Ex Parte Tiirola et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2018

13984607 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018)

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