TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2022

2021000403 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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. 15/473,785 03/30/2017 Ricardo Blasco Serrano P49813-US2 6482 27045 7590 03/30/2022 ERICSSON INC. 6300 LEGACY DRIVE M/S EVR 1-C-11 PLANO, TX 75024 EXAMINER JONES, PRENELL P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2467 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2022 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): amber.rodgers@ericsson.com michelle.sanderson@ericsson.com pam.ewing@ericsson.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICARDO BLASCO SERRANO, STEFANO SORRENTINO, and HIEU DO Appeal 2021-000403 Application 15/473,785 Technology Center 2400 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, BETH Z. SHAW, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, 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 1-2, 4, 10-12, 18-20, 22, and 27-34. 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). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000403 Application 15/473,785 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to method for scheduling Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communications. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of scheduling transmissions from a communication device, the method comprising: predicting an arrival time of a next packet for transmission when or after a current packet arrives; planning a future transmission time of the next packet based on the predicted arrival time of the next packet; and booking transmission resources for the planned future transmission time of the next packet. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Hiraoka US 2006/0114862 A1 June 1, 2006 Carlson US 2007/0002821 A1 Jan. 4, 2007 Waters US 2012/0063340 A1 Mar. 15, 2012 REJECTIONS Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1-2, 4, 10-12, 18-20, 22, 27-29, 31, 33 103 Waters, Hiraoka 30, 32, 34 103 Waters, Hiraoka, Carlson OPINION Appellant argues that the Waters, Hiraoka combination does not teach or suggest the limitations of: “[a] method of scheduling transmissions from a communication device, the method comprising: predicting an arrival time of a next packet for transmission when or after a current packet arrives; Appeal 2021-000403 Application 15/473,785 3 planning a future transmission time of the next packet based on the predicted arrival time of the next packet” as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 8- 9. Appellant argues, inter alia, that Waters’ scanner 204 (located in mobile wireless device 102) receives a beacon frame from an AP 104, 106, 108, 110, 112 and then uses beacon interval information in the received beacon frame to predict arrival times of future beacon frames from that AP 104, 106, 108, 110, or 112 so that the scanner 204 (located in mobile wireless device 102) can predict the best time interval to listen for that AP 104, 106, 108, 110, 112. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant argues that Waters’ scanner 204 (located in mobile wireless device 102) uses a received beacon frame from AP 104, 106, 108, 110, 112 to predict when to listen for a future beacon frame transmitted from that AP 104, 106, 108, 110, 112. Id. Waters’ scanner 204 (located in mobile wireless device 102-corresponding to claimed communication device) does not as is required by claim 1 implement a method of scheduling transmissions from the mobile wireless device 102 (corresponding to claimed communication device) where the method comprises predicting an arrival time of a next packet for transmission when or after a current packet arrives, and planning a future transmission time of the next packet based on the predicted arrival time of the next packet. Id. Appellant argues, stated another way, Waters’ mobile wireless device 102 (corresponding to claimed communication device) does not schedule transmissions therefrom nor does Waters’ mobile wireless device 102 predict an arrival time of a future beacon frame (next packet) for Appeal 2021-000403 Application 15/473,785 4 transmission and does not plan a future transmission time of the future beacon frame (next packet). Appeal Br. 9-10. The Examiner points us to paragraphs 40 and 68 of Waters for both disputed limitations: “[a] method of scheduling transmissions from a communication device, the method comprising: predicting an arrival time of a next packet for transmission when or after a current packet arrives;” and “planning a future transmission time of the next packet based on the predicted arrival time of the next packet.” See Final Action 4. The Examiner finds that the scanner of the mobile device predicts arrival times of future AP beacon frames for transmission of the beacon frames by the AP and reasons that the claim does not require a single device to perform the two actions. See Final Action 4; Answer 4. In particular, the Examiner finds that paragraph 36 teaches “listen[ing] for beacon transmission at times determined from previously received beacon frames,” paragraph 40 teaches “predict[ing] arrival times of future beacon frames,” and “predict[ing] when that AP will transmit future beacon frames” and paragraph 68 teaches “based on beacon frames received . . ., the scanner 204 predicts the future transmission times of subsequent beacon frames.” Ans. 4. Appellant argues that the Examiner does not appear to appreciate or to consider that the claimed next packet (recited in multiple locations in claim 1) is the same packet (i.e., one packet) and not different packets. Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 5. More specifically, Appellant argues that the Examiner has not addressed where the claimed next packet is the same packet (i.e., one packet), and the Waters-Hiraoka combination fails to teach the claimed Appeal 2021-000403 Application 15/473,785 5 predicting step, planning step, and booking step, all of which recite the same next packet. Reply Br. 5. We agree with Appellant’s argument. In particular the Examiner’s finding that paragraph 68 teaches “based on beacon frames received . . ., the scanner 204 predicts the future transmission times of subsequent beacon frames,” does not account for the fact that it is the same “next packet,” once it arrives as predicted, that it is being transmitted as required by claim 1, and not other subsequent beacon frames as taught by Waters. See Waters’ para. 68 and claim 1. The additional references of Hiraoka and Carlson do not cure the above cited deficiency. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiners rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, 10-12, 18-20, 22, and 27-34. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 10-12, 18-20, 22, and 27-34 are reversed. Appeal 2021-000403 Application 15/473,785 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-2, 4, 10-12, 18-20, 22, 27-29, 31, 33 103 Waters, Hiraoka 1-2, 4, 10- 12, 18-20, 22, 27-29, 31, 33 30, 32, 34 103 Waters, Hiraoka, Carlson 30, 32, 34 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4, 10- 12, 18-20, 22, 27-34 REVERSED