Ex Parte Siomina et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 20, 2016

13321211 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/321,211 11/18/2011 Iana Siomina 96750 7590 04/22/2016 Patents on Demand, P,A, 4581 Weston Road, Suite 345 Weston, FL 33331 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. P33903 US2 4231 EXAMINER TRAN, MONG-THUY THI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2646 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/22/2016 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): docketing 1@patentsondemand.com docketing3@patentsondemand.com docketing.ericsson@thomsonreuters.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte IANA SIOMINA and TORBJORN WIGREN Appeal2014-005680 Application 13/321,211 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-005680 Application 13/321,211 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 48-51 and 55-94 (App. Br. 2): 1 Claims 67-70, 73, and 89-92 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as anticipated by Issakov (US 2012/0020320 Al; published Jan. 26, 2012). Ans. 2-3; Final Act. 5-7. Claims 48-51, 55---66, 74--86, 93, and 94 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Issakov and Rao (US 2009/0245207 Al; published Oct. 1, 2009). Ans. 4--9; Final Act. 7-15. Claims 71, 72, 87, and 88 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rao and Issakov. Ans. 9-10; Final Act. 16-17. We have jurisdiction under 3 5 U.S. C. Â§ 6(b ). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We reverse. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION Appellants' invention performs positioning in cellular communication systems. See Spec. 4:29-30. Positioning methods determine the position of user equipment (UE). Id. at 1: 12-22. This position can be used for emergency-call positioning or other position-supported services. Id. Some 1 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed April 26, 2013 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed December 20, 2013 ("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed March 21, 2014 ("Ans."); and (4) the Reply Brief filed April 3, 2014 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appeal2014-005680 Application 13/321,211 position measurements use the uplink radio signal. Id. at 2:9-14. Appellants, however, have identified several problems with uplink positioning. Id. at 4: 1-25. For example, uplink positioning requires a carrier with a sufficiently high signal-to-noise ratio. See id. at 4: 17-18. But when multiple carriers are available, some carriers may have an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio, while others are too noisy. Id. at 20-23. Or some carriers may not support uplink positioning. Id. at 4: 1-15. To solve these problems, the invention determines a carrier's capabilities and decides which carrier to use for uplink positioning. Id. at 5:2-5. THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER ISSAKOV Claims 67-70 and 90--92 Claim 67, reproduced below with our emphasis, is illustrative of the appealed claims listed above. 67. A method, in a node of a radio network subsystem, for assisting in uplink positioning, comprising: receiving, from a positioning node, a triggering request for enabling a user equipment to utilize a carrier for uplink communication, said carrier being a carrier decided to be used by the positioning node and selected by the positioning node from a plurality of carriers for uplink positioning measurements; and providing an order for enabling said user equipment to utilize said carrier for uplink communication as a response to said triggering request. Contentions The Examiner finds that Issakov anticipates claim 67. Ans. 2-3. In particular, the Examiner finds that Issakov' s evolved Serving Mobile 3 Appeal2014-005680 Application 13/321,211 Location Center ( eSMLC) selects the best uplink setting configuration data (USCD). Id. at 2. According to the Examiner, this selection corresponds to the recited carrier selection. Id. Appellants state that the arguments against claim 48's rejection apply to claim 67. App. Br. 15. Regarding claim 48, Appellants argue that Issakov' s settings database lacks information about individual carriers. Id. at 12. According to Appellants, Issakov is a single carrier uplink system. Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue, then, that Issakov does not decide which carrier to use. Id. Issue Has the Examiner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Issakov discloses a carrier "selected ... from a plurality of carriers," as recited in claim 67? Analysis Claim 67 requires selecting from more than one carrier. See claim 67 (reciting "said carrier ... selected by the positioning node from a plurality of carriers for uplink positioning measurements") (emphasis added). The Examiner acknowledges that Issakov uses a single-carrier on the uplink. Ans. 12. The Examiner, however, has not shown how Issakov can use a single carrier, yet select one carrier from several, as recited. Reply Br. 2. Specifically, Issakov measures radio signals to determine a UE's geographic position. See generally Issakov i-fi-f l, 8, 13. To this end, Issakov uses an uplink network-based wireless location system. Id. i-f 13. For the uplink, Issakov' s selects Single Carrier Frequency-division multiple access 4 Appeal2014-005680 Application 13/321,211 (SC-FDMA). Id. i-f 55. Using uplink setting configuration data (USCD), Issakov tailors the uplink parameters to increase accuracy and decrease latency. See id. i-fi-113, 83. For example, these uplink parameters control the available signal collection time, bandwidth, and power. Id. ,-r 83. From a settings database, Issakov selects the best USCD for determining a UE' s position. Id. On this record, the Examiner's finding that Issakov selects from multiple carriers (Ans. 2) is unsupported. In the rejection, the only selection identified is ofissakov's USCD. Id. But this USCD is not a carrier. See Issakov i-f 83. At most, the Examiner has shown how the USCD affects a single carrier. See, e.g., Ans. 2 (citing Issakov i-f 83). For example, the USCD's available signal collection time, bandwidth, and power (id.) refer to a single carrier's uplink configuration (see id. i-f 55). The Examiner, however, does not explain how this causes or is itself a selection from multiple carriers as recited. See Ans. 2--'3. For similar reasons, the Examiner's rationale based on Issakov's bandwidth settings (see, e.g., id. at 12) also falls short. In particular, the Examiner states, "Issakov is discussing a Long Term Evolution (L TE) mobile system using single carrier frequency division multiple access (SC- FDMA) on the uplink, where the carrier is formed by subcarriers, and for enhanced bandwidth the eNB allocates more subcarriers to the carrier configuration." Id. That is, bandwidth is based on subcarrier allocation for a single carrier. See Issakov i-f 55. But apart from citing this teaching, the Examiner does not explain how this subcarrier allocation is the recited multi- carrier selection, or whether the subcarriers can be reasonably interpreted as the recited carriers. See Ans. 12. On this record, we are persuaded by 5 Appeal2014-005680 Application 13/321,211 Appellants' argument that Issakov does not select from multiple carriers as recited (see App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 2). Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 67. We also will not sustain the rejection of claim 90, which recites limitations similar to those at issue as a function of a "carrier selector," or the rejections of claims 68-70, 91, and 92, which depend from claims 67 and 90. Claims 73 and 89 Claim 73, reproduced below with our emphasis, is illustrative of the subject matter of claim 89, as well. 73. A method, in a location measurement unit, for assisting in uplink positioning, comprising: reporting, to a positioning node, which carriers that are supported or available for uplink positioning measurements; receiving uplink positioning measurement requests; performing said uplink positioning measurements; and transmitting uplink positioning measurement reports. Contentions The Examiner finds that Issakov anticipates claim 73. Ans. 3. In particular, the Examiner finds that Issakov' s Location Measurement Units (LMU) collects a UE' s signaling and passes the demodulated signal to the SMLC. Id. In the Examiner's view, Issakov demodulates the signal carrying the special-handling request. Id. at 17. And according to the Examiner, Issakov's demodulation shows that the LMU determines what modulation scheme was used and which carriers are available. Id. 6 Appeal2014-005680 Application 13/321,211 Appellants argue that Issakov lacks knowledge of supported or available carriers, as required by claim 73. App. Br. 18. According to Appellants, nothing in Issakov indicates that passing along the signal of interest entails reporting the recited information to the positioning node. Id. Rather, Appellants contend the fact that Issakov's signal is demodulated means that the signal has been extracted from the original waveform and, thus, does not have information about the original carrier. Id. Issue Has the Examiner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Issakov reports "to a positioning node, which carriers that are supported or available for uplink positioning measurements," as recited in claim 73? Analysis By reciting "which carriers,'' claim 73 expressly requires multiple carriers. And for the reasons discussed previously, we are persuaded by Appellants' argument that Issakov lacks multiple carriers for uplink positioning measurements (see id.; Reply Br. 2). Furthermore, we are unpersuaded by the Examiner's finding that Issakov' s demodulation is evidence that multiple carriers are available. Ans. 17. Here, the Examiner does not rely on any specific teaching of a report. See id. at 3. Instead, the Examiner's explanation amounts to a finding that the report is inherent to Issakov' s demodulation. See id. In concluding the recited feature is necessarily present, the Examiner assumes that the LMU determines from the signal which modulation scheme was used. See Ans. 17. But this overlooks the possibility that Issakov's 7 Appeal2014-005680 Application 13/321,211 LMU is initialized with the information to perform the demodulation. If so, there would be no need for reporting or determining this information. For at least this reason, the Examiner has not shown that Issakov' s demodulation inherently involves reporting which carriers are supported. So we agree that Issakov' s disclosure of passing along the signal of interest is not a sufficient basis to conclude that Issakov reports the recited information to the positioning node (App. Br. 18). Accordingly, the Examiner not established that claim 73 is anticipated by Issakov, and we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of that claim. We also will not sustain the rejections of claim 89, which similarly requires "reporting which carriers that are supported or available." THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ISSAKOV AND RAO Claim 48 recites, in part, "deciding which carrier to be used for uplink positioning measurements, based at least on said information about carrier capabilities" (emphasis added). That is, claim 48 requires deciding among several carriers to use, not a single carrier. In the rejection of claim 48 underÂ§ 103, the Examiner finds that Issakov decides which carrier to be used. Ans. 4 (citing Issakov i-fi-1 61-64, 83); see also Ans. 13-14 (interpreting Issakov as "evaluating the carriers"). However, for the reasons discussed previously, we are persuaded by Appellants' argument that Issakov does not select from multiple carriers for uplink positioning measurements (see App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 2). Furthermore, the Examiner does not rely on Rao to cure this deficiency. See Ans. 5. Instead, the Examiner cites Rao for the limited purpose of showing that multiple carriers can have different capabilities. 8 Appeal2014-005680 Application 13/321,211 See id.; see also id. at 14--15 (explaining that Rao' s system loading includes carriers with different capabilities). Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 48 or independent claims 74 and 93, which recite claim 48's deciding step as a function of a configured processor. We, likewise, do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims of claims 49-51, 55-66, 75-86, and 94, which depend from claims 48, 74, and 93. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER RAO AND ISSAKOV Claim 71 Claim 71 is reproduced below with our emphasis: 71. A method, in a radio base station, for assisting in uplink positioning, comprising: estimating a respective load of a radio interface on carriers configured for communication with user equipments [sic]; and reporting said respective loads to a positioning node for the positioning node to select one of the carriers for performing uplink positioning measurements. Contentions In the proposed combination of Rao and Issakov, the Examiner finds that Rao estimates a respective load of a radio interface on carriers. Ans. 9 (citing Rao i-f 31 ). According to the Examiner, Rao' s base station supports two carriers with different loading configurations. Ans. 9; see also id. at 19. Appellants argue that Rao' s loads are known to the base station, not estimated, because Rao configures the base station with load settings. 9 Appeal2014-005680 Application 13/321,211 App. Br. 20-21. Appellants present other arguments (See id. at 19-22), but we find this argument dispositive. Issue Has the Examiner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Rao estimates a respective load of a radio interface on carriers, as recited in claim 71? Analysis The Examiner does not cite Issakov for the limitation at issue. See Ans. 9-10, 19. Accordingly, we confine our discussion to Rao. The key disputed limitation of claim 1 recites "estimating." The Specification provides examples of load estimation algorithms in Appendix B. See Spec. 57---64. Although these algorithms inform our interpretation, the recited estimating is not limited to these examples. See Spec. 52. Furthermore, Appellants do not argue for, and we do not see, a definition in the Specification that would confine our interpretation of "estimating" to a particular algorithm. We, therefore, interpret "estimating" according to its plain and ordinary meaning consistent with the Specification and its context in the claim. One plain meaning of the term "estimate" is "to calculate approximately the extent or amount of." THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 466 (2d ed. 1982). So a broad, but reasonable, interpretation of the recited estimating is to calculate approximately the amount of load on each carrier. 10 Appeal2014-005680 Application 13/321,211 Given this interpretation, we are persuaded by Appellants' argument that Rao lacks any approximate calculations of the recited load. App. Br. 20-21. In particular, Rao discloses a multi-carrier communication system. Rao if 31. In the example cited by the Examiner (Ans. 9), Rao's base station supports two carriers: one carrier configured as a higher-loading carrier, and another configured as a lower-loading carrier. Rao if 31. The Examiner, however, has not shown that loads are estimated for either. See Ans. 9. For example, Rao's base stations are "configured" at different loads to provide different throughput or bitrates. Rao if 31. We agree that Rao' s use of the term "configured" implies initializing a device to operate in a particular way rather than adjusting during operation. See App. Br. 20-21. Furthermore, the Examiner presents no evidence that Rao estimates load before configuring. See Ans. 9. Rao;s mobile devices, however, do perform measurements made on the carriers. Rao if 28. But these measurements relate to path loss on the downlink, not load for uplink measurements as claimed. See id. if 33. On this record, the Examiner has not shown that Rao estimates the recited load. See Ans. 9. Accordingly, the Examiner has failed to establish that claim 71 would have been obvious in view of Rao and Issakov, so we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of that claim. We also will not sustain the rejection of claim 87, which recites a "load estimator" performing a function similar to the estimation in claim 71. We, likewise, do not sustain the remaining obviousness rejections of claims of claims 72 and 88, which depend from claims 71 and 87. 11 Appeal2014-005680 Application 13/321,211 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 48-51 and 55-94 is reversed. REVERSED 12