Azarian Yazdi, Kambiz et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 10, 2020

14738598 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2020)

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.
14/738,598 06/12/2015 Kambiz Azarian Yazdi QCOM-2737US (150221) 5045
112246 7590 01/10/2020
Loza & Loza, LLP/Qualcomm
305 N. Second Ave., #127
Upland, CA 91786
EXAMINER
BEDNASH, JOSEPH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/10/2020 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qualcomm-pto@lozaip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte KAMBIZ AZARIAN YAZDI, TINGFANG JI,
JING JIANG, and JOSEPH BINAMIRA SORIAGA
________________

Appeal 2019-001104
Application 14/738,598
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, JAMES B. ARPIN, and ADAM J. PYONIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–28. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Qualcomm
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001104
Application 14/738,598

2

Summary of the Disclosure
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to providing “for the
reliable transmission of control information” through use of multi-link
diversity, “wherein control information is jointly encoded and transmitted
across a plurality of physical links.” Abstract.
Representative claims (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method for wireless communication between a
scheduling entity and a plurality of subordinate entities,
comprising:
jointly encoding control information across a plurality of
physical links at the scheduling entity, said control information
comprising one or more of scheduling information, a
scheduling request, a packet acknowledgment or non-
acknowledgment, or channel quality information;
creating a multi-link control channel providing multi-link
diversity by allocating a portion of the encoded control
information to each of the plurality of physical links;
transmitting data information on a data channel utilizing a first
transmission time interval (TTI); and
transmitting the encoded control information on each of the
plurality of physical links from the scheduling entity to the
plurality of subordinate entities utilizing a second TTI shorter in
duration than the first TTI and overlapping with a portion of
the first TTI, via broadcast channel multiplexing.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of physical
links correspond to a plurality of multiple-input multiple-output
(MIMO) configurations.
Appeal 2019-001104
Application 14/738,598

3

The Examiner’s rejections and cited references
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5–13, 15–20, 22, and 24–28 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated2 by Lee et al. (US 2013/0194931 A1;
published Aug. 1, 2013) (“Lee”). Non-Final Act. 2–8.
The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Lee and Periyalwar et al. (WO
2013/016798 A1; published Feb. 7, 2013) (“Periyalwar”). Non-Final Act. 8–
9.
The Examiner rejects claims 21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Lee and Bourlas et al.
(US 2009/0070650 A1; published Mar. 12, 2009) (“Bourlas”). Non-Final
Act. 9–10.
ADOPTION OF EXAMINER’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings as set
forth in the Answer and in the Non-Final Action from which this appeal was
taken, and we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. We have considered

2 The Examiner further cites to Lunttila et al. (US 2013/0163527 A1;
published June 27, 2013) (“Lunttila”) in the rejection of claims 1 and 7,
apparently as supporting the finding of inherency with respect to the cited
reference, Lee. Non-Final Act. 3, 7. The Examiner, however, omits Lunttila
from the statement of the rejection. Id. at 2. Furthermore, the Examiner
states that Lunttila is pertinent, but not relied on. Id. at 12. As Appellant
does not challenge this aspect of the rejection, we will not consider the cited
disclosure of Lunttila. In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may
wish to clarify to what extent Lunttila is being relied on in rejecting the
claimed invention, and whether Lunttila should be included in the rejection
statement. See MPEP 2131.01 (“a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection over multiple
references has been held to be proper when the extra references are cited to
. . . [s]how that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent”).
Appeal 2019-001104
Application 14/738,598

4

Appellant’s arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide
the following explanation for emphasis.
CLAIMS 1–5, 7–15, AND 17–28
In rejecting claim 1 as anticipated, the Examiner finds that Lee’s
transmission of Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) data as part of
a subframe with a transmission time interval of 1ms discloses “transmitting
data information on a data channel utilizing a first transmission time interval
(TTI).” See Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Lee Fig. 18). The Examiner finds Lee’s
transmission of enhanced Physical Downlink Control Channel (ePDCCH)
data during a smaller time interval discloses “transmitting the encoded
control information . . . utilizing a second TTI shorter in duration than the
first TTI and overlapping with a portion of the first TTI.” See id. (citing Lee
Figs. 13, 18, ¶¶ 147, 183). The Examiner points to the Specification’s
disclosure that “TTIs may correspond to frames, sub-frames, data blocks,
time slots, or other suitable groupings of bits for transmission” (Ans. 4
(quoting Spec. ¶ 49)) to show that a reasonably broad interpretation of “time
transmission interval” encompasses the two different spans of time Lee uses
to transmit PDSCH and ePDCCH data.
Appellant contends the Examiner’s erroneously construed the claim
by “improperly import[ing] unclaimed limitations into the claims” (Appeal
Br. 11), and, thus, the Examiner erred in relying on Lee’s “aggregation or
multiplexing of control channel elements (CCEs) across different carriers in
a shared data channel (PDSCH) region of the same 1ms subframe or TTI”
(id. at 8) to disclose the transmitting encoded control information utilizing a
second TTI shorter in duration than a first TTI and overlapping with a
portion of the first TTI. Appellant contends, in particular, that “Lee teaches
Appeal 2019-001104
Application 14/738,598

5

that its ePDCCH occupies specific resource elements (REs) within a given
subframe/TTL” (id. at 9)—that “Lee’s ePDCCH, PDSCH, and PDCCH . . .
are all contained and multiplexed within the same TTI, and the ePDCCH is
subsumed by Lee’s TTI/subframe[] rather than being a separate TTI . . . that
overlaps with the TTI” (id. at 10). Appellant contends Lee’s time allotted for
ePDCCH transmission is patentably distinct from the claimed second TTI
because the Specification “explicitly defines that ‘a TTI may correspond to a
minimum duration for a unit of information that can independently be
decoded.’” Id. at 9 (quoting Spec. ¶ 45). Appellant further contends the
Examiner’s interpretation of a first TTI and a second TTI is inconsistent with
their “ordinary and customary meaning in light of the specification.” Reply
Br. 3.
Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive because the broadest
reasonable interpretation is one “that corresponds with what and how the
inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation
that is ‘consistent with the specification.’” In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d
1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997)). Even a term’s ordinary or customary meaning gives way
to inventor lexicography when the Specification reveals a special definition.
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Nonetheless,
the Specification “is not a substitute for, nor can it be used to rewrite, the
chosen claim language.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc.,
358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, “a particular embodiment
appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the
claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Id. (citing Electro Med.
Sys. S.A. v. Cooper Life Sci., Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Appeal 2019-001104
Application 14/738,598

6

Moreover, “giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation does not
include giving claims a legally incorrect interpretation divorced from the
specification and the record evidence.” Smith, 871 F.3d at 1382 (citations,
internal quotations, and alterations omitted). But there is nothing improper in
relying on disclosures in the Specification that reveal a broad interpretation
for a disputed term.
Here, the Specification reveals that the claimed transmission time
interval can have one of several meanings. A transmission time interval
“may correspond to a minimum duration for a unit of information that can
independently be decoded.” Spec. ¶ 45 (emphasis added) (cited in Appeal
Br. 9). Alternatively, transmission time intervals “may correspond to frames,
sub-frames, data blocks, time slots, or other suitable groupings of bits for
transmission.” Spec. ¶ 49 (emphasis added) (cited in Ans. 4). The claimed
transmission time intervals are not limited to any of these embodiments. See
SuperGuide, 358 F.3d at 875. The broadest reasonable interpretation of
transmission time intervals, however, encompasses each of these
embodiments because interpreting transmission time intervals to encompass
any of these embodiments is consistent with the Specification. Smith, 871
F.3d at 1383.
The Examiner’s findings show that Lee’s ePDCCH transmission,
which occurs during a portion of the PDSCH transmission, represents a
transmission that uses a second transmission time interval that—by
corresponding to frames, sub-frames, data blocks, time slots, or other
suitable groupings of bits for transmission shorter than that used for the
PDSCH transmission—represents “a second TTI shorter in duration than the
Appeal 2019-001104
Application 14/738,598

7

first TTI and overlapping with a portion of the first TTI,” as claimed. See
Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 4–6.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), and the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102(a)(1), 103 of claims 2–5, 7–15, and 17–28, which Appellant does not
argue separately. Appeal Br. 11, 13.
CLAIMS 6 AND 16
In rejecting claim 6, the Examiner finds Lee’s multiple-input multiple-
output teachings disclose “wherein the plurality of physical links correspond
to a plurality of multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) configurations.” See
Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Lee ¶¶ 91–92); Ans. 6–7.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “Lee does not appear
to disclose . . . that control information may be jointly encoded across, and
allocated to each of a plurality of different physical links or channels that
have different MIMO configurations.” Appeal Br. 12. That is, Appellant
contends “Lee fails to contemplate the use of two or more of these different
MIMO configurations for the joint transmission of control information as
recited in the claims.” Id.
Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive in light of the Examiner’s
findings, which, as noted, we adopt as our own. See Non-Final Act. 4; Ans.
6–7. We further note that Lee specifically discloses “collaborative and/or
multiple antenna transmissions . . . in a communication system (e.g., a[n]
LGE/LTE-Advanced system),” where “collaborative transmissions may be
provided and/or used such that a PDSCH transmission for [wireless
transmit/receive unit] or [user equipment] . . . may be dynamically changed
between transmission points.” Lee ¶ 90. That is, Lee discloses collaborative
Appeal 2019-001104
Application 14/738,598

8

LGE/LTE-Advanced transmissions having different multiple-input multiple-
output configurations. Id. Table 1; see also Ans. 6–7.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), and claim 16, which Appellant does not argue
separately. Appeal Br. 12.
CONCLUSION
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–13, 15–20,
22, 24–28
102(a)(1) Lee 1–3, 5–13, 15–20,
22, 24–28

4, 14 103 Lee,
Periyalwar
4, 14
21, 23 103 Lee, Bourlas 21, 23
Overall Outcome 1–28
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED