NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 29, 2021

2020005647 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 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. 15/643,085 07/06/2017 Juha S. KORHONEN 059864.02561 5244 11051 7590 12/29/2021 SQUIRE PB (Nokia) Nokia Technologies Oy ATTN: IP Department 2550 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 EXAMINER GHAFOERKHAN, FAIYAZKHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2476 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2021 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 JUHA S. KORHONEN and CASSIO RIBEIRO Appeal 2020-005647 Application 15/643,085 Technology Center 2400 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–16 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by Appellant, and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1 See Final Act. 1–2; Appeal Br. 2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nokia Technologies Oy. See Appeal Br. 3. 2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed July 6, 2017 (claiming benefit of US 61/754,269, filed Jan. 18, 2013 (see Spec. ¶ 1)); Appeal 2020-005647 Application 15/643,085 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, “generally relate[s] to wireless communication systems, such as” Long Term Evolution (LTE) wireless communication systems. See Spec. ¶ 2. More specifically, Appellant’s claims are directed to wireless communication system apparatuses and methods, including an apparatus that comprises a processor and memory that execute computer program code to determine a synchronization source. The synchronization source is determined based on synchronization group identification information (information that identifies a synchronization group to which the synchronization source belongs). The synchronization source determination further includes selecting a synchronization source of a preferred synchronization group (i.e., a stratum of the synchronization source of the preferred synchronization group is higher than a stratum of a synchronization source of a less preferred synchronization group). See Spec. ¶¶ 6–20; Abstract. Claim 1 (directed to an apparatus), claim 6 (directed to an apparatus), claim 8 (directed to a method), and claim 13 (directed to a method) are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Apr. 20, 2020; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed July 28, 2020. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Oct. 18, 2019; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed June 11, 2020. Appeal 2020-005647 Application 15/643,085 3 wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to determine which one of a plurality of possible synchronisation sources to use as a synchronisation source, based at least partly on information about an identity of a synchronisation group to which the possible synchronisation sources belong, wherein the determining comprises selecting a possible synchronisation source of a more preferred synchronisation group over a possible synchronisation source of a less preferred synchronisation group, wherein a stratum of the possible synchronisation source of the more preferred synchronisation group is higher than a stratum of the possible synchronisation source of the less preferred synchronisation group. Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Usami US 2010/0054216 A1 Mar. 4, 2010 Lu et al. (“Lu”) US 2012/0135781 A1 May 31, 2012 Srinivasan et al. (“Srinivasan”) US 2013/0122822 A1 May 16, 2013 REJECTIONS3 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 6–10, and 13–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Usami and Lu. See Final Act. 3–11. 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application has an effective filing date prior to the AIA’s effective (March 16, 2013), this decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2020-005647 Application 15/643,085 4 2. The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Usami, Lu, and Srinivasan. See Final Act. 11–12. ANALYSIS Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–3, 6–10, and 13–16 The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as independent claims 6, 8, and 13, and dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 14–16) as being obvious over Usami and Lu. See Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 3–4. The Examiner relies on Usami for teaching most of the features of Appellant’s claim 1, including determining a synchronization source (a base station) based the identity of the synchronization group to which the source belongs, in that Usami describes synchronization by determining a base station group with the highest priority (based on a number of base stations). See Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 3–4 (citing Usami ¶¶ 40–50, 52–54; Fig. 2). The Examiner relies on Lu for describing “sorting base stations in a group” according to priority. Final Act. 4 (emphasis omitted) (citing Lu ¶¶ 55–57); see Ans. 3–4. Appellant contends that Usami and Lu do not teach the disputed limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6–11; Reply Br. 3–6. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia, that “the combination of Usami and Lu does not disclose or suggest, at least, ‘wherein a stratum of the possible synchronisation source of the more preferred synchronisation group is higher than a stratum of the possible synchronisation source of the less preferred synchronisation group’” (Appeal Br. 9), in that “Usami merely discloses that a base station that belongs to a base station group with a comparatively higher priority is more likely to be chosen for synchronization purposes” (Appeal Br. 9) and “is completely silent regarding a ‘stratum’” (Appeal Br. Appeal 2020-005647 Application 15/643,085 5 10). Appellant further contends “Lu fails to cure at least these deficiencies in Usami” in that Lu is “completely silent as to anything related to a ‘stratum.’” Appeal Br. 10. We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of Examiner error. Lu describes determining base station priorities based on a priority rule. See Lu ¶¶ 55–57. Usami performs synchronization based on the selection of a base station priority where the priority is determined by the quantity of base stations in the group. See Usami ¶¶ 52–54. But neither Usami nor Lu mentions a stratum (a priority level) and the Examiner does not explain in sufficient detail how or why the selection of a base station according to a priority rule (as described in Lu) fits into the selection of a group of base stations (as described by Usami). Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Usami and Lu renders obvious Appellant’s claim 1. Independent claims 6, 8, and 13 include limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 14–16 depend from and stand with their respective base claims. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–3, 6–10, and 13– 16. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 4 and 11 The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 11 as being obvious in view of Usami, Lu, and Srinivasan. See Final Act. 11–12. For the same reasons as claim 1, Appellant persuades us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 4 and 11. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 4 and 11. Appeal 2020-005647 Application 15/643,085 6 CONCLUSION Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–16. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 6–10, 13–16 103 Usami, Lu 1–3, 6–10, 13–16 4, 11 103 Usami, Lu, Srinivasan 4, 11 Overall Outcome 1–4, 6–11, 13–16 REVERSED