Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 14, 2021

2020003432 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 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. 15/736,241 12/13/2017 Sairamesh Nammi 3000-767 3519 27820 7590 12/14/2021 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. 106 Pinedale Springs Way Cary, NC 27511 EXAMINER DUONG, CHRISTINE T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2462 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/14/2021 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 SAIRAMESH NAMMI and ALIREZA NEJATIAN ________________ Appeal 2020-003432 Application 15/736,241 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, 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 1-22. Claims 23-26 are canceled. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-003432 Application 15/736,241 2 SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to providing communications between a network node and a wireless node, wherein the wireless node communicates a report indicating a channel quality to the network node and wherein the network node determines whether the channel quality is acceptable or unacceptable. Abstract. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references (only the first named inventor of each reference is listed): Name Reference Date Harris US 2009/0274224 A1 Nov. 5, 2009 Yang US 2014/0204879 A1 July 24, 2014 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1-22 as follows: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Citation 1-4, 7, 12-15, 18 102(a)(1) Harris Final Act. 2-5 5, 6, 8-11, 16, 17, 19-22 103 Harris, Yang Final Act. 5-10 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 Claim 1, which is representative with respect to claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22, is reproduced below (disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added). 1. A method performed by a network node for communicating with a wireless device, the network node and the wireless device being operable in a wireless communication network Appeal 2020-003432 Application 15/736,241 3 employing Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing, OFDM technology wherein a channel between the network node and the wireless device comprises a set of Resource Block Groups, RBGs, the method comprising: - receiving, from the wireless device, a measurement report indicating a channel quality of the channel between the network node and the wireless device, - [1] determining whether the channel quality is acceptable or unacceptable, and - transmitting, to the wireless device, an indication of which RBG(s) to report channel quality measurements for, when the channel quality is unacceptable. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). In rejecting claim 1 as anticipated, the Examiner finds that the radio access network (RAN) of Harris, by using comparisons of Channel Quality Information (CQI) reported by User Equipment (UE) to determine whether to implement a frequency selective scheduling scheme, discloses [1] “determining whether the channel quality is acceptable or unacceptable.” Final Act. 3 (citing Harris ¶¶ 28-29), 11 (citing Harris ¶ 40); Ans. 11-12 (citing Harris ¶¶ 23-25, 27). Appellant contends the Examiner erred because in Harris “the ‘quality differential’ among multiple UEs, and not the ‘channel quality information’ for a given UE, is the determinative factor in deciding whether or not to ‘implement a frequency selective scheduling scheme.’” Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant argues, for example, that the same reported CQI could be deemed either acceptable or unacceptable depending on how close the reported CQI is to other reported CQI used in making the acceptability determination. Appeal Br. 11. Appeal 2020-003432 Application 15/736,241 4 Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because the claimed determination of whether a channel quality is acceptable or unacceptable need not ignore the context in which the determination is made. Harris, for example, compares the average CQIs reported by each UE 101-105 with each other to determine: (1) the UE with the worst average CQI; (2) the UE with the next worst average CQI; and (3) the differential between the worst average CQI and the next worst average CQI. Harris ¶¶ 28-29 (cited in Final Act. 3). “When the quality differential exceeds the quality differential threshold, RAN 120 may determine to implement a frequency selective channel quality feedback scheme.” Id. ¶ 29 (cited in Final Act. 3). This determination is made in “order to assure that a sub-band or sub-bands selected for downlink data transmissions of the broadcast/multicast session will provide acceptable service to a worst participating UE, while minimizing system congestion resulting from the reporting.” Id. ¶ 23 (cited in Ans. 11). Harris further discloses determining which sub-bands or sub- band groups had an acceptable CQI reported, where an acceptable CQI is one that is “better than a predetermined CQI threshold.” Harris ¶ 33. Thus, even though context beyond the CQI of the worst average CQI is considered-specifically, the next worst average CGI-Harris nonetheless determines whether the worst average CQI is acceptable. Harris explains that using a quality differential threshold enables the use of non-frequency selective channel quality feedback scheduling when the quality differential is small (e.g., if the UEs are converged) and a frequency selective channel quality feedback theme when the quality differential is large (e.g., if the UEs are dispersed). Id. ¶ 40 (cited in Ans. 11). Appeal 2020-003432 Application 15/736,241 5 Because recitation [1] encompasses a context-sensitive determination of whether channel quality is acceptable or unacceptable, as disclosed by Harris, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1), 103 rejections of claims 3-12 and 14-22, which Appellant does not argue separately with persuasive specificity. Appeal Br. 12. Claims 2 and 13 We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 2 and 13. Harris discloses that a determination is made as to whether reported CQIs are acceptable because they are better than a predetermined CQI threshold. Harris ¶ 33. Thus, the disclosures of Harris discussed above also show that the Examiner did not err in finding that Harris discloses the disputed recitation of claim 2 (“wherein the determining of whether the channel quality is acceptable or unacceptable comprises comparing the channel quality to a quality threshold”). That is, the disclosure in Harris of determining whether reported CQIs are acceptable because they are better than a predetermined threshold discloses comparing each reported CQI to the predetermined threshold (i.e., to a quality threshold). Appeal 2020-003432 Application 15/736,241 6 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-4, 7, 12-15, 18 102(a)(1) Harris 1-4, 7, 12-15, 18 5, 6, 8-11, 16, 17, 19-22 103 Harris, Yang 5, 6, 8-11, 16, 17, 19-22 Overall Outcome 1-22 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking 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 IN PART