Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 5, 2021

2020002034 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 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.
15/036,283 05/12/2016 Pål Frenger 1009-2784 / P49433 US1 6278
102721 7590 11/05/2021
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson
PO BOX 1959
Cary, NC 27572-1959
EXAMINER
MADANI, FARIDEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/05/2021 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PÅL FRENGER, MARTIN HESSLER,
and JOHAN RUNE
Appeal 2020-002034
Application 15/036,283
Technology Center 2600

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, AMBER L. HAGY, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, 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 35, 36, 41–44, 46–54, 59–62, 64–72,
74, and 76–84.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief filed July 12, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) at 2.
2 Claims 37, 45, 55, 56, 63, 73, and 75 are objected to as being dependent
upon a rejected base claim, but indicated as allowable if rewritten in
independent form. Claims 38, 39, 40, 57, and 58 are canceled.
Appeal 2020-002034
Application 15/036,283

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Summary
The subject matter of Appellant’s application relates to transmission
and reception of system information in parts for a wireless communication
system. Spec. 1:4–6.3 According to Appellant, a “wireless communication
device is configured to receive, over a first channel, a first part of system
information.” Id. at 1:29–34. “The device is also configured to receive, over
a signaling channel, explicit signaling that is associated with the first part
and that indicates a sequence with which the wireless communication device
is to demodulate or descramble a second part of system information.” Id.
Illustrative Claim
Claim 35, reproduced below with certain dispositive limitation(s) at
issue italicized, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
35. A method implemented by a wireless
communication device for receiving system information for a
wireless communication system in parts, the method
comprising:
receiving, over a first channel, a first part of system
information, wherein the first part of system information
comprises a master information block, wherein the master
information block includes explicit signaling that-indicates a
sequence with which the wireless communication device is to
demodulate or descramble a second part of system information;
and

3 In addition to the above-noted Appeal Brief, throughout this Decision we
refer to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed May 12, 2016 (“Spec.”); (2) the
Non-Final Office Action (“Non-Final Act.”) mailed January 11, 2019;
(3) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed November 1, 2019; and (4) the
Reply Brief filed January 15, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-002034
Application 15/036,283

3
receiving the second part of system information over a
second channel, by demodulating or descrambling the second
part using the indicated sequence.
Appeal Br. 2 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 35, 36, 41, 46, 47, 49–51, 53, 54, 59, 64,
65, 67–69, 71, 72, 74, 76–80, and 82–84 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Fang et al. (US 2016/0057562
A1, published Feb. 25, 2016) (“Fang”), Nazar et al. (US 2013/0083746 A1,
published Apr. 4, 2013) (“Nazar”), and Kim et al. (US 2015/0318968 A1,
published Nov. 5, 2015) (“Kim”). Non-Final Act. 2–11.
The Examiner rejects claims 42–44, 48, 52, 60–62, 66, 70, and 81
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Fang,
Nazar, Kim, and Frenger et al. (US 2014/0295836 A1, published Oct. 2,
2014) (“Frenger”). Id. at 11–14.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence.
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
The Examiner finds that claim 35 is unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Fang, Nazer, and Kim. Non-Final Act. 3–5. The Examiner
relies on Kim to teach or suggest “receiving, over a first channel, a first part
of system information [that] includes explicit signaling that-indicates a
sequence with which the wireless communication device is to demodulate or
descramble a second part of system information.” Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 3–
4 (citing Kim ¶ 69).
Appeal 2020-002034
Application 15/036,283

4
Of particular relevance, the Examiner finds:
Kim teaches explicit signaling (Kim, ¶ 70, system information
by receiving a Physical Broadcast Channel (PBCH)) that
indicates a sequence (Kim, ¶ 70 and ¶ 148, that indicates a cell-
specific/explicit reference signal (CRS) sequence) with which
the wireless communication device is to demodulate or
descramble a second part of system information (Kim, ¶ 148 and
¶ 152, UE demodulate a signal received on PDSCH (second
channel of second part)); and receiving the second part of system
information over a second channel.
Non-Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues that the “system information on the PBCH does not
indicate the CRS sequence in Kim,” but “Kim instead suggests that the UE
itself determines the CRS sequence from the physical layer cell identity
indicated by synchronization signals that the UE receives.” Appeal Br. 8
(citing Kim ¶ 69).
The Examiner, in turn, does not specifically respond to Appellant’s
arguments (Ans. 4–5), but rather, as Appellant notes, “simply cit[es] the
same portion of Kim as recited in the rejection.” (Reply Br. 3).
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner cites five
paragraphs from Kim to reject the limitation at issue. Non-Final Act. 5;
Ans. 5 (citing Kim ¶¶ 70, 71, 146, 148, 152). The first and second
paragraphs cited by the Examiner disclose, respectively, that user equipment
“UE may acquire information broadcast in the cell by receiving a Physical
Broadcast Channel (PBCH)” and that “the UE may acquire more detailed
system information by receiving . . . a Physical Downlink Shared Channel
(PDSCH).” Kim ¶¶ 70, 71. Kim separately discloses “a cell specific
reference signal (CRS)” that is “used for both demodulation and
Appeal 2020-002034
Application 15/036,283

5
measurement.” Kim ¶¶ 146, 147. Kim explains that a “UE may measure CSI
[(channel state information)] using the CRSs and demodulate a signal
received on a PDSCH in a subframe including the CRSs.” Kim ¶¶ 146, 147,
152.
Although we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Kim discloses
using the CRS to “demodulate a signal received on a PDSCH in a subframe
including the CRSs,” the Examiner has not shown that, in Kim, the CRS is
received over the PBCH. Ans. 4 (citing Kim ¶ 152) (emphasis omitted).
Accordingly, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Kim’s PBCH
teaches a first part of system information including explicit signaling that
indicates a demodulating sequence for demodulating a second part of system
information located on the PDSCH, because the Examiner has not
established that Kim’s CRS is included in data received over the PBCH.
Given the current record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Kim
teaches or suggests “receiving, over a first channel, a first part of system
information [that] includes explicit signaling that-indicates a sequence with
which the wireless communication device is to demodulate or descramble a
second part of system information,” as recited in claim 35. Nor does the
Examiner show that Fang and Nazer, alone or in combination, compensate
for the noted deficiencies of Kim. Non-Final Act. 3–5. Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 35. Because we agree with at least
one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach
the merits of Appellant’s other arguments seeking to distinguish claim 35.

Appeal 2020-002034
Application 15/036,283

6
For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 72 and 76, which recite limitations similar to those at
issue in claim 35. Appeal Br. 8–10. In addition, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 36, 41–44, 46–53, and 78–83, which depend
directly or indirectly from claims 35, 72, or 76.
Independent claims 54, 74, and 77, although not specifically reciting a
first and second channel, recite explicit signaling in a first part of system
information that “indicates a sequence with which the second part of system
information is to be demodulated or descrambled.” In rejecting these claims,
the Examiner, similar to claim 35 above, relies on the finding that “Kim
teaches explicit signaling . . . information by receiving a Physical Broadcast
Channel (PBCH)) that indicates a sequence . . . that is associated with
initial/first part and indicates a cell specific/explicit reference signal (CRS)
sequence) with which a second part of system information is to be
demodulated.” Non-Final Act. 8 (citing Kim ¶¶ 70, 148, 152). We determine
this finding to be erroneous for the same reasons discussed above for
independent claim 35. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of independent claims 54, 74, and 77 and of claims 59–62, 64–71,
and 84, which depend directly or indirectly from claims 54, 74, and 77.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 35, 36, 41–44,
46–54, 59–62, 64–72, 74, and 76–84.

Appeal 2020-002034
Application 15/036,283

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

REVERSED

Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
35, 36, 41, 46,
47, 49–51, 53,
54, 59, 64, 65,
67–69, 71, 72,
74, 76–80,
82–84
103 Fang, Nazar,
Kim
35, 36, 41,
46, 47, 49–
51, 53, 54,
59, 64, 65,
67–69, 71,
72, 74, 76–
80, 82–84
42–44, 48, 52,
60–62, 66, 70,
81
103 Fang, Nazar,
Kim, Frenger
42–44, 48,
52, 60–62,
66, 70, 81
Overall
Outcome
35, 36, 41–
44, 46–54,
59–62, 64–
72, 74, 76–
84