Apple Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 16, 20212020001282 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation