least one of the first and second connection states.” (App. Br. 15). We note that the language of independent claim 20 does not require the decoded information to be separate and distinct and provides information which may be information conveyed merely by the content of one of two different signals. We further note that the language of independent claim 20 does not use this decoded information regarding the at least one of the first and second connection states nor is the synchronization signal used to perform any function. Consequently, merely the content of information is the proffered distinction. We find Appellants’ argument unavailing and does not show error in the Examiner’s factual findings or finding of anticipation 7 Appeal 2016-008501 Application 13/993,557 of representative independent claim 20 and independent claim 26 not separately argued. Claims 15 and 22 With respect to dependent claims 15 and 22, Appellants merely repeat the language of the claims and rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to representative independent claim 13. We do not find Appellants’ argument to be a separate argument for patentability. Merely reciting the language of the claim is insufficient. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”). Merely alleging that the references fail to support an anticipation rejection is insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error. Attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip op. at 7—8 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative), available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/its/fd09004693.pdf. Here, we find Appellants’ arguments are conclusory in nature and fail to address the thrust of the Examiner’s anticipation rejections. “Argument in the brief does not take the place of evidence in the record.” In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965) (citing In re Cole, 326 F.2d 769, 773 (CCPA 1964)). This reasoning is applicable here. On this record, we find Appellants have failed to present substantive arguments and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error. Cf. In re 8 Appeal 2016-008501 Application 13/993,557 Baxter TravenolLabs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”). Because we did not find error in the Examiner’s finding of anticipation of independent claim 13, Appellants’ similar reliance thereon does not show error in the Examiner’s finding of anticipation of dependent claims 15 and 22. 35U.S.C.§ 103 Claims 16, 17, 23, and 24 Appellants set forth similar arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 13 throughout the arguments. (App. Br. 17—29). Again, we find those similar arguments unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness. Appellants contend: Hooli does not disclose or suggest that its RNTI includes any parameter that identifies a given RNTI as being either an “RRC idle RNTI” or an “RRC connected RNTI.” Additionally, there is no other suggestion in Hooli that its beacon signal includes information regarding the connection state of Hooli’s relay terminal. (App. Br. 18). Appellants further contend “there would be no apparent reason, at least in the art of record, to then send the connection state information in a master or system information block, as disclosed in Jung.” (App. Br. 19) (emphasis deleted). The Examiner maintains: [t]he motivation for doing so is that master information blocks contain essential system information needed for a user 9 Appeal 2016-008501 Application 13/993,557 equipment to gain access to a base station (or a hosting user equipment). (Jung; [0019] and [0020]).[”] Furthermore, [the] rejection does not propose to perform repetitive and redundant sending of information. It is clear that the beacon can be transmitted within master block. (Ans. 7) (emphasis deleted). We find the Examiner’s position to be reasonable and find Appellants have not further responded to the rejection of claims 16 and 17 in the Reply Brief. Consequently, Appellants’ argument does not show error in the Examiner’s factual finding or conclusion of obviousness regarding claims 16 and 17. With respect to dependent claims 23 and 24, Appellants contend the claims are drawn to techniques, at a second user equipment, that complement those of claims 16 and 17, and describe the decoding of the synchronization signal and reception of the master/system information blocks and Appellants rely upon the reasons provided for claims 16 and 17. (App. Br. 19-20). We find Appellants’ arguments to be unavailing and do not show error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of claims 23 and 24. Claims 18 and 25 Appellants have not set forth separate arguments for patentability of claims 18 and 25. Asa result, these claims will fall with their representative parent independent claims. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 13—15, 19—22, and 26 based upon anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 16—18 and 23—25 based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 10 Appeal 2016-008501 Application 13/993,557 DECISION For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13—15, 19-22, and 26 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16—18 and 23—25 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 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 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation