TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2022

2020005669 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 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. 15/513,264 03/22/2017 Andreas NILSSON 3602-1430US1 1036 6449 7590 03/01/2022 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. 607 14TH STREET, N.W. SUITE 800 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER PHAM, BRENDA H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2412 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2022 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): PTO-PAT-Email@rfem.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDREAS NILSSON, FREDRIK ATHLEY, SVEN PETERSSON, and ANDREA REIAL Appeal 2020-005669 Application 15/513,264 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, LARRY J. HUME, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1-12, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 22-25 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. 1.2 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 the real party in interest as Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. Appeal Br. 2. 2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Mar. 22, 2017 (claiming benefit of PCT/EP2017/054477, filed Feb. 27, 2017); Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Mar. 10, 2020; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), Appeal 2020-005669 Application 15/513,264 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, generally relates to “handling beam link failure.” Spec. 1:4-5. More specifically, Appellant’s claims are directed to methods, network nodes, wireless devices, and computer program products for handling beam link failure by detecting a beam link failure of a direct radio link between a network node transmission point and a first wireless device, and configuring the first wireless device with control signaling using and indirect radio link between transmission point via a second wireless device. Spec. 3:7-6:17; Abstr. Claim 1 (directed to a method), claim 6 (directed to a method), claim 14 (directed to a network node), claim 17 (directed to a wireless device), claim 19 (directed to a computer program product), and claim 20 (directed to a computer program product) are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method performed by a network node, the method comprising: serving a first wireless device via a first direct radio link between a transmission point of the network node and the first wireless device; serving a second wireless device via a second direct radio link between the transmission point of the network node and the second wireless device; detecting a beam link failure of the first direct radio link between the transmission point of the network node and the first wireless device; and filed July 6, 2020. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Oct. 11, 2019; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed May 6, 2020. Appeal 2020-005669 Application 15/513,264 3 as a result of detecting the beam link failure, sending a control signal to the second wireless device for relay to the first wireless device via a device-to-device (D2D) link established between the first wireless device and the second wireless device, wherein the second wireless device is configured to forward the control signal to the first wireless device via the D2D link established between the first wireless device and the second wireless device, wherein the control signal is for configuring the first wireless device to perform at least one of: setting up a new beam finding procedure; switching to a backup link; a handover process to a previously determined target node; a mobility measurement procedure to determine a target transmission point, or a reporting procedure to determine the target transmission point. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-005669 Application 15/513,264 4 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Shin et al. (“Shin”) US 2014/0153423 A1 June 5, 2014 Ryu et al. (“Ryu”) US 2016/0087877 A1 Mar. 24, 2016 Li et al. (“Li”) US 2018/0014296 A1 Jan. 11, 2018 (filed Dec. 13, 2016) REJECTION3 The Examiner rejects claims 1-12, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Ryu, and Shin. See Final Act. 2-11. ANALYSIS Appellant argues independent claim 1, independent claims 6, 14, 17, 19, and 20, and dependent claims 3, 4, 8, 9, and 22-25 together as a group. See Appeal Br. 10-16. Appellant also provides nominal separate arguments with respect to dependent claims 2, 5, 7, and 10-12. See Appeal Br. 16-18. We select independent claim 1 as representative of Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 22-25. We separately address Appellant’s arguments relating to dependent claim 11 and dependent claims 2, 5, 7, 10, and 12 (argued collectively). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). 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 after the AIA’s effective date (March 16, 2013), this decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2020-005669 Application 15/513,264 5 Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 22-25 The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as independent claims 6, 14, 17, 19, and 20, and dependent claims 3, 4, 8, 9, and 22-25) as obvious in view of Li, Ryu, and Shin. See Final Act. 2-6; Ans. 13-20.4 Specifically, the Examiner finds that Li discloses a communication link failure between a user equipment (“UE”) and a base station, relaying or forwarding (retransmitting) information (data messages) to the failure UE through a relay UE, and signaling (assigning feedback resources) via a PDCCH (physical downlink control channel). See Final Act. 3-4 (citing Li ¶¶ 5, 53, 77); Ans. 14-15 (citing Li ¶¶ 5, 53, 77; Fig. 2). The Examiner also finds that Ryu discloses relaying control information, including a command for the UE to find and switch to another beam. See Final Act. 4-5 (citing Ryu ¶ 107; Fig. 11); Ans. 15-16 (citing Ryu ¶¶ 16, 107; Fig. 11). Alternately, the Examiner relies on Shin for teaching a handover process that includes relaying control information. See Final Act. 5-6 (citing Shin ¶ 18; Fig. 2); Ans. 16-17 (citing Shin ¶ 18; Fig. 2). Appellant contends that Li, Ryu, and Shin do not render claim 1 (or the other pending claims) obvious. See Appeal Br. 10-16; Reply Br. 2-9. Specifically, Appellant contends that “Li does not teach or suggest that the data message(s) taught by Li . . . is for configuring UE . . . to perform any of the five claimed functions, as required by claim 1.” Appeal Br. 11-12; see Reply Br. 3-5. Appellant also contends one would not combine Li with Ryu because Ryu describes relaying beam switching control information, but Li 4 The Examiner’s Answer lacks page numbering. We reference the Answer as if sequentially numbered starting at page 1 and continuing through page 21. Appeal 2020-005669 Application 15/513,264 6 does not describe multiple beams-“there is no reason to modify the method/system taught by Li to set up a new beam finding procedure because, in the method/system taught by Li, there are no beams to which the UE can switch.” Appeal Br. 14. See Appeal Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 3-5. Appellant further contends one would not combine Li with Shin because Shin describes a UE connected to multiple base stations, but Li does not describe a UE connected two at least two base stations-“Li does not teach or suggest a UE connected to two or more base stations” and, thus, “there is simply no reason to apply Shin’s handover technique (which is useful only when a UE is connected to two or more base stations) to . . . Li.” Appeal Br. 15. See Appeal Br. 14-16; Reply Br. 5-9. Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, find the Examiner has provided a rationale for combining the references, and we provide the following analysis for emphasis. Initially, we note that Appellant does not explicitly dispute the Examiner’s fact-finding with respect to the references. Appellant does not contend that the features the Examiner finds in the prior art are not in-fact disclosed therein. Instead, Appellant contends that one would not have combined the references. See Appeal Br. 10-16; Reply Br. 2-9. With respect to Appellant’s contentions concerning Li (see Appeal Br. 11-12), the Examiner does not cite Li for the control signal functionality recited in the claim (for configuring the wireless device to perform “setting up a new beam finding procedure,” or “switching to a backup link,” or “a handover process to a previously determined target node”), but instead cites Li for relaying control information (signaling via a control channel (the PDCCH)). See Final Act. 3-4 (citing Li ¶¶ 5, 53, 77); Ans. 14-15 (citing Li Appeal 2020-005669 Application 15/513,264 7 ¶¶ 5, 53, 77; Fig. 2). Appellant does not dispute that Li teaches relaying control information. With respect to the combination of Li with Ryu and Shin, we disagree with Appellant that Li must disclose base stations communicating with wireless devices via multiple beams or wireless devices connecting to multiple base stations for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references. The Supreme Court has rejected such a narrow inquiry in determining obviousness. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007) (“The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.”). Rather, “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claims, for a court can take account of the interferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. It is well settled that “a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Nor is the test for obviousness whether a secondary reference’s features can be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). As to Appellant’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of the Examiner’s rationale for the combinations, a rejection based on obviousness need only be supported by “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” to combine known elements in the manner required by the claim. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Appeal 2020-005669 Application 15/513,264 8 Here the Examiner finds that each of the cited references (Li, Ryu, and Shin) describe wireless communication systems and reestablishing connections between a wireless device and a base station. (see Final Act. 2- 6; Ans. 13-20). The Examiner determines that relaying messages including control information is a well-known technique (as taught by Li), and that one of ordinary skill in the art could have used the beam finding and switching control information taught by Ryu, or the handover information taught by Shin with Li’s system to provide the recited functionality recited in claim 1-“sending a control signal” that is relayed to a first wireless device where the control signal: is for configuring the first wireless device to perform at least one of: setting up a new beam finding procedure; switching to a backup link; a handover process to a previously determined target node; a mobility measurement procedure to determine a target transmission point, or a reporting procedure to determine the target transmission point. Appeal Br. 20 (Claim App.) (Claim 1). We agree with the Examiner that it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to combine such known techniques (relaying control signals), as taught by Li, Ryu, and Shin, in the system of Li with using the control signals taught by Ryu (beam finding and/or switching), or alternately Shin (handover to a target node). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”). Appellant has not presented Appeal 2020-005669 Application 15/513,264 9 evidence sufficient to persuade us that combining the respective familiar elements of the cited references in the manner proffered by the Examiner would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” at the time of Appellant’s invention. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in combining the cited teachings of Li, Ryu, and Shin. The Examiner provided “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Appellant has not identified any knowledge relied upon by the Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Nor has Appellant provided objective evidence of secondary considerations, which “operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 6, 14, 17, 19, and 20, and dependent claims 3, 4, 8, 9, and 22-25, which are not separately argued with particularity. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Obviousness Rejection of Claim 11 The Examiner rejects dependent claim 11 as obvious in view of Li, Ryu, and Shin using the same reasoning as claim 1. See Final Act. 9. Appellant contends that Figure 2 of Li (cited by the Examiner) “does not Appeal 2020-005669 Application 15/513,264 10 show any of the claimed ‘control signal,’ ‘failed mobility measurements,’ and ‘failed handover.’” Appeal Br. 17. Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred, and we disagree with Appellant for substantially the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 1. As explained with respect to claim 1, Li teaches or at least suggests a control signal. Li also teaches or at least suggests a failed communication link. See Li ¶¶ 5, 53; Fig. 2 (“failure UE” or “Failure Wireless Node”). The Examiner cites to the combination of Li and Ryu or Li and Shin for the specific failure mode and corresponding control signal, and we discern no error therein. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 11 for substantially the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 11. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2, 5, 7, 10, and 12 The Examiner rejects dependent claims 2 and 5 (dependent on claim 1) and 7, 10, and 12 (dependent on claim 6) as obvious in view of Li, Ryu, and Shin. See Final Act. 6-11. Appellant contends the Examiner did not provide “any articulation of the reasons why the claimed invention would have been obvious.” Appeal Br. 17 (emphasis omitted). As we explained with respect to claim 1, the Examiner provided a rationale for the combinations of references. Appellant does not cite any precedent requiring the Examiner to articulate such reasoning with respect to every rejected claim. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2, 5, 7, 10, and 12 for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2, 5, 7, 10, and 12. Appeal 2020-005669 Application 15/513,264 11 CONCLUSION Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-12, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Li, Ryu, and Shin. We, therefore, affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-12, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 22-25. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-12, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22-25 103 Li, Ryu, Shin 1-12, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22-25 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED