Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 18, 2022

2021001712 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 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. 15/778,261 05/23/2018 Magnus TRÄNK 4015-10464 / P50016-US1 4517 24112 7590 03/18/2022 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC 1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300 Cary, NC 27518 EXAMINER WYLLIE, CHRISTOPHER T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2465 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2022 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MAGNUS TRÄNK and JOAKIM ÅKESSON Appeal 2021-001712 Application 15/778,261 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, LARRY J. HUME, and CATHERINE SHIANG KUMAR, 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 22-39. Claims 1-21 have been cancelled. See Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 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 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001712 Application 15/778,261 2 Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 22 under appeal reads as follows (with bracketed matter added): 22. A method for quality evaluation of a Multimedia Broadcast Multicast Services (MBMS) bearer, the method comprising a wireless device: [L1] determining a measurement of signal quality of [L2] a reference signal separate from the MBMS bearer [L3] to obtain a quality measure for the MBMS bearer, the reference signal being received from at least one radio access network node; and [L4] estimating an expected block error rate (BLER) [L5] of the MBMS bearer from the measurement and from a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) used for a Multicast Channel (MCH) of the MBMS bearer. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims Appendix). Rejections and References on Appeal Name Reference Date Hedberg US 2005/0064821 A1 Mar. 24, 2005 Qiu US 2005/0099973 A1 May 12, 2005 Dalsgaard US 2017/0006485 A1 Jan. 5, 2017 Youn US 2017/0215076 A1 July 27, 2017 Trank US 2018/0352454 A1 Dec. 6, 2018 Claims 22-26 and 29-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dalsgaard and Hedberg. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dalsgaard, Hedberg, and Youn. Appeal 2021-001712 Application 15/778,261 3 Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dalsgaard, Hedberg, and Qiu. Appellant’s Contentions 1. Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 22, 38, and 39 because Dalsgaard “does not address the problem of how to determine quality of a MBMS bearer when there is no data transmission on the MBMS bearer.” Appeal Br. 5, 7; Reply Br. 5. (emphases added). 2. Appellant also contends the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 22, 38, and 39 because “[t]here is no mention in Hedberg of using a signal quality measurement a reference signal transmitted on one bearer or service to determine an expected BLER of a different bearer or service.” Appeal Br. 6, 7. In particular, Appellant further contends “[t]he combination of Dalsgaard and Hedberg fails to disclose using a signal quality measurement for a reference signal separate from the MBMS bearer and the MCS of the MCH for the MBMS bearer to determine the BLER for the MBMS bearer.” Id. at 8, 9. 3. Appellant contends: the claimed invention recites that the wireless device estimates an expected BLER of the MBMS bearer from the signal quality measurement of the reference signal and the MCS of the MCH for the MBMS bearer. That is, knowledge of the MCS for the MBMS bearer is used to "convert" the signal quality measurement of a reference signal separate from the MBMS bearer into an expected BLER for the MBMS bearer. In Dalsgaard, the BLER for the MCH of the MBSFN is presumably determined by receiving data on the MCH and computing the BLER form the received data. There is no Appeal 2021-001712 Application 15/778,261 4 suggestion that the BLER is derived from a signal quality measurement of a separate reference signal as recited in the claims. Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 6, 7. (emphases added). ANALYSIS We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer (see Ans. 3-7). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. The Examiner has identified the relevant portions of Dalsgaard and Hedberg and has provided sufficient explanation with corresponding citations to various parts of the references for teaching the disputed limitations of exemplary claim 22. Final Act. 3, 4. The Examiner cites Dalsgaard for limitations L1, L3, and L5; and relies upon Hedberg for limitations L2 and L4 of independent claim 22. Id (citing Dalsgaard ¶¶ 19, 34, and 36; Hedberg ¶¶ 14, 49, 58, and 90). As to Appellant’s contention 1, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3) that Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim because the claim does not recite “no data transmission.” As to Appellant’s contention 2, on pages 4 and 5 of the Answer, the Examiner provides a well-reasoned explanation, which demonstrates the Appeal 2021-001712 Application 15/778,261 5 disputed claim language does not preclude Dalsgaard’s teachings. The Examiner finds and we agree: the BLER is not directly determined based on the reference signal, but indirectly determined based on the reference signal's measurement. Therefore, Appellants assertion that Dalsgaard does not explicitly disclose how the BLER measurement is performed is incorrect. The measurement of the BLER of Dalsgaard is the same as Appellants. Ans. 4, 5 (citing Appellant’s Specification ¶¶ 42, 43, and 47). See also Final Act. 3, 4 (citing Dalsgaard ¶¶ 19, 34, and 36). As to Appellant’s contention 3, the Examiner finds: Hedberg et al. discloses the network and/or user equipment(s) investigate the conditions of the selected bearer and the radio performance, preferably of the selected bearer but also of bearers of the other services presently not used (step SSS) (paragraph 0090). Any communications quality data that is representative of the radio performance for a radio channel between a user equipment and a base station and/or representative for the communication service used for this connection can be used by the present invention. Typical, non- limiting, examples of quality data that can be used according to the invention includes SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio), SIR (Signal to Interference Ratio), BLER (Block Error Ratio), BER (Bit Error Ratio) and BEP (Bit Error Probability) (paragraph 0058). Dalsgaard, as shown in the Final Office Action, already discloses the apparatus 20, such as the processor 22 and/or the communications interface 26, may measure MBSFN 12 parameters such as MBSFN reference signal received power (RSRP) and reference signal received quality (RSRQ). The received signal strength indicator (RSSI) averaging associated with the RSRP and RSRQ measurements may be performed, such as by the processor 22 and/or the communications interface 26, based on orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing symbols carrying MBSFN 12 or MBMS reference signals. The MBSFN 12 measurements performed by the Appeal 2021-001712 Application 15/778,261 6 processor 22, communications interface 26, or the like may, additionally or alternatively, be a multicast channel (MCH) block error rate (BLER) per modulation coding scheme (MCS) per MBSFN area ({paragraph 0034and 0036). Ans. 5, 6. In other words, the Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of Dalsgaard and Hedberg teaches creating a system where BLER is estimated according to a measured RSRQ, RSRP, or RSSI of a bearer that is not currently being used. Accordingly, Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s reading of the contested limitations on the cited prior art, or in the proper combinability of the prior art references as suggested by the Examiner. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 22, 38, and 39; and the dependent claims not argued separately. Consequently, we conclude there is no reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 22-39. Appeal 2021-001712 Application 15/778,261 7 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 22-26, 29- 39 103(a) Dalsgaard, Hedberg 22-26, 29- 39 27 103(a) Dalsgaard, Hedberg, Youn 27 28 103(a) Dalsgaard, Hedberg, Qui 28 Overall Outcome 22-39 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