INTEL IP CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 21, 2021

2020005352 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 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.
15/571,500 11/02/2017 CHRISTIAN IBARS CASAS APP128WOUS 8395
167761 7590 04/21/2021
Eschweiler/Apple Inc.
c/o Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC
Rosetta Center
629 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1000
Cleveland, OH 44114
EXAMINER
DECKER, CASSANDRA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2021 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):
docketing@epiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTIAN IBARS CASAS and
SEUNGHEE HAN
Appeal 2020-005352
Application 15/571,500
Technology Center 2400

Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, DAVID J. CUTITTA II, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.

CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–25, all the claims under
consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc.
Appeal Brief filed January 21, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”) 1.
Appeal 2020-005352
Application 15/571,500

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Summary
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to implementing “a reduced
transmission time interval (rTTI) . . . to reduce air interface latency in a radio
access network.” Spec. 2:20–21.2 According to Appellant, in “various
embodiments, an rTTI block may be defined, and some operations may be
performed in rTTI block-wise fashion in order to reduce the marginal
overhead associated with implementation of the rTTI.” Id. 2:21–24.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 10, reproduced below with certain limitations at
issue italicized, exemplify the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
at least one memory; and
logic, at least a portion of which is implemented in
circuitry coupled to the at least one memory, the logic to:
access, at user equipment (UE), control
information for a reduced transmission time interval
(rTTI) block comprising a plurality of rTTIs including
one or more rTTIs assigned to the UE;
identify resources of each of the one or more rTTIs
based on the control information; and
wirelessly communicate with an evolved Node B
(eNB) via the identified resources of at least one of the
one or more rTTIs.

2 In addition to the Appeal Brief noted above, we refer to: (1) the originally
filed Specification filed November 2, 2017 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office
Action mailed July 8, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer
mailed May 14, 2020 (“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed July 14, 2020
(“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-005352
Application 15/571,500

3
2. The apparatus of claim 1, the logic to:
identify an rTTI block sharing format for the rTTI block;
and
identify the one or more rTTIs assigned to the UE based
on the rTTI block sharing format.
6. The apparatus of claim 5, the logic to:
process data received from the eNB via the PDSCH
resources of the multiple rTTIs of the rTTI block; and
generate an rTTI block-wise hybrid automatic repeat
request (HARQ) feedback message for transmission over a
physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) to provide HARQ
feedback for the data.
10. An apparatus, comprising:
at least one memory; and
logic, at least a portion of which is implemented in
circuitry coupled to the at least one memory, the logic to:
assign one or more reduced transmit time intervals
(rTTIs) to user equipment (UE), the one or more rTTIs to be
comprised among a plurality of rTTIs of an rTTI block;
allocate resources of each of the one or more rTTIs for
communication with the UE; and
generate control information for transmission during a
first rTTI of the rTTI block, the control information to indicate
the allocated resources of each of the one or more rTTIs.
Appeal Br. 11–13 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–12, and 14–17 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by XU et al. (US 2016/0100395 A1,
published Apr. 7, 2016) (“Xu”). Final Act. 3–6.
The Examiner rejects claim 3 and 19–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Xu, Venkob et al. (US
Appeal 2020-005352
Application 15/571,500

4
2010/0303045 A1, published Dec. 2, 2010) (“Venkob”), and Conway et al.
(US 2010/0238910 A1, published Sept. 23, 2010) (“Conway”). Id. at 6–7,
9–10.
The Examiner rejects claims 8, 13, 18, and 23–25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Xu and Venkob. Id. at 7–
9.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence.
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1–5,
8, 9, and 18–25, and we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner for these claims to the extent consistent with our analysis
herein. Final Act. 3–10; Ans. 3–6.
Anticipation Rejection of Independent Claim 1
The Examiner finds Xu discloses “access, at user equipment (UE),
control information for a reduced transmission time interval (rTTI) block
comprising a plurality of rTTIs including one or more rTTIs assigned to the
UE,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3 (citing Xu ¶¶ 112, 140–143); Ans. 3.
Of particular relevance, the Examiner relies on Xu’s discussion of an LTE
system that “support[s] 0.5 ms TTI bundling” and comprises a UE accessing
configuration information including control information such as a quick
physical uplink control channel (“QPUCCH”) that is provided by a serving
eNB. Final Act. 3 (citing Xu ¶¶ 141, 142).
Appeal 2020-005352
Application 15/571,500

5
In response to the Examiner’s finding that Xu’s 0.5 ms TTI bundling
discloses the claimed rTTI block, Appellant argues:
[t]here are significant differences between a TTI bundle [as
disclosed in Xu] and a rTTI block as discussed in the
specification and recited in the claims. For example, see ¶ [0042]
discussing that “eNB 152 may be able to schedule an rTTI block
such that different rTTIs of the block are assigned to different
UEs,” which is not possible with TTI bundling (see also ¶ [0125],
etc.), or the possibility, noted by the Office, that the rTTI block
of the claims can comprise a single rTTI for a UE (e.g., “one or
more rTTIs assigned to the UE” in claim 1), which is not possible
for TTI bundling.
Reply Br. 2–3.
Appellant’s argument that it “is not possible” for TTI bundling “to
schedule an rTTI block such that different rTTIs of the block are assigned to
different UEs” or to “comprise a single rTTI for a UE” is unpersuasive for
lack of persuasive evidence or reasoned explanation. Although Appellant
argues that it is not possible for TTI bundling to perform the alleged
scheduling or to “comprise a single rTTI for a UE,” Appellant fails to
provide any evidence or explanation why these functions are not possible
with TTI bundling. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and
conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are
entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974)
(attorney argument is not evidence). Because one of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that Xu’s 0.5 ms TTI bundling aggregates a plurality
of rTTIs, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Xu discloses the
claimed rTTI block. Final Act. 3 (citing Xu ¶¶ 141, 142).

Appeal 2020-005352
Application 15/571,500

6
Appellant further argues:
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the “0.5 ms TTI
bundling” of Xu does disclose a “rTTI block” as recited in claim
1, it is clear that the control information (e.g., of QPUCCH,
QEPDCCH, etc.) discussed in Xu is associated with a 0.5 ms TTI
or 0.5 ms subframe structure (e.g., see Xu at ¶ [0140]-[0143]),
thus any control information contained therein is for a single 0.5
ms TTI, not any 0.5 ms TTI bundle.
Appeal Br. 4.
Appellant argument that “it is clear” the control information discussed
in Xu is for a single 0.5 ms TTI, not any 0.5 ms TTI bundle is unpersuasive
because Appellant fails to offer evidence or persuasive reasoning to
demonstrate why this alleged fact is clear. Appellant therefore, fails to show
reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Xu’s control information is
for the 0.5 ms TTI bundle.
For the reasons discussed, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1. We, therefore,
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, as well as the rejections of
dependent claims 3–5, 8, and 9, which Appellant does not argue separately
with particularity. Appeal Br. 4.
Anticipation Rejection of Independent Claim 10
The Examiner finds Xu discloses “generate control information for
transmission during a first rTTI of the rTTI block,” as recited in claim 10.
Final Act. 5 (citing Xu ¶¶ 112, 140, 143). Claim 10 also requires that an
rTTI block is comprised of “a plurality of rTTIs.” Appeal Br. 13.
Appellant argues that Xu does not expressly disclose generating
control information during a first 0.5 ms TTI of a TTI bundle. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2020-005352
Application 15/571,500

7
Appellant further argues that the Examiner has not established that Xu
inherently discloses this limitation because:
while . . . it might occur in Xu that the first rTTI of the rTTI block
(assuming an rTTI block in Xu for the sake of argument) is the
only rTTI scheduled for data for the UE, such that Xu’s technique
of control information within each rTTI for that rTTI
coincidentally caused the slot-wise control information of Xu
during that first rTTI to potentially conform to features recited
above, that result is clearly not necessarily present, and is
therefore insufficient for inherent disclosure.
Appeal Br. 5 (citing MPEP § 2112).
The Examiner responds that:
the claim does specifically indicate that a single rTTI may be
assigned to a UE and does not require that plural rTTIs be
assigned to a UE. Xu does teach one of the claimed alternatives
(with one rTTI assigned to a UE) and is thus sufficient to meet
the requirements of the claim. Where a claim is directed to
alternatives, the prior art need not teach all the alternatives to be
sufficient to reject the claim.
Ans. 4.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not established that
Xu expressly or inherently discloses “generate control information for
transmission during a first rTTI of the rTTI block,” as recited in claim 10.
Claim 10 further recites “assign one or more reduced transmit time intervals
(rTTIs) to user equipment (UE), the one or more rTTIs to be comprised
among a plurality of rTTIs of an rTTI block.” According to the Examiner,
because claim 10 recites assigning one or more rTTIs to user equipment, the
claim does not require that plural rTTIs be assigned to a UE and thus Xu’s
assigning of control information to an rTTI block “is sufficient to meet the
Appeal 2020-005352
Application 15/571,500

8
requirements of the claim.” Ans. 4. Claim 10, however, requires that the
block is comprised of a “plurality of rTTIs.” Although we agree with the
Examiner that claim 10 “does not require that plural rTTIs be assigned to a
UE,” the Examiner does not address claim 10’s requirement that the block is
comprised of a “plurality of rTTIs.” The Examiner, therefore, fails to
sufficiently explain how Xu’s discussion of generating control information
for a 0.5 ms TTI bundle expressly discloses “generat[ing] control
information for transmission during a first rTTI of [an] rTTI block”
comprised of a plurality of rTTIs. Nor has the Examiner established
inherency because the Examiner fails to sufficiently explain how
transmitting during a first rTTI of a plurality of rTTI necessarily flows from
Xu’s disclosure. See MPEP § 2112 (“The fact that a certain result or
characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art is not sufficient to
establish the inherency of that result or characteristic.” (citing In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993))).
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 10. For the same
reasons, we also reverse the rejections of claims 11, 12, and 14–17, which
depend from independent claim 10.
With respect to the obviousness rejection of claim 13, which depends
from claim 10, the Examiner does not rely on the additionally cited
reference, Venkob, to cure the deficiency of the anticipation rejection
discussed above. Final Act. 8. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 13 for the reasons set forth for independent claim 10.
Appeal 2020-005352
Application 15/571,500

9
Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claim 18
Claim 18 recites, in part, “identify control information for a reduced
transmission time interval (rTTI) block comprising a plurality of rTTIs
including one or more rTTIs assigned to a user equipment (UE), the control
information to be comprised in signals received via resources of a first rTTI
of the rTTI block.” Appeal Br. 14.
The Examiner rejects independent claim 18 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Xu and Venkob. Final Act. 8–9. Specifically, the
Examiner finds that Xu teaches the limitations of claim 18 but that Xu “is
not explicit as to, but Venkob teaches the control information to be
comprised in signals received via resources of a first rTTI of the rTTI block”
and that sufficient motivation existed to combine the teachings of the
references. Final Act. 9 (citing Venkob ¶¶ 103, 104, Figs. 4B, 8).
Relying on the arguments presented for claim 10, Appellant argues
that Xu fails to expressly or inherently disclose “the control information to
be comprised in signals received via resources of a first rTTI of the rTTI
block,” as recited in claim 18, and that “Venkob does not overcome the
deficiencies of Xu.” Appeal Br. 9; see id. at 4–5.
Appellant’s arguments based on Xu are unpersuasive because the
Examiner relies on Venkob to teach the limitation argued by Appellant.
Final Act. 9. Also, Appellant merely offers a conclusory statement that
“Venkob does not overcome the deficiencies of Xu,” without any
explanation as to why the Examiner’s findings with respect to Venkob are
improper. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 9. Such a conclusory statement,
however, amounting to little more than a quotation of the claim language
and a general denial, is unpersuasive to rebut the Examiner’s findings. Cf.
Appeal 2020-005352
Application 15/571,500

10
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim.”); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require
more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the
claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were
not found in the prior art.”).
Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 18. We, therefore,
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, as well as the rejection of
claims 19–25, which Appellant does not argue separately with particularity.
Appeal Br. 8–9.
Anticipation Rejection of Dependent Claim 2
The Examiner finds Xu discloses “identify an rTTI block sharing
format for the rTTI block; and identify the one or more rTTIs assigned to the
UE based on the rTTI block sharing format.” Final Act. 4 (citing Xu ¶¶ 148,
149, 154, 143); Ans. 4.
Appellant argues that Xu is silent on identifying an rTTI block sharing
format because “Xu is unclear if the multiplexing occurs transparently to
individual UEs; e.g., whether those same resources are assigned to the UE
regardless of another multiplexed UE and/or whether the UE otherwise
determines multiplexing has occurred.” Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 5–6.
According to the Examiner, “both the claim and applicant’s disclosure
are silent as to whether a UE is aware of multiplexing. Therefore Xu need
not be clear about such transparency of multiplexing to the individual UEs.”
Ans. 5.
Appeal 2020-005352
Application 15/571,500

11
We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive because, as the Examiner
notes, the argument that “Xu is unclear if the multiplexing occurs
transparently to individual UE” relies on a limitation not recited in claim 2.
Appellant further argues that “[e]ven if the UE were aware
multiplexing were occurring, that would still be insufficient information for
the UE to identify the one or more rTTIs assigned to the UE based on the
rTTI block sharing format.” Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis omitted).
We find this argument unpersuasive for lack of evidence or persuasive
reasoning. Appellant provides no citation to Xu or explanation why there
would be insufficient information for identifying rTTIs assigned to the UE in
Xu.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of independent claim 2.
Anticipation Rejection of Dependent Claims 6 and 7
The Examiner finds Xu discloses “process data received from the eNB
via the PDSCH resources of the multiple rTTIs of the rTTI block; and
generate an rTTI block-wise hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ)
feedback message for transmission over a physical uplink control channel
(PUCCH) to provide HARQ feedback for the data,” as recited in claim 6.
Final Act. 4 (citing Xu ¶¶ 142, 159, 161); Ans. 6.
Appellant argues that while “Xu does discuss HARQ,” the “HARQ in
Xu is associated with the data of individual slots” and thus “Xu does not
disclose generat[ing] an rTTI block-wise hybrid automatic repeat request
(HARQ) feedback message for transmission over a physical uplink control
channel (PUCCH) to provide HARQ feedback for the data, where that data
Appeal 2020-005352
Application 15/571,500

12
is data received from the eNB via the PDSCH resources of the multiple
rTTIs of the rTTI block.” Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis omitted).
According to the Examiner, “Xu does teach the UEs receiving data via
PDSCH resources in the rTTIs and the rTTI bundling. Xu also teaches
HARQ-ACK transmissions for the rTTIs. Please note that, as recited in
Claim 1 from which these claims depend, the UE may only be receiving data
on a single rTTI in the rTTI block.” Ans. 6.
Appellant responds:
Regardless of the scope of claim 1, from which claim 6 depends,
claim 6 further recites process data received from the eNB via
the PDSCH resources of the multiple rTTIs of the rTTI block.
The Office’s argument relies on an interpretation of “the multiple
rTTIs” as a single TTI, which is clear error.
Reply Br. 8 (emphasis omitted).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 6
as reciting a UE that only “receiv[es] data on a single rTTI in the rTTI
block” reads out of claim 6 the limitation “process data received from the
eNB via the PDSCH resources of the multiple rTTIs of the rTTI block.”
Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis added). “It is highly disfavored to construe terms
in a way that renders them void, meaningless, or superfluous.” Wasica Fin.
GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1288 n.10 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Thus, given the current record, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent claim 6, and of dependent
claim 7, which depends from claim 6 and includes the limitation at issue.

Appeal 2020-005352
Application 15/571,500

13
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–7,
9–12, 14–
17
102(a)(2) Xu 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 6, 7,
10–12,
14–17
3, 19–22 103 Xu, Venkob, Conway 3, 19–22
8, 13, 18,
23–25
103 Xu, Venkob 8, 18,
23–25
13
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 8, 9,
18–25
6, 7,
10–17
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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 IN PART