Ex Parte Sorrentino

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2019

14536835 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/536,835 11/10/2014
27820 7590 01/29/2019
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C.
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stefano Sorrentino
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.
3000-216 9624
EXAMINER
SHAHEED, KHALID W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2019 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):
patents@wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte STEFANO SORRENTINO
Appeal 2018-006461
Application 14/536,835
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, BETH Z. SHAW, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-006461
Application 14/536,835
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1--42. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a triggering of direct discovery signals.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of operation of a wireless device to enable
Device-to-Device, D2D, discovery, comprising:
receiving, from a controlling node of the wireless device
in a cellular communications network, the controlling node being
different from the wireless device, at least one trigger for starting
D2D discovery; and
transmitting multiple transmission instances of a
discovery signal of the wireless device for a D2D discovery event
in response to the at least one trigger using resources selected
from a group consisting of:
different time resources, different frequency resources,
different code resources, different time and frequency resources,
different time and code resources, different frequency and code
resources, and different time, frequency, and code resources.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-16, 18-36, and 38--42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hakola et al. (US 2013/0013926 Al, pub. Jan. 10,
2013) ("Hakola") in view of Park et al. (US 2009/0327395 Al, pub. Dec. 31,
2009) ("Park").
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (publ), the
real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
2
Appeal2018-006461
Application 14/536,835
Claims 17 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hakola, Park, and Li et al. (US 2009/0016249 Al, pub.
Jan. 15, 2009) ("Li").
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Appellant argues Park does not disclose or suggest that a wireless
device transmits multiple transmission instances of a discovery signal for a
D2D discovery event in response to a trigger. App. Br. 6. In particular,
Appellant argues that Park discloses that the discovery signal is repeated at a
defined periodicity, but this does not occur in response to a trigger. Id. at 7.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The Examiner has
provided a comprehensive response to Appellant's arguments in the Final
Rejection and Answer, which we agree with and adopt for the following
reasons.
The Examiner finds Park teaches "multiple transmission instances of a
discovery signal occur in response to a trigger" because the times (i.e., tO, tl,
t2) shown in Park's Figure 6 illustrate various trigger inputs for the time
resources, frequency resources, and code resources. Ans. 3. We agree with
the Examiner's findings and conclusions.
Park's Figure 6 is reproduced below.
3
Appeal2018-006461
Application 14/536,835
SECL:RE
ViA~H FUNC'iON
:;:MGDl)IM3 MGDU::..E
SECURE
rncODING M()DULE
:HN;>H F:JN:t::r:or~
:=}~CDDI NG ~~i OOUt E
B/! M2
f.fla ;~.J;=or~.~~·~sr'a'\l$t:o~
P•'.JflTl(.>N ilf7:J ltN'l"'fYff
+ t r,
,1\:1 ~ i·5 F'Cl
s,,, 15 P1
C:.:. ~ i·G P2
°'' 15 p:,
$·10
>'i B4?
f3~ :r.J:PO"ffo'-.:!o..N.;: •. r,..,:j.;:;:;::10~
PC:RTlrn~ rn-rs :JN:-:: TYPE
• ' t .~,-, 1S PG
!b 15 P1
• ..... ~.·· 15 P2
[l:c.·- ·1~ P}
]30
?t 1.i62
:358 :NfO T"Rr\Nsr ... ~l3 33DN
PORTION S :'f5 u~~ n·· TVPE
J ••
. ~, 11, P1)
S-: 16 Pl
G., 1$ p··J
____ D:, ____ , ___ 1t: ___ , ___ P3 ____ ,
FIGURE 6
Figure 6 of Park "illustrates a securing hash function encoding module
604 processing input discovery information which generates encoded
information." Park ,r 37. As illustrated in Park's Figure 6, a time value of
tO, tl, or t2 is input into the encoding module to determine the various
transmissions portions and "generates a set of output information." Ans. 6.
Thus, the Examiner concludes, and we agree, Park's time value teaches the
claimed "at least one trigger." Id. The Examiner further finds Park explains
4
Appeal2018-006461
Application 14/536,835
that the time value is used in part to generate output information from the
ordered transmission portions. Id. (citing Park ,r 38).
Appellant argues for the first time in the Reply Brief that the set of
output information is not the same as a transmission instance. Reply Br.
3--4. We are not persuaded by this argument because Park explains that
"[t]he output encoded information is mapped to portions, each portion being
communicated via a transmission unit." Park ,r 37 (emphasis added); Fig. 6.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant's argument in the Reply Brief
that "multiple triggers, as opposed to a single trigger, are used to
communicate the portions AN-2, BN-2, CN-2, and DN-2-" Reply Br. 4. Claim 1
does not recite a "single" trigger, but rather, recites "at least one trigger,"
and thus, this argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 1.
Appellant also argues that Figure 7 of Park does not teach that a
wireless device transmits multiple transmission instances of a discovery
signal for a D2D discovery event in response to a trigger. Reply Br. 4.
However, the Examiner only pointed to Figure 7 to teach additional
examples of triggers for various transmission of output information. Ans. 3.
As explained above, the Examiner has shown how Figure 6 and the
corresponding description in Park teach the disputed limitation.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Because Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments or has
reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2--42 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
5
Appeal2018-006461
Application 14/536,835
DECISION
We affirm Examiner's rejection of claims 1--42.
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) (2009).
AFFIRMED
6