Ex Parte Yang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2019

14009913 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/009,913 10/04/2013
48116 7590
FAY SHARPE/NOKIA
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
02/01/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tao Yang
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.
LUTZ 20171 lUSOl 3903
EXAMINER
RANGEL, MANUEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2478
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2019 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):
docketing@faysharpe.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAO YANG and SEAU SIAN LIM 1
Appeal2018-004505
Application 14/009,913
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13, 20, and 302, constituting the only
claims on appeal before us. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm. 3
1 The Appeal Brief indicates the real party in interest is ALCA TEL
LUCENT. Appeal Brief 1.
2 Claims 2, 12, 14--19, 21-29, and 31-38 were canceled by Amendment
dated November 14, 2016. Claim 10 was objected to as dependent on a
rejected base claim, but was noted as allowable if rewritten in independent
form. Final Office Action 2.
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed October 4, 2013,
the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed February 27, 2017, the Appeal
Brief ("App. Br.") filed November 9, 2017, the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.")
Appeal2018-004505
Application 14/009 ,913
CLAIMED INVENTION
Long-Term Evolution (LTE) Release 10 and Release 11 provide for
carrier aggregation to support higher bandwidth between a user equipment
(UE) and base station (e.g., eNodeB) by integrating a number of discrete
frequency bands. Spec. ,r,r 1, 2, 22. In carrier aggregation, a primary cell
corresponding to a particular frequency band serves a radio resource control
(RRC) connection between the UE and base station, and one or more
secondary cells of other bands are added or removed as required to modify
the bandwidth. http://www.3gpp.org/technologies /keywords-
acronyms/10 I-carrier-aggregation-explained (last viewed 1/15/19).
In some deployment scenarios of Release 11, such as uncoordinated,
non-collocated site, and frequency repeater scenarios, an initial timing
alignment for the secondary cell needs to be performed after a secondary cell
is configured. Spec. ,r 3. The invention uses Packet Data Control CHannel
(PDCCH) order signaling to control the UE to perform uplink
synchronization between the UE and base station on the secondary cell.
Spec. ,r,r 4, 6.
Claim 1, shown below, is illustrative of the claimed invention:
1. A method for initializing a secondary cell in a
cellular communication system, comprising:
receiving at a user equipment from a base station a Radio
Resource Control RRC configuration request for the secondary
cell to perform the RRC configuration; and
performing, in response to receiving the RRC
configuration request, uplink synchronization with the base
station in the secondary cell;
mailed January 26, 2018, and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed March 26,
2018.
2
Appeal2018-004505
Application 14/009 ,913
wherein the performing, in response to receiving the
RRC configuration request, uplink synchronization with the
base station in the secondary cell comprises:
receiving a Physical Downlink Control Channel PDCCH
order signaling from the base station; and
performing uplink synchronization with the base station
in the secondary cell based on the PDCCH order signaling,
including identifying a field of Carrier Indicator Field CIF in
the PDCCH order signaling to determine the secondary cells for
uplink synchronization.
App. Br. 11 (Claims App'x).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6, 7, 11, 20, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
based on Chin (US 2012/0176891 Al, July 12, 2012) and Pelletier
(US 2011/0134774 Al, June 9, 2011). Final Act. 4--12.
Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based on
Chin, Pelletier, and Feuersanger (US 2013/0058315 Al, March 7, 2013).
Final Act. 12-14.
Claims 4, 5, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based on
Chin, Pelletier, and Westberg (US 2012/0218970 Al, August 30, 2012).
Final Act. 14--17.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based on Chin,
Pelletier, and Kuo (US 2011/0103332 Al, May 5, 2011). Final Act. 17-19.
3
Appeal2018-004505
Application 14/009 ,913
ANALYSIS
"Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when 'the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains."' KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007) ("KSR"). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of
underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the
prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called
secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18
(1966).
Independent Claims 1, 11, 20, and 30
Appellants note that claims 1, 20, and 30 recite identifying a field of a
Carrier Indicator Field (CIF) in the PDCCH order signaling to determine the
secondary cells for uplink synchronization. App. Br. 6. Claim 11 recites
setting a field of the CIF in the PDCCH order signaling to identify the
secondary cells for uplink synchronization. Id.
Appellants argue for patentability of the independent claims over
Pelletier, the reference the Examiner relied on to teach these particular
claimed features, as follows:
Pelletier information messages are used for scheduling uplink
and downlink resources. The present application describes
performing uplink synchronization with the base station in the
secondary cell based on the PDCCH order signaling, including
identifying ( or setting) a field of Carrier Indicator Field CIF in
the PDCCH order signaling to determine ( or identify) the
secondary cells for uplink synchronization. Pelletier simply
4
Appeal2018-004505
Application 14/009 ,913
describes having explicit instructions that include the CCIF that
corresponds to the SCell. There is no determining the CIF
which is used to determine SCells.
App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 4.
To the extent Appellants are arguing that Pelletier is limited to
teaching scheduling uplink and downlink resources, and not uplink
synchronization, we agree with the Examiner that Pelletier teaches uplink
synchronization. Final Act. 3--4 citing Pelletier ,r,r 3, 55, 60, 161, 162.
Specifically, Pelletier teaches that its base station (or "NodeB" or
"eNodeB"-Pelletier ,r 16) generates and transmits a PDCCH order with a
carrier indicator field (CIF) set to identify secondary cells for which the UE
(Pelletier's "wireless transmit/receive unit" (WTRU)) is to carry out random
access (RA) for timing alignment to achieve uplink synchronization.
Pelletier ,r 161. Accordingly, we do not agree that Pelletier is limited to only
teaching scheduling uplink and downlink resources, for it also teaches uplink
synchronization of the UE and base station on the secondary cells.
We also find unpersuasive Appellants' argument that Pelletier does
not teach "determining the CIF which is used to determine the SCells."
App. Br. 7. Pelletier states the component carrier indicator field (CCIF) may
be set by the base station to identify a secondary cell (SCell) or a plurality of
SCells. Pelletier ,r,r 42, 43, 60. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood that, in order to determine or set the CIF with the identities
of the secondary cell or cells affected by the PDCCH order, the base station
must identify the CIF field and set its value accordingly. The UE receiving
this PDCCH order from the base station also must identify the CIF field in
5
Appeal2018-004505
Application 14/009 ,913
order to determine the secondary cells on which RA, including timing
alignment for uplink synchronization, is to be performed.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in the rejection
of claims 1, 11, 20, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Chin and
Pelletier.
Claims 3 and 13
Appellants argue "[t]he [Examiner's] reliance on Feuersanger does
not disclose the missing elements of Pelletier." App. Br. 7-8. Appellants
also argue "while Feuersanger discusses a RACH preamble, there is no
specific mention of a Carrier Indicator Field CIF in the PDCCH order
signaling." Reply Br. 5---6.
For reasons explained supra with respect to claims 1 and 11, we do
not agree Pelletier is missing elements that required Feuersanger to support
the Examiner's rejection. Pelletier teaches a Carrier Indicator Field (CCIF)
in a PDCCH order. See, e.g., Pelletier ,r,r 60, 161-162. Thus, we are not
persuaded by Appellants' argument and sustain the rejection of these claims.
Claims 4, 5, and 8
Appellants argue Westberg does not disclose the missing elements of
Pelletier. App. Br. 8. As noted supra, we are not persuaded that the
combination of Chin and Pelletier used in the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, from which these claims depend, was missing
elements. Accordingly, the Examiner had no need to rely on Westberg to
disclose any alleged missing limitation.
Furthermore, Appellants' argument merely summarizes what
Westberg teaches and states various claim limitations without explaining
why Westberg does not teach them. This form of argument is not persuasive
6
Appeal2018-004505
Application 14/009 ,913
to show Examiner error. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) ("The arguments shall
explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by
appellant.") ( emphasis added); ("A statement which merely points out what
a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability
of the claim."). Thus, we find Appellants' argument unpersuasive for these
additional reasons.
Claim 9
Appellants argue Kuo does not disclose the missing elements of
Pelletier. App. Br. 8-9. Again, we do not agree Pelletier had deficiencies
that the Examiner needed Kuo to provide in order to support the rejection of
claim 1, from which claim 9 depends.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue for the first time that in Kuo
"there is no specific mention of performing random access processes
simultaneously or one by one for each of the plurality of secondary cells if
the same TA [ timing advance] information is used for the plurality of
secondary cells." Reply Br. 7. This argument was not submitted in the
Appeal Brief (see App. Br. 8-9), Appellants do not contend that it is
responsive to an argument raised in the Examiner's answer, and no showing
of good cause for its late submission has been presented. Accordingly, we
do not consider the argument at this late stage of the appeal as the Examiner
has not had an opportunity to consider and respond to it. 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 41.41 (b )(2) ("Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised
in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the
examiner's answer, including any designated new ground of rejection, will
not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless
good cause is shown.").
7
Appeal2018-004505
Application 14/009 ,913
Claims 6 and 7
For the reasons explained with respect to claim 1, we sustain the
rejections of the remaining dependent claims 6 and 7 for which no separate
arguments are submitted. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13, 20, and 30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
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