Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 16, 2021

2020001282 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 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.
15/598,470 05/18/2017 Awais M. Hussain 8888-90601 1075
81310 7590 07/16/2021
Kowert Hood Munyon Rankin & Goetzel (Apple)
1120 S. Capital of Texas Hwy
Building 2, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78746
EXAMINER
KWOH, JASPER C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2415
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2021 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AWAIS M. HUSSAIN, TARIK TABET,
LYDI SMAINI, and MOUSTAFA M. ELSAYED
Appeal 2020-001282
Application 15/598,470
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, HUNG H. BUI, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–20, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. 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 Apple Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001282
Application 15/598,470

2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to “control channel design for a new category
of devices in 3GPP wireless communications.” Spec. ¶ 2.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with disputed limitations
at issue emphasized:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a processing element configured to cause a wireless
communication device to:
perform communications with a cellular base
station, wherein the wireless communication device is
identified to the cellular base station as a device that
belongs to a first device category;
operate according to a plurality of communication
parameters that specify how the wireless communication
device communicates with the cellular base station, based
at least in part on the first device category;
select, based on a set of criteria associated with one
or more of the plurality of communication parameters, a
physical control channel from among a plurality of
physical control channels that includes a physical
downlink control channel (PDCCH), an enhanced
PDCCH (EPDCCH), and a Machine Type
Communications PDCCH (MPDCCH); and
decode Downlink Control Information (DCI), using
the selected physical control channel.
Appeal 2020-001282
Application 15/598,470

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references as prior art:
Name Number Date
Chen ’0972 US 2016/0127097 A1 May 5, 2016
Chen ’4983 US 9,924,498 B2 Mar. 20, 2018
Lin US 2016/0270116 A1 Sept. 15, 2016
Suzuki US 2014/0112243 A1 Apr. 24, 2014
REJECTIONS
The Examiner makes the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Claims Basis Final Act.
1, 8, 15 Chen ’097, Chen ’498 4
2, 3, 9, 10, 16 Chen ’097, Chen ’498, Lin 6
4–7, 11–14, 17–20 Chen ’097, Chen ’498, Suzuki 9
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chen ’498 and
Chen ’097 teaches or suggests the “select” limitation in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites an apparatus configured to cause a wireless
communication device to perform communications with a cellular base
station. The apparatus is configured to
select, based on a set of criteria associated with one or
more of the plurality of communication parameters, a physical
control channel from among a plurality of physical control
channels that includes a physical downlink control channel
(PDCCH), an enhanced PDCCH (EPDCCH), and a Machine
Type Communications PDCCH (MPDCCH).
All of the other independent claims recite commensurate limitations.

2 Chen ’097 is called “Chen 1” by Appellant and “Chen1” by the Examiner.
3 Chen ’498 is called “Chen 2” by Appellant and “Chen2” by the Examiner.
Appeal 2020-001282
Application 15/598,470

4
Chen ’498 discloses a cellular network that includes a base station
(“evolved Node B (eNB)”) and a wireless device such as a smart phone
(“user equipment” (“UE”)). Chen ’498, 4:43–5:12, Fig. 1. Figures 9 and 10
are flowcharts of the communication from the perspective of the user
equipment. Id. at 15:64–66, 16:51–53. Figure 11 is a flowchart from the
perspective of the base station. Id. at 17:13–15.
In discussing Figure 11, Chen ’498 states, “[a]t step 1106, eNB 804
[i.e., the base station] selects a control channel to carry the DCI [i.e.,
downlink control information].” Chen ’498, 17:26–27. Then, “[a]t step
1110, the eNB 804 transmits a signal including the DCI to the UE 802.” Id.
at 17:39–40. Turning to Figure 10, Chen ’498 discloses:
At step 1002, the UE 802 receives a signal including DCI that
includes an uplink grant. The DCI may be received in one of a
PDCCH or an ePDCCH. At step 1004, the UE 802 determines
if the control channel providing the grant is a PDCCH and, if so,
may identify PHICH in a control region at step 1012. If at step
1004, the UE determines the control channel to be ePDCCH, the
UE may identify an ePHICH in a data region at step 1006.
Chen ’498, 16:53–60.
The Examiner finds that the block quotation above “teaches
determining a control channel such as ePDCCH or PDCCH based on an
ePHICH or PHICH in order to identify the desired information.” Ans. 4.
“[F]or example, if ePHICH is desired, then ePDCCH is selected.” Id.
However, the Examiner interprets this portion of Chen ’498
backwards. Appellant’s claim requires the control channel be selected based
on the criteria. But the portion of Chen ’498 relied on by the Examiner
teaches the reverse: the criteria (PHICH vs. ePHICH) is based on the control
channel (PDCCH vs. ePDCCH). See Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-001282
Application 15/598,470

5
The Examiner also points to Table 1 in Chen ’498, finding that it “lists
sets of criteria such as subframe type, DCI format type, and control received
from PDCCH and ePDCCH” and “also lists numerous communication
parameters that specify how the wireless communication device
communicates with the cellular base station such as MBSFN, non-MBSFN,
2C/2D, 1A, explicitly signaled, etc.” Ans. 5. However, the Examiner
provides no evidence or explanation why the selection of the control channel
is based on any of these criteria. Appeal Br. 8–9. To the contrary, Table 1
shows that these items can be used in both PDCCH and ePDCCH, so it is
not clear whether or why they would aid in selecting between PDCCH and
ePDCCH. Again, Appellant’s claim requires selecting the control channel
based on the criteria, not selecting the criteria based on the control channel.
Thus, the Examiner has not shown that Chen ’498 teaches or suggests
to “select, based on a set of criteria associated with one or more of the
plurality of communication parameters, a physical control channel.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1–20.
OUTCOME
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 8, 15 103 Chen ’097, Chen ’498 1, 8, 15
2, 3, 9, 10, 16 103 Chen ’097, Chen ’498,
Lin
2, 3, 9, 10, 16
4–7, 11–14,
17–20
103 Chen ’097, Chen ’498,
Suzuki
4–7, 11–14,
17–20
Overall
Outcome
1–20
REVERSED