Ex Parte Shimezawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2018

14113994 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/113,994 10/25/2013
127226 7590 08/01/2018
BIRCH, STEW ART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
Falls Church, VA 22042-1248
Kazuyuki Shimezawa
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1609-067 4 PUS 1 3066
EXAMINER
CHU, WUTCHUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2018 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAZUYUKI SHIMEZAW A, TOSHIZO NOGAMI,
KIMIHIKO IMAMURA, and DAIICHIRO NAKASHIMA
Appeal2018-001637
Application 14/113,994
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 18, 20-24, and 26-29, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. Claims 1-17, 19, and 25 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S. C. § 6(b ). We affrrm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is a radio communication system where a base
station can notify the terminal of control information via a control channel
using radio resource control (RRC) signaling when the terminal is in a
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as SHARP KABUSHIKI
KAISHA. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-001637
Application 14/113,994
connected state where the terminal holds network information. See
generally Abstract. Claim 18 is illustrative:
18. A base station configured to communicate with a terminal
in a cell, the base station comprising:
a control information generator configured to generate
control information for the terminal; and
a transmitter configured to transmit the control
information on a second control channel that is a control channel
different from a frrst control channel, the frrst control channel
being monitored by the terminal regardless of whether the
terminal is in radio resource control connected state (RRC
CONNECTED state) or radio resource control idle state (RRC
IDLE state), the second control channel being monitored by the
terminal only while the terminal is in the RRC CONNECTED
state, wherein
the RRC CONNECTED state is a state where the terminal
holds information concerning a network, and the RRC IDLE
state is a state where the terminal does not hold information
concerning a network.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 18, 20-24, and26-29under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Ji (US 2011/0044391 Al; pub. Feb. 24, 2011)
("Ji '391") and Ji (US 2012/0213108 Al; pub. Aug. 23, 2012; provisional
application 61/445,411 filed Feb. 22, 2011) ("Ji '411"). 2 Final Act. 3-15. 3
2 Because the Examiner relies exclusively on Ji' s Provisional Application
61/445,411 in connection with its corresponding published application, we
likewise refer to the '411 provisional application unless otherwise indicated.
3 Throughoutthis opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed January
20, 2017 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed August 18, 2017 ("App.
2
Appeal 2018-001637
Application 14/113,994
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Ji '391 discloses, among other things, a base
station configured to communicate with a terminal in a cell, where the
transmitter configured to transmit control information on a second control
channel, namely an Enhanced-Physical Downlink Control Channel (E-
PDCCH), that is different from a frrst control channel, namely a Packet Data
Control Channel (PDCCH). Final Act. 3--4. According to the Examiner, the
terminal monitors ( 1) the frrst control channel regardless of whether the
terminal is in an idle or connected state, and (2) the second control channel
only while the terminal is in a connected state. Final Act. 4. Although the
Examiner acknowledges that Ji '391 lacks the recited RRC CONNECTED
and IDLE states, the Examiner nonetheless cites Ji '411 as teaching these
features in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 5.
Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest
monitoring a frrst control channel regardless of whether the terminal is in an
RRC CONNECTED or RRC IDLE state. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2.
According to Appellants, Ji '391 's terminal enters an idle mode only if there
is no data for the terminal in the beginning of a subframe. App. Br. 9.
Appellants add that Ji '411 does not cure Ji '3 91 's deficiencies because,
among other things, Ji '411 's user equipment (UE) that monitors paging
activity while idle is not equivalent to monitoring a frrst control channel as
claimed. Id.
Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed October 4, 2017 ("Ans."); and
( 4) the Reply Brief filed December 1, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal 2018-001637
Application 14/113,994
Appellants also argue that the cited prior art does not disclose a
terminal that monitors a second control channel only while the terminal is in
an RRC CONNECTED state. App. Br. 9-10. According to Appellants, if
Ji '391 's E-PDCCH were monitored in the connected state as the Examiner
proposes, this channel would need to be included in associated control
signaling-which it is not. App. Br. 10.
ISSUE
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18 by fmding
that Ji '391 and Ji '411 collectively would have taught or suggested a
terminal that monitors ( 1) the frrst control channel regardless of whether the
terminal is in an RRC CONNECTED or RRC IDLE state, and (2) the second
control channel only while the terminal is in an RRC CONNECTED state?
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the Examiner relies principally on Ji '391 for
teaching many recited elements of independent claim 18, including a
terminal that monitors frrst and second control channels, namely the PDCCH
and E-PDCCH, respectively. See Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 3--4. A key aspect of
the Examiner's fmdings in this regard is that Ji '391 's terminal monitors a
control channel to determine if data are destined for the terminal. Ans. 4
(citing Ji '391 ,r,r 57, 153). Ifso, the terminal stays connected; otherwise, it
enters an idle mode. Ans. 4.
Ji '391 's Figure 1 shows a control channel region 117 labeled
"PDCCH" that is a channel for transmitting data channel allocation
information or power control information. See Ji '391 ,r,r 56-58 (noting that
4
Appeal 2018-001637
Application 14/113,994
control channels, including PDCCH, are transmitted within control region
117), ,r 61. As Ji '391 explains, control signalling is transmitted at the
beginning of a subframe to enable a terminal to determine whether the
subframe is intended for the terminal and, therefore, determine whether to
receive a data channel. Ji '391 ,r,r 57. Ifno data channel is destined to the
terminal, the terminal enters idle mode to save power. Id. This
functionality, then, effectively monitors the control channel in a connected
state as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 4.
Although it is unclear whether Ji '391 's terminal also monitors the
control channel when idle, we nevertheless see no error in the Examiner's
reliance on Ji '411 for at least suggesting as much, particularly given
Ji '411 's teachings of monitoring communication channels when idle. For
example, Ji '411 's paragraph 92 notes that a UE can monitor paging activity
in idle mode and, if paged, transition to a connected state to measure serving
cell signal quality. When idle, a UE can also (1) make various
measurements, such as measuring received signal power and quality, and
(2) monitor Channel State Information Reference Signals (CSI_RS). Ji' 411
,r,r 94, 102.
Given this monitoring capability in both idle and connected modes,
we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Ji '391 and Ji '411 collectively
for at least suggesting monitoring a frrst control channel, namely a PDCCH,
regardless of whether the terminal is in an RRC CONNECTED or RRC
IDLE state, particularly given Ji '411 's RRC sublayer 616 in Figure 6 that
obtains radio resources and configures lower layers using RRC signalling
between the evolved Node B ( eNB) and the UE. See Ji '411 ,r 54. In short,
the Examiner's proposed combination uses prior art elements predictably
5
Appeal 2018-001637
Application 14/113,994
according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007).
Appellants' contention that Ji '411 's monitoring paging activity while
idle is not equivalent to monitoring a first control channel (App. Br. 9) is
unavailing. First, this contention is unsubstantiated by any persuasive
evidence on this record and, therefore, has low probative value. See In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Enzo Biochem, Inc.
v. Gen-Probe, Inc.,424F.3d 1276, 1284(Fed. Cir. 2005)("Attomey
argument is no substitute for evidence."). Second, nothing in the claim
precludes Ji '411 's monitoring paging activity when idle and, therefore,
Appellants' arguments in this regard are not commensurate with the scope of
the claim. Nevertheless, leaving aside the fact that a monitored idle-mode
page triggers switching to a connected mode to measure signal quality in
Ji '411 's paragraph 92, Ji '411 's idle mode is not limited to monitoring
paging activity as Appellants seem to suggest, but rather can also include
(1) making various measurements, such as measuring received signal power
and quality, and (2) monitoring Channel State Information Reference
Signals, as noted in paragraphs 94 and 102.
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner's fmding that Ji '391 at
least suggests monitoring a second control channel, E-PDCCH, only while
the terminal is in a connected state, namely when data are destined to the
terminal. Final Act. 4 (citing Ji '391,r,r 76-77, Fig. 5). That Ji '391 's
Figures 4 and 5 show R-PDCCH----a channel equivalent to E-PDCCH
(Ji '391 ,r 41 }-after PDCCH such that R-PDCCH is at least partially in the
data region only bolsters the Examiner's fmdings in this regard.
6
Appeal 2018-001637
Application 14/113,994
We reach this conclusion even assuming, without deciding, that
Ji '391 does not include E-PDCCH(orR-PDCCH) in the control signalling
as Appellants contend. App. Br. 9-10. Not only is this contention
unsubstantiated by any persuasive evidence on this record, Appellants have
not evidenced that such an inclusion would have been uniquely challenging
or otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. See Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). On
this record, we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Ji '391 in this
regard, at least to the extent that monitoring a second control channel,
namely E-PDCCH, only while the terminal is in a connected state would
have been at least an obvious variation. That Ji '411 's paragraph 105
indicates that a UE may monitor R-PDCCH reliability if such a channel is
used only bolsters this conclusion, as does the fact that R-PDCCH can
supplement, augment, or replace the PDCCH control channel as noted in
Ji '411 's paragraph 84.
Nor do Appellants persuasively rebut the Examiner's finding that
Ji '391 's connected and idle states hold and do not hold network
information, respectively, depending on whether data are destined to the
terminal. See Final Act. 4--5.
To be sure, Ji '391 's connected and idle states are not specifically
RRC states as the Examiner acknowledges. Final Act. 5. Nevertheless, we
see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Ji '411 to cure that deficiency,
particularly given Ji '411 's RRC sublayer 616 in Figure 6 that obtains radio
resources and configures lower layers using RRC signalling between the
eNB and the UE. See Ji '411 ,r 54. In short, the Examiner's proposed
7
Appeal 2018-001637
Application 14/113,994
combination uses prior art elements predictably according to their
established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 18, and claims 20-24 and 26-29 not argued separately with
particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 18, 20-24, and 26-29
under§ 103.
DECISION
We affrrm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 18, 20-24, and
26-29.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8