Ex Parte Tiirola et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 30, 201813984607 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/984,607 08/30/2013 29683 7590 11/01/2018 Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC 4 RESEARCH DRIVE, Suite 202 SHELTON, CT 06484-6212 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Esa Tapani Tiirola 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. 863.0811.Ul(US) 9843 EXAMINER DEWAN, SANJAYK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2463 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/01/2018 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): USPTO@HSPATENT.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ESA TAP ANI TIIROLA, KARL JUHANI HOO LI, KARI PAJUKOSKI, and SABINE ROESSEL 1 Appeal 2018-003 629 Application 13/984,607 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN A. EV ANS, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 31--47. Claims 1-30 have been canceled. Final Act. 1. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Nokia Siemens Network Oy. Appeal Br. 2. 2 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed Aug. 9, 2013 (claiming benefit of PCT/EP201 l/052038, filed Feb. 11, 2011); Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed Sept. 5, 2017; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed Feb. 20, 2018. We also refer to the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed Apr. 26, 2017; and Answer ("Ans.") mailed Dec. 21, 2017. Appeal 2018-003 629 Application 13/984,607 Appellants 'Invention The invention at issue on appeal relates generally to "to wireless communication networks and, more particularly, to an apparatus and a method in communication networks" (Spec. 1 :5-7). The communication apparatus includes a processor and at a memory that further includes a computer program all configured to cause the apparatus to control transmission and reception of data on one or more carriers at an access node. The access node utilizing a frame configuration for Time Division Duplexing ("TDD") in frames comprising sub frames, where multiple carriers utilized in the network are synchronized with each other. The frame configuration further comprises flexible sub frames and a predetermined number of sub frames reserved for predetermined transmission directions between the access node and one or more second access nodes. The processor, memory, and computer program are also configured to allocate the flexible sub frames at the access node carrier specifically and individually for the access node either in downlink or uplink direction. Spec. 2:13-3:30; Abstract. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 31, reproduced below with key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 31. An apparatus comprising: at least one processor and at least one memory including a computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to: control in a network comprising an access node and one or more second access nodes transmission and reception of data on one or more carriers at the access node utilizing a frame 2 Appeal 2018-003 629 Application 13/984,607 configuration for Time Division Duplexing in frames comprising sub frames, where multiple carriers utilized in the network are synchronized with each other, wherein the frame configuration comprises flexible sub frames and a predetermined number of sub frames reserved for predetermined transmission directions at the access node and one or more second access nodes; and allocate the flexible sub frames at the access node carrier specifically and individually for the access node either in downlink or uplink direction. Rejection on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 31--47 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cai (WO 2010/138921 A2, published Dec. 2, 2010) ("Cai '921 ") and Cai et al. (WO 2009/062115 A2, published May 14, 2009) ("Cai '115"). ISSUE Based upon our review of the record, Appellants' contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Cai '921 and Cai '115 would have taught or suggested a processor, a memory, and a computer program configured to "control ... transmission and reception of data on one or more carriers at the access node utilizing a frame configuration for Time Division Duplexing in frames comprising sub frames" where "multiple carriers utilized in the network [that] are synchronized with each other," "wherein the frame configuration comprises flexible sub frames and a predetermined number of sub frames reserved for predetermined transmission directions at the access node," and the processor, memory, and computer program are also configured to "allocat[ e] the flexible sub frames at the access node carrier specifically and individually for the access node 3 Appeal 2018-003 629 Application 13/984,607 either in downlink or uplink direction" within the meaning of Appellants' claim 31 and the commensurate limitations of claims 44 and 45? ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects independent claim 31 as being obvious in view of Cai '921 and Cai '115. See Final Act. 6-10; Ans. 2-9. Appellants contend that Cai '921 and Cai '115 do not teach the disputed limitations of claim 31. See Appeal Br. 6-15; Reply Br. 2-11. Specifically, Appellants contend, inter alia, that the final Office Action considered the terms "synchronized" and "flexible sub frames" in isolation, and completely ignored any coordination between an access node and one or more second access nodes of a network expressed by the claim elements "where multiple carriers utilized in the network are synchronized with each other, wherein the frame configuration comprises flexible sub frames and a predetermined number of sub frames reserved for certain transmission directions at the access node and one or more second access nodes; and allocate the flexible sub frames at the access node carrier specifically and individually by the access node either in downlink or uplink direction." Reply Br. 9; see Appeal Br. 10-15; Reply Br. 7-8, 10. Further, Appellants contend the Examiner cites Cai '115 as teaching synchronization and control of flexible sub frames in a TTD frame, but Cai '115 fails to describe these features of Appellants' claim 31. See Appeal Br. 10-15; Reply Br. 2-8. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner-cited portions of Cai '115 (generally Cai '115 ,r,r 8-21, 45-51, 56-61, 123-see Final Act. 3-5, 7-8; Ans. 2-9) do not describe the disputed limitations of coordinating and controlling transmission and reception at an access point utilizing flexible sub frames and sub frames reserved for predetermined transmission directions (i.e., uplink or downlink). See Reply Br. 2-8. We also agree with 4 Appeal 2018-003 629 Application 13/984,607 Appellants (see Reply Br. 7-10) that the Examiner does not sufficiently explain how the cited prior art may be combined to teach or suggest the recited features of claim 31. The Examiner points to disparate portions of Cai '115 (supra), but does not explain in sufficient detail how the disparate pieces fit together or how they may be combined with Cai '921 to teach the disputed claim limitations. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us and find that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Cai '921 and Cai '115 renders unpatentable Appellants' claim 31. Independent claims 44 and 45 have limitations of commensurate scope. Dependent claims 32--43, 46, and 4 7 depend on and stand with claim 31. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 31--47. CONCLUSION Appellants have persuasively shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 31--47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 31--47. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation