Intel IP Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 2, 2021

2020002692 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2021)

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. 15/496,531 04/25/2017 Mathias Kurth APP484US 4998 167761 7590 12/02/2021 Eschweiler/Apple Inc. c/o Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC Rosetta Center 629 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1000 Cleveland, OH 44114 EXAMINER LINDENBAUM, ALAN LOUIS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2466 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/02/2021 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@epiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MATHIAS KURTH and SIEGFRIED BAER ____________ Appeal 2020-002692 Application 15/496,531 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11 and 13–25, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Intel IP Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claim 12 has been cancelled. Appeal 2020-002692 Application 15/496,531 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention relates to “gain adjustment in mobility measurements of a user equipment (UE),” in particular “opportunistic gain acquisition for saving energy in mobility measurements of cellular and mobile communications such as Long Term Evolution (LTE).” Spec. ¶ 2. For mobile devices, battery life is a key factor influencing the purchasing decision for users and user satisfaction. Id. ¶ 3. Battery life may be determined by factors including idle mode mobility measurements. Id. Applicant’s invention provides a technique for reducing energy consumption in user equipment by reducing energy consumption during periods when the user equipment is not mobile, based on the opportunistic assumption that there have not been significant changes between measurement cycles. Id. ¶¶ 4–5, 35. Claims 1, 18, and 22 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added): 1. A method for gain adjustment in mobility measurements of a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: selecting a signal stream of a plurality of signal streams received from a plurality of radio cells for mobility measurements; performing a mobility measurement on the selected signal stream based on a given gain; determining a gain update of the selected signal stream based on a received signal strength measurement of the selected signal stream; and if the gain update is outside a predetermined gain range, initiating a recovery of the mobility measurement based on the gain update. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-002692 Application 15/496,531 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1–5, 7, 9, 11, and 14–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Dural.3 Final Act. 2–5. The Examiner rejects claims 6, 8, 10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dural and Bhattacharjee.4 Final Act. 6–8. OPINION Appellant argues that Dural does not anticipate independent claims 1, 18, and 22 because Dural fails to teach initiating a recovery of the mobility measurement “if the gain update is outside a predetermined gain range” as claimed. Appeal Br. 4–6; Reply Br. 2–5. Dural teaches selecting an updated low noise amplifier (LNA) gain state G[new] as a function of gain states G[0], . . . , G[9] previously determined for each capture tick 2204 of a measurement period 2202. Dural ¶¶ 125–126, Fig. 22. Dural further teaches: In general, G[new] is selected so as to minimize the possibility of signal saturation or losing the received signal in the noise floor. For example, if the minimum gain is selected and the weakest signal during the 5 ms [measurement period] is not lost in the noise floor, then the minimum gain should be used as G[new]. If the maximum gain is selected and the signal is not saturated at any point between the 5 ms, then the maximum gain should be used as G[new]. Given gains G[0], . . . , G[9], G[new] may be set to G_average, which is a gain close to the mid-point between highest and lowest gain in set G[0]. . . G[9]. In some cases G_average would result in no saturation or losing signal in the noise floor. 3 Dural et al., US 2015/0358928 A1 (pub. Dec. 10, 2015). 4 Bhattacharjee et al., US 2010/0331019 A1 (pub. Dec. 30, 2010). Appeal 2020-002692 Application 15/496,531 4 Id. ¶ 126. Dural then teaches that the LNA gain state is set to the selected G[new] and samples are acquired for each capture tick 2208 in a measurement period 2206. Id. ¶ 127. The captured samples are processed by performing a digital gain compensation. Id. According to Dural, “there may not be a valid LNA gain state where no saturation/lost signal in the noise floor is possible,” in which case the signal may be recaptured with a new LNA gain state G[new_2]. Id. ¶¶ 128–130. The Examiner finds that Dural’s teaching of recapturing the signal when there is no valid LNA gain state with no saturation or lost signal in the noise floor satisfies the claim limitation of initiating a recovery of the mobility measurement “if the gain update is outside a predetermined gain range.” Final Act. 3, 8 (citing Dural ¶¶ 125–128); Ans. 4, 10. According to the Examiner, Dural’s recapture occurs “if the signal is outside the range between the noise floor and the saturation point” (Final Act. 8) and “[a] maximum allowable signal would correspond with a gain that produced that signal; and a minimum allowable signal would correspond with a gain that produced that signal” (Ans. 10). The Examiner further finds that Dural teaches that “a minimum gain is calculated where the weakest signal is not below the noise floor and a maximum gain is calculated where the signal is not above a saturation point” and that “[t]hese two calculated minimum and maximum gains constitute a gain range.” Ans. 10 (citing Dural ¶ 126); see id. at 4. We agree with Appellant that Dural recaptures the signal not “if the gain update is outside a predetermined gain range” as claimed, but rather “if G[new], the updated gain, cannot ensure that each sample (i.e., measurement signal) is neither experiencing saturation nor being lost in the noise floor.” Appeal 2020-002692 Application 15/496,531 5 Appeal Br. 5 (citing Dural ¶ 127) (emphasis omitted). As Appellant argues, the evaluation in Dural is not whether an updated gain state is outside a predetermined gain range, but rather is whether a signal produced with the updated gain state is within an allowable signal range during a 5ms sample measurement period. Id. ¶¶ 127–128. Although the Examiner found that the signal range between the noise floor and the saturation point would have a corresponding gain range (Ans. 10), Dural’s disclosure of determining whether saturation has occurred or whether signal has been lost in a noise floor is based on performance during a measurement period and thus does not disclose evaluation of a gain update to determine if gain state is outside a “predetermined gain range” as claimed (emphasis added). See Dural ¶¶ 127–130. The Examiner finds that Dural’s minimum and maximum gains “constitute a gain range.” Ans. 10; see id. at 4. However, Dural describes selecting a minimum gain, a maximum gain, or G_average as alternative examples of selecting G[new] and does not disclose recapture of the signal based on a calculated G[new] being less than a minimum gain or more than a maximum gain. Dural ¶ 126. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1, 18, and 22 and claims 2–11, 13–17, 19–21, and 23–25 dependent from them. Appeal 2020-002692 Application 15/496,531 6 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11–5, 7, 9, 11, and 14–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 8, 10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: REVERSED Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 7, 9, 11, 14–25 102 Dural 1–5, 7, 9, 11, 14–25 6, 8, 10, 13 103 Dural, Bhattacharjee 6, 8, 10, 13 Overall Outcome 1–11, 13–25