Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 26, 2021

2020000791 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 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. 15/546,042 07/25/2017 Alex Stephenne 3000-566 6678 27820 7590 05/26/2021 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. 106 Pinedale Springs Way Cary, NC 27511 EXAMINER NGUYEN, TU X ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2642 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/26/2021 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): patents@wt-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALEX STEPHENNE and CHANDRA SEKHAR BONTU ___________ Appeal 2020–000791 Application 15/546,042 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JASON V. MORGAN and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1, 3–17 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Appeal Brief 11. Claims 1 and 21 are 1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 3, 2019), the Final Action (mailed February 15, 2019) and the Answer (mailed August 8, 2019), for the respective details. 2 Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 2. Appeal 2020-000791 Application 15/546,042 2 independent. Claims 2, 18−20 and 22 are cancelled. See Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Introduction According to Appellant, “The present disclosure relates to cellular communication and, more specifically, to adaptive uplink coverage when using advanced antenna systems.” Specification ¶ 1. Representative Claim3(disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A method of operation of a network node to adjust uplink coverage for one or more cells in a cellular communications network, comprising: determining that there is a need to adjust uplink beam transformations for the one or more cells of a plurality of cells in the cellular communications network, wherein, for each cell of the one or more cells, the uplink beam transformation for the cell is a transformation of received uplink signals for the cell from an antenna domain to a beam domain where determining that there is a need to adjust the uplink beam transformations for the one or more cells comprises: evaluating a mismatch between the uplink coverage of the one or more cells and a downlink coverage of the one or more cells; and 3 Appellant’s arguments are directed towards independent claim 1. See e.g. Appeal Brief 11, 13 (“Claim 21 includes features similar to those of claim 1 and, as such, is allowable for at least the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.”). We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim focusing on subject matter common to independent claims 1 and 21. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2020-000791 Application 15/546,042 3 determining that there is a need to adjust the uplink beam transformations for the one or more cells if the mismatch between the uplink coverage of the one or more cells and the downlink coverage of the one or more cells is more than a predefined threshold; and upon determining that there is a need to adjust the uplink beam transformations for the one or more cells: determining new uplink beam transformations for the one or more cells; and applying the new uplink beam transformations for the one or more cells. References Name4 Reference Date Jung US 2014/0323143 A1 October 30, 2014 Deenoo US 2016/0337916 A1 November 17, 2016 Rejection on Appeal Claims 1, 3–17 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jung and Deenoo. Final Action 2–8. ANALYSIS Appellant contends, “Jung teaches a mismatch between a transmission beam and a reception beam [‘Tx/Rx’] related to the current beams for individual connections instead of the overall coverage of the cell as discussed in the claims.” Appeal Brief 11 (citing Jung ¶ 8 (“when there is 4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2020-000791 Application 15/546,042 4 the possibility of the generation of the Tx/Rx beam mismatch, performing at least one of an operation of widening a beam width of the Tx/Rx beam”)). Appeal Brief 11. Appellant argues, “In contrast, the determination to adjust beams in claim 1 is due to evaluating a mismatch between the uplink coverage of the one or more cells and a downlink coverage of the one or more cells.” Appeal Brief 12. Appellant further argues that claim 1 “is not related to individual beams for individual connections” and “[a]s such, claim 1 is allowable over Jung. Deenoo fails to remedy this deficiency.” Appeal Brief 12−13 (“Since Jung and Deenoo, alone and in combination, fail to discuss the claimed coverages, they logically cannot teach evaluating a mismatch between these coverages.”). We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of Examiner error. Jung discloses the “primary object to provide a method and an apparatus for providing optimal Tx and Rx beams to each of a BS [(base station)] and a UE [(user’s equipment)] by solving a Tx/Rx beam mismatch problem in a beamforming system.” Jung ¶ 5. Jung further discloses, “a method and an apparatus for determining a possibility of the generation of the Tx/Rx beam mismatch in the beamforming system based on reciprocity between UL and DL and performing a proactive protection operation to prevent the generation of the Tx/Rx beam mismatch in advance.” Jung ¶ 6. Nonetheless, we agree with Appellant that Jung addresses mismatches between base stations and user’s equipment - “individual connections.” See Appeal Brief 11. Jung discloses: However, when information on the new pair of optimal UL Tx and Rx beams is transmitted through the pair of optimal DL Tx and Rx beams (BS_Tx beam 1 and UE_Rx beam 1) used in the position 501, the UE located at the Appeal 2020-000791 Application 15/546,042 5 position 502 may also not receive the information on the new pair of optimal DL Tx and Rx beams. Jung ¶ 61; see Final Action 4. Jung also discloses, “the BS determines whether there is the possibility of the occurrence of the Tx/Rx beam mismatch between the selected optimal UL Tx/Rx beam and a UL Tx/Rx beam actually used for transmitting information on the optimal UL Tx/Rx beam.” Jung ¶ 83. Jung further discloses in paragraph 83 (emphasis added): if an optimal UL Tx/Rx beam having a capability equal to or larger than a particular threshold, for example, threshold 1 is different from a previously elected optimal UL Tx/Rx beam and the previously selected optimal UL Tx/Rx beam has a capability equal to or smaller than a particular threshold, for example, threshold 2, the BS determines that a rapid change has occurred in a UL channel environment and determines that there is the possibility of the occurrence of the UL Tx/Rx beam mismatch. Further, although it has been described as an example that the BS determines that there is the possibility of the occurrence of the UL Tx/Rx beam mismatch, the BS can also determine that there is a possibility of the occurrence of the DL Tx/Rx beam mismatch by the reciprocity. We discern no meaningful difference between adjusting uplink coverage for cells in cellular communications, as claimed, and Jung’s disclosure of providing optimal transmission or reception in a communication system. See Specification ¶ 39 (“As used herein, a ‘wireless device’ is any type of device that has access to (i.e., is served by) a cellular communications network by wirelessly transmitting and/or receiving signals to a radio access node(s). Some examples of a wireless device include, but are not limited to, a User Equipment device.”); ¶ 51 (“[O]ne example of a cellular communications network 10 in which embodiments of the present Appeal 2020-000791 Application 15/546,042 6 disclosure may be implemented. As illustrated, a number of wireless devices 12 (e.g., UEs) wirelessly transmit signals to and receive signals from radio access nodes.”). The Examiner finds, “Jung et al. discloses a base station comprising multiple cells sectors. However, Deenoo et al. discloses multiple type of base stations provide one or more cells in a telecommunication networks (par.0100).” Final Action 4. Appellant does not provide reason nor rationale as to why Deenoo fails to address Jung’s alleged deficiency. See In re Lindner, 59 C.C.P.A. 920, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972); see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming because appellant “merely argued that the claims differed from [the prior art], and chose not to proffer a serious explanation of this difference”). Further, “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1981)). We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. Appellant states, independent claim 21 “includes features similar to those of claim 1 and, as such, is allowable for at least the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.” Appeal Brief 13. Appellant also states, Appellant “reserves the right to further address the rejection of [independent] claim 21 in the future, if desired” and “reserves the right to further address the rejections of [dependent] claims 3-17 in the future, if desired.” Appeal Brief 13. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 3−7 and 9−17, as well as, claim 21, not argued separately. See Appeal Brief 13; see also Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) Appeal 2020-000791 Application 15/546,042 7 (“If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue — or, more broadly, on a particular rejection — the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived)”). Appellant contends in regard to claim 8 that “the combination of Jung and Deenoo fails to teach at least ‘evaluating a mismatch between the uplink coverage of the one or more cells and a geographical distribution of uplink traffic of the one or more cells.” Appeal Brief 14. The Examiner finds: Regarding claim 8, the modified Jung et al. discloses determining that there is a need to adjust the uplink beam transformations for the one or more cells if the mismatch between the uplink coverage of the one or more cells and the geographical distribution of uplink traffic of the one or more cells is more than a predefined threshold (Jung, par.083 “UL Tx/Rx beam has a capability equal to or larger than a particular threshold”, par.084 “the optimal UL Tx/Rx beam is changed per second is equal to or larger than a particular value”). Final Action 6. Appellant contends, “Jung teaches that ‘the BS determines that a rapid change has occurred in a UL channel environment and determines that there is the possibility of the occurrence of the UL Tx/Rx beam mismatch”’ and that “[t]his has absolutely nothing to do with an uplink coverage of the one or more cells or a geographical distribution of uplink traffic.” Appeal Brief 15. (footnote omitted) (citing to Jung 83). We find Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. The Examiner relied upon Jung as modified by Deenoo however with the exception of the statement, “As such, claim 8 is allowable over the combination of Jung and Deenoo”; Appellant does not address the Jung/Deenoo combination with any specificity. Appeal 2020-000791 Application 15/546,042 8 Appeal Brief 15; see Final Action 3, 4, 6; see also Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 8. CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–17, 21 103 Jung, Deenoo 1, 3–17, 21 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v). AFFIRMED