Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 18, 2021

2020001454 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 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. 15/532,209 06/01/2017 Michal Cierny 059864.02747 2768 11051 7590 05/18/2021 SQUIRE PB (Nokia) Nokia Technologies Oy ATTN: IP Department 2550 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 EXAMINER ZUNIGA ABAD, JACKIE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2469 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/18/2021 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): IP-Squire@SquirePB.com sonia.whitney@squirepb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MICHAL CIERNY and TIMO ERKKI LUNTTILA ____________ Appeal 2020-001454 Application 15/532,209 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, JAMES P. CALVE, and CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2020-001454 Application 15/532,209 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Michal Cierny and Timo Erkki Lunttila (Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 45-64, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Appellant invented improved hidden node detection for Long Term Evolution LTE Licensed-Assisted Access LAA. Specification 1:Field of the Invention. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 45, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 45. A method, performed by a user equipment, for detecting a hidden node in licensed assisted access, comprising: [1] determining resources for hidden node detection measurement; [2] determining, for a subframe in which resources for hidden node detection measurement are located, whether a first serving network element occupies a respective operating channel or not; [3] in case it is determined that the first serving network element is occupying the operating channel: 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed July 26, 2019) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed December 16, 2019), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 18, 2019), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed February 5, 2019). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2020-001454 Application 15/532,209 3 [3.1] performing hidden node detection measurement in the determined resources; and [3.2] transmitting the hidden node detection measurement results to a second serving network element. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Name Reference Date Chen US 2015/0172950 A1 June 18, 2015 Claims 45-64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Chen. ISSUES The issues of novelty turn primarily on whether Chen describes hidden node detection measurement as defined in the Specification. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Facts Related to Claim Construction 01. The hidden node problem deals with a configuration of three nodes, like A, B, and C, whereby B is within the transmission range of A and C, while C is outside the range of A. In a situation like this, C will not be able to detect the ongoing transmission of Appeal 2020-001454 Application 15/532,209 4 A to B by carrier sensing and, consequently, it can inadvertently interfere with B’s reception of A’s packet.3 Also see Spec. 8-9. Facts Related to Appellant’s Disclosure 02. This Specification is in the context of Long Term Evolution (LTE™) wireless communication technology, which uses the Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN) as radio communication architecture according to the 3GPP specification. Spec. 1:Background. 03. The Specification focuses on LTE operation on unlicensed spectrum LTE-U, which is also referred to as Licensed-Assisted Access LAA. Emphasis is put on the detection of hidden network nodes, such as typically WiFi Access Points APs, in a scenario where LTE LAA and WiFi nodes are deployed in the same unlicensed carrier. Spec. 1:Background. 04. In some regions in the world, unlicensed technologies need to abide to certain regulations, e.g. Listen-Before-Talk LBT in order to provide fair coexistence between LTE and other technologies, such as WLAN, and in future possibly also between LTE operators. Spec. 1:Background. 05. LBT is determined based on energy detection, i.e. interference measurement. Spec. 9; also Published Application para. 50. 06. The [interference] measurement should only capture interference coming from hidden nodes, i.e. the nodes not visible to the serving 3 Ashikur Rahman, Hidden Problems with the Hidden Node Problem, 23rd Biennial Symposium on Communications, IEEE, 2006, https://ieeexplore. ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=1644620 Appeal 2020-001454 Application 15/532,209 5 eNodeB. Considering the example in Fig. 1, the measurement for hidden node detection should only capture interference from WLAN node 2, but not WLAN node 1 or eNB2 as LBT procedure (or in the case of LTE eNB2, coordination & alignment of transmissions) should ensure reasonable coexistence. Spec. 9-10; also Published Application para. 51. Facts Related to the Prior Art Chen 07. Chen is directed to wireless communication systems, and more particularly, to channel state information (CSI) feedback processes for long term evolution (LTE) and LTE-Advanced (LTE-A) communication system including unlicensed spectrum. Chen para. 3. 08. Chen describes identifying, by a user equipment (UE), at least one carrier utilizing a contention based radio frequency spectrum, detecting a transmission signal indicative of clear channel assessment (CCA) result information for the at least one carrier, determining whether a reference signal for channel state information measurement is present in a subframe based on the detected transmission signal, and transmitting, by the UE, a measurement report, wherein the measurement report is based at least in part on the determining the reference signal is present. Chen para. 9. 09. Chen describes detecting, by a UE, transmission signals indicative of CCA result information for a plurality of neighboring base stations, means for determining, by the UE, CCA result Appeal 2020-001454 Application 15/532,209 6 information estimate for the plurality of neighboring base stations based on the transmission signals indicative of CCA result information, and means for transmitting, by the UE, a measurement report to a serving base station, wherein the measurement report includes the CCA result information estimate. Chen para. 16. 10. Chen describes WiFi as having been the primary mechanism to use unlicensed spectrum to relieve ever increasing levels of congestion in cellular networks. However, a new carrier type (NCT) based on LTE/LTE-A including an unlicensed spectrum is compatible with carrier-grade WiFi, making LTE/LTE-A with unlicensed spectrum an alternative to WiFi. Chen para. 34. 11. Chen describes interference measurement in LTE may be used for demodulation and/or CSI feedback. In LTE systems without shared unlicensed spectrum, interference measurement may be performed either based on a common reference signal (CRS) or based on an interference measurement resource ("IMR" or "CSI- IM"). Chen para. 91. 12. Chen describes various interference conditions experienced by nodes within an LTE/LTE-A system with contention-based shared resources. In a frame in which the CCA check did clear, the downlink interference seen by a UE in the frame may originate from hidden nodes of other operators, hidden nodes from WiFi, and different cells of the same operator. In a frame in which the CCA check can be cleared, but the eNB chooses not to transmit in the frame (e.g., due to empty buffer, or interference management), Appeal 2020-001454 Application 15/532,209 7 if the eNB performs a CCA check and transmits CUBS, the downlink interference seen by a UE in the frame may originate from hidden nodes of other operators, hidden nodes from WiFi, and different cells of the same operator. If the eNB chooses to not perform a CCA check or performs a successful CCA check but does not transmit CUBS, the downlink interference seen by a UE in the frame may originate from other operators, hidden nodes from WiFi, and different cells of the same operator. Chen para. 92. 13. Chen describes the importance to capture hidden node interference in the CSI report. If all neighboring nodes of the same operator have some common “blank” subframes, this would help pinpoint the hidden node interference especially due to WiFi. For example, base station 905 may be a WiFi node that is hidden from general detection in the network including base stations 900, 903, and 904, and UE 901. A configuration in which all neighboring nodes refrain from transmission in the special subframes or some designated regular subframes of frames F0-FN would allow UE 901 to measure interference that would capture hidden node interference from hidden WiFi base station 905. Chen para. 111. ANALYSIS We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Chen relies on being able to detect interference rather than a detection measurement. This is significant because, while Chen may provide a method of detecting a hidden node, Chen does not disclose a hidden node detection measurement (e.g., strength of Appeal 2020-001454 Application 15/532,209 8 one signal). Rather, Chen discloses detecting interference (e.g., collision of at least two signals) of a reference signal with a hidden node that may indicate a hidden node. The difference being one of qualitative and quantitative. The claimed invention measures the strength of a signal in a “detection measurement.” Conversely, Chen describes a binary detection: yes there is interference or no there is not interference. In particular, paragraph [0051] of the specification explicitly defines that “the [hidden node detection] measurement should only capture interference coming from hidden nodes, i.e. the nodes not visible to the serving eNodeB.” Furthermore, paragraphs [0057] and [0058] of the specification explain that step 2, determining whether the serving eNodeB/cell has occupied the channel or not, is necessary to ensure that interference from non-hidden nodes is not measured. In other words, a detection measurement measures the hidden node, as recited in the claims. While a detection of the interference between a reference signal and hidden node, as in Chen, may indicate a hidden node, it is an indication of two signals combined. Appeal Br. 9-10 (alteration in original)(paragraph references are to the Published Application). The claim limitation at issue is “performing hidden node detection measurement.” Claim 45, limitation 3.1. Claim 45 does not narrow or further specify the manner or implementation of such detection measurement. The Specification does not lexicographically define such detection measurement. The plain meaning of hidden node detection measurement is measurement for detecting hidden nodes. Appellant admits Chen describes detecting hidden nodes; Appellant only contends Chen’s implementation is not that described in the Specification. Appellant’s argument is therefore not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Appeal 2020-001454 Application 15/532,209 9 Appellant attempts to narrow measurement as recited with measurement of the strength of one signal in this argument. No such equivalence is recited in the claim or described in the Specification. Nothing in the record suggests this is inherent. Appellant is incorrect in pointing to the Specification for a definition. Paragraph 51 only suggests what should occur, which describes preference rather than definition. Even so, this paragraph says that hidden node detection measurement should only capture interference coming from hidden nodes, i.e., the nodes not visible to the serving node. Chen paragraph 111 describes a configuration in which all neighboring nodes refrain from transmission in the special subframes or some designated regular subframes of frames F0- FN, which would allow a UE to measure interference that would capture hidden node interference from a hidden WiFi base station. In other words, hidden node detection measurement would only capture interference coming from hidden nodes. This is consistent with the Specification. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “Claim 45 recites that the claim is performed by a user equipment. However, the Office Action has compared the claimed determining resources for hidden node detection measurement to elements of Chen that are performed by a base station.” Appeal Br. 10. The limitations at issue are “performing hidden node detection measurement in the determined resources,” Claim 45, limitation 3.1, and “performed by a user equipment,” Claim 45, preamble. Appellant contends Chen performs such measurement at a base station, and not at user equipment. Again, the claim does not narrow or specify the manner or implementation, or even the degree of indirection that may or may not be employed. The very nature of the hidden node problem requires that the Appeal 2020-001454 Application 15/532,209 10 user equipment, which is the only piece of equipment that has the capacity to detect the hidden node, must perform some detection to accomplish such detection, and such detection when specified with measurement parameters, becomes a measurement. To the extent this may be refined by a base station, this would not detract from Chen being within the scope of the limitations at issue. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 45-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Chen is improper. CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 45-64 is affirmed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 45-64 102(a)(2) Chen 45-64 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED