Nokia Technologies Oy

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 25, 2022

2020005971 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2022)

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. 15/308,688 11/03/2016 Lars Dalsgaard 49700-018N01US/ NC85574 9413 12358 7590 01/25/2022 Mintz Levin/Nokia Technologies Oy One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 EXAMINER ONAMUTI, GBEMILEKE J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2463 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/25/2022 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): IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com IPFileroomBOS@mintz.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte LARS DALSGAARD, ILKKA ANTERO KESKITALO and JORMA JOHANNES KAIKKONEN ____________________ Appeal 2020-005971 Application 15/308,688 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JENNIFER S. BISK and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 48 through 52, 54 through 61, and 63 through 72. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2019). According to Appellant, Nokia Technologies Oy is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-005971 Application 15/308,688 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed invention relates a method for providing multicast broadcast mobile services measurements in a communication system. Abstract. Claim 48 is reproduced below. 48. A method comprising: receiving, by a user equipment, measurement configuration information indicative of one or more first measurements to be performed on a first set of subframes and one or more second measurements to be performed on a second set of subframes, wherein the first set of subframes are associated with multicast broadcast mobile services and the second set of subframes are associated with non-multicast broadcast mobile services; performing one or more measurements in accordance with the received measurement configuration information; and reporting one or more first measurement results for the one or more first measurements supplemented with one or more second measurement results for the one or more second measurements, wherein the one or more second measurement results further include measurement results of one or more neighboring cells. EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2 The Examiner rejects claims 48, 50 through 52, 54 through 57, 59 through 61 and 63 through 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Chen (US 2011/0116437 A1; May 19, 2011) and Hu (US 2013/0003578 A1; Jan. 3, 2013). Final Act. 4-12. 2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed April 21, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed August 18, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Final Office Action mailed September 18, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 19, 2020 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2020-005971 Application 15/308,688 3 The Examiner rejects claims 49 and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Chen, Hu and Wang (US 2012/0140778 A1; June 7, 2012). Final Act. 12-13. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, Reply Brief, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Appellant presents several arguments directed to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 48, 56, 65, and 68. Appeal Br. 12-19, Reply Br. 4-11. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments is did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Chen and Hu teaches receiving or sending measurement configuration information indicative of one or more first measurements to be performed on a first set of subframes and one or more second measurements to be performed on a second set of subframes, wherein the first set of subframes are associated with multicast broadcast mobile services and the second set of subframes are associated with non-multicast broadcast mobile services as recited in independent claims 48, 56, 65, and 68. The Examiner finds that Chen teaches the disputed limitation, Final Act. 4-6, Ans. 14-16. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Chen teaches a frame which includes subframes of different types including multicast broadcast single frequency network (MBSFN) and non-MBSFN. Ans. 13- 15 (citing Figs 8A, 8B, ¶¶ 64, 65, 75 76, 78). The Examiner states the “division of the frame is interpreted as measurement.” Ans. 14. Appeal 2020-005971 Application 15/308,688 4 We disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Chen teaches the claimed feature of receiving configuration information, indicative of measurements to be performed on a first and second set of subframes. Each of the independent claims recites either receiving or sending measurement configuration information indicating measurements to be performed on the subframes associate with multicast broadcast mobile services and with non- multicast broadcast mobile services. Thus, the claims recite that the configuration information indicates measurements to be performed. We have reviewed the teachings of Chen cited by the Examiner and we agree with the Examiner that Chen teaches a frame with subframes that are associated with both multicast broadcast mobile services and non-multicast broadcast mobile services. However; we do not find that Chen mentions anything about information identifying measurements to be performed. We do not consider the Examiner’s interpretation of a measurement as “division of the frame” to be reasonable because it is not consistent with Appellant’s Specification3 nor has the Examiner shown that the skilled artisan would construe the limitation in that manner. Thus, we do not find that the Examiner has identified sufficient evidence to support the obviousness rejection of independent claims 48, 56, 65, and 68. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 48, 50 through 52, 54 through 57, 59 through 61 and 63 through 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Chen and Hu. 3 See e.g. Appellant’s specification which discus measurements being block error rate and being used to determine received signal strength indicator (RSSI), reference signal received quality (RSRQ) and reference signal received power RSRP. Spec ¶¶16, 37. Appeal 2020-005971 Application 15/308,688 5 The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 49 and 58, rely upon the combination of Chen and Hu to teach the limitations of claims 48 and 56, from which they depend. Final Act 12-13. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 49 and 58 for the same reasons as claims 48 and 56. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 48, 50-52, 54 -57, 59-61, 63-72 103 Chen, Hu 48, 50-52, 54 -57, 59-61, 63-72 49, 58 103 Chen, Hu, Wang 49, 58 Overall Outcome 48-52, 54-61, 63-72 REVERSED