Motorola Mobility LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 17, 2021

2020004111 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 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.
15/675,271 08/11/2017 Ravikiran Nory SMM02135-US-NP1 6698
73635 7590 09/17/2021
Loppnow & Chapa [Motorola]
P.O. Box 7588
Libertyville, IL 60048
EXAMINER
MOORE JR, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2021 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.mobility@motorola.com
docketing@loppchap.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAVIKIRAN NORY, VIJAY NANGIA, ROBERT T. LOVE, and
RAVI KUCHIBHOTLA
Appeal 2020-004111
Application 15/675,271
Technology Center 2400
Before LARRY J. HUME, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–25. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Motorola Mobility
LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-004111
Application 15/675,271

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The claimed subject matter is directed to “METHOD AND
APPARATUS INCLUDING ONE OR MORE PARAMETERS FOR
DEFINING A MORE FLEXIBLE RADIO COMMUNICATION.” See
Spec. (Title). Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed invention
“relate[] generally to a method and apparatus for establishing a
communication connection with a communication network, and more
particularly, to the receipt of one or more parameters including parameters
which serve to define a control channel transmission structure, and/or the
nature of a resource allocation.” Spec. 1:5–9.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
Appeal (emphasis and formatting added to contested prior-art limitation):
1. A method in a device comprising:
establishing a communication connection with a
communication network via an access point including receiving
information for defining a format of the communication
connection, whereby the format to be used as part of the
communication connection includes one or more parameters
which are received from the communication network when
establishing the communication connection,
wherein at least one of the one or more received
parameters serve to define a control channel transmission
structure to be used as part of the format; and

2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
Dec. 5, 2019); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 13, 2020); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 13, 2020); Final Office Action (“Final Act.,”
mailed June 6, 2019); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed
Aug. 11, 2017) (claiming benefit of US 62/374,612, filed Aug. 12, 2016).
Appeal 2020-004111
Application 15/675,271

3
receiving a control channel including one or more control
channel transmissions in support of the established
communication connection, based upon the control channel
transmission structure defined by the at least one of the one or
more received parameters.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence:
Name Reference Date
Liao et al. (“Liao”) US 2017/0332396 A1 Nov. 16, 2017
Iyer et al. (“Iyer”) US 2017/0366311 A1 Dec. 21, 2017
REJECTIONS
R1. Claims 1–5, 7–11, and 14–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liao. Final Act. 2.
R2. Claims 6, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Liao and Iyer. Final Act. 14.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 3–7) and our discretion
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of anticipation
Rejection R1 of claims 1–5, 7–11, and 14–25 on the basis of representative
claim 1. Remaining claims 6, 12, and 13 in Rejection R2, not argued
separately or with specificity, stand or fall with the respective independent
claim from which they depend.3

3 “Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In addition, when Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of
Appeal 2020-004111
Application 15/675,271

4
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. To the extent Appellant has not
advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other
issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–25
and, unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by reference herein and adopt as
our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s arguments. We highlight
and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis
as follows.
1. § 102(a)(2) Rejection R1 of Claims 1–5, 7–11, and 14–25
Issue 1
Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 3–6; Reply Br. 1–2) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liao
is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior discloses “[a] method
in a device” wherein, inter alia, “at least one of the one or more received
parameters serve to define a control channel transmission structure to be
used as part of the format,” as recited in claim 1?

dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appeal 2020-004111
Application 15/675,271

5
Principles of Law
Anticipation of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102 occurs when each
claimed element and the claimed arrangement or combination of those
elements is disclosed, inherently or expressly, by a single prior art reference.
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
2010). A reference inherently discloses an element of a claim “if that
missing characteristic is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single
anticipating reference.” Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., 339 F.3d 1373,
1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). “Inherency,
however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere
fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not
sufficient.” Therasense, 593 F.3d at 1332 (citing Cont’l Can Co. USA, Inc.
v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
Analysis
The Examiner finds Liao in Figure 9 and steps 1001 and 1002 of
Figure 10, as well as in paragraphs 43 and 45, discloses receiving parameters
that define a control channel transmission structure in which “the received
physical layer signaling indicates which slots include scheduled control data
(control channel transmission structure).” Final Act. 3. Paragraph 45 of
Liao is quoted below:
FIG. 10 is a flow chart of a method of dynamically
configuring slot type with flexible frame structure from UE
perspective in accordance with one novel aspect. In step 1001, a
user equipment (UE) receives a higher layer configuration from
a base station in a mobile communication network. The UE
exchanges data with the base station according to a predefined
radio frame format, and each radio frame comprises a plurality
of slots. The higher layer configuration indicates which slots
are downlink-only (DL only) slots and which slots are flexible
Appeal 2020-004111
Application 15/675,271

6
slots. In step 1002, the UE detects a physical layer signaling
that indicates one or more slot types associated with
corresponding one or more flexible slots of each radio frame. In
step 1003, the UE determines the slot type of the flexible slots
based on the higher layer configuration and the physical layer
signaling.
Liao ¶ 45.
Thus, from the above, we find Liao discloses dynamically configuring
a flexible frame structure of a control channel using configuration
parameters exchanged between a base station and user equipment (UE).
Appellant contends Liao “minimally fails to make known or obvious
one or more parameters received by the device from the communication
network, which in turn serve to define a control channel transmission
structure for a control channel that is then received by the device as part of
an established communication connection with a communication network,”
as recited in claim 1, and “in the claims as presently pending, it is the
structure of the control channel to be received by the device from the
network (i.e. downlink control channel) that is defined by associated
parameters received from the communication network.” Appeal Br. 4.
Appellant further argues, instead, “the reference in the rejection instead
focuses on teachings which relate to alternative slot assignments between the
data or the control channel structure for use in an uplink direction. In fact to
the extent that the reference teaches a configurable structure, the
configurable structure in the downlink direction is focused on downlink
data.” Id. “In other words, what is missing from the reference is the receipt
of a parameter by the user equipment that is taught to be used to define a
control channel structure, that is then used by the user equipment to receive
Appeal 2020-004111
Application 15/675,271

7
a control channel, as part of the communication connection with the
communication network.” Appeal Br. 5.
As a matter of claim construction, we first note claim 1 is broadly
drafted, and levies no requirement in the claim relating to either an uplink or
downlink such that Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the
scope of the claim. Moreover, the Examiner further responds to Appellant:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As provided in the Final
Office Action, Liao teaches a user equipment that receives
higher layer configuration information as well as physical layer
signaling (collectively information) via a base station (access
point) in a mobile communication network (for connection
establishment/reconfiguration) that indicates which frame slots
of a frame structure (format) are downlink-only and which
frame slots are flexible slots, as well as one or more slot
types (parameters) associated with corresponding one or more
flexible slots of each radio frame as shown in steps 1001 and
1002 of Figure 10 and spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0045];
where the received physical layer signaling indicates which
slots include scheduled control data (control channel
transmission structure) as shown in Figure 9 and [disclosed]
on page 5, paragraph [0043].
Ans. 4.
With respect to the cited disclosure of Liao, the Examiner further
finds:
It is maintained that the above teachings describe an
adjustment of structure of a control channel as particular frame
slots of a frame structure are indicated to a user equipment as
including scheduled control data, which describes where control
data (particulars) is transmitted/received within the frame
structure over the communication channel. The language of
claims 1 and 21 is rather broad in scope, and by giving a
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, it is
maintained that Liao teaches the above limitations in question.
Ans. 5.
Appeal 2020-004111
Application 15/675,271

8
In the Reply, Appellant argues the Examiner’s analysis omits “any
indication where one or more received parameters serve to define a control
channel transmission structure that affects the structure of the control
channel that is received by the device (i.e. in a downlink direction).” Reply
Br. 2. “[T]he Examiner appears to be reading in an alleged breadth that can
not [sic] be supported by the reference, where despite the fact that control
information can be included in a particular type of downlink slot, the slots
are generally exclusively referenced as downlink data slots, as evidenced
when you consider the teachings of the reference in its more complete
context.” Id.
“In fact, the only place where multiple types of control channels are
identified, toward the end of paragraph [0037] at lines 20–24, the paragraph
explicitly refers to the potential for two different UL control channel types
(i.e. control channels sent from the UE to the network), as opposed to DL
control channel types (i.e. control channel received by the UE from the
network), which could possibly be selected based upon an alternative
selection of a slot type between DL-major and UL-major, but this explicitly
refers to different UL control channel types.” Id.
We disagree with Appellant’s argument in the Reply and note
paragraph 34 of Liao discloses:
For DL-only slot type, all OFDM symbols of the entire
slot is for DL transmission, which includes both DL data and
DL control. For UL-only slot type, all OFDM symbols of the
entire slot is for UL transmission, which includes both UL data
and UL control. For DL-major slot type, there are both DL part
(including either DL data only or DL data with DL control) and
UL part (including UL control) in the slot. DL-major slot type
can be allocated when there is DL data and several blank
OFDM symbols in the end of the slot are need for other
Appeal 2020-004111
Application 15/675,271

9
purposes, e.g., larger guard period, listen-before-talk. For UL-
major slot type, there are DL part (including DL control) and
UL part (including either UL data only or UL data with UL
control) in the slot. UL-major slot type can be allocated when
there is UL data and several blank OFDM symbols in the
beginning of the slot are needed for other purposes, e.g., larger
guard period, listen-before-talk. The GP length is 17.84/20.84
μs, assuming 60 KHz subcarrier spacing, which is sufficient to
accommodate UE DL-to-UL switching time, UL-to-DL
switching time and UL timing advance. For larger subcarrier
spacing, e.g. 120 KHz and 240 KHz, more OFDM symbols are
needed for GP to accommodate DL-to-UL switching time, UL-
to-DL switching time, and UL timing advance. The number of
OFDM symbols reserved for guard period for DL-major and
UL-major is configurable..
Liao ¶ 34.
We find, in agreement with the Examiner, that the disclosure of Liao
anticipates the recited control channel whose structure is defined by various
parameters.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Liao discloses
“at least one of the one or more received parameters serve to define a control
channel transmission structure to be used as part of the format,” as recited in
claim 1.
Based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded
of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art to disclose the
disputed limitation of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner’s
resulting finding of anticipation. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped claims 2–5, 7–11,
and 14–25, which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
Appeal 2020-004111
Application 15/675,271

10
2. § 103 Rejection R2 of Claims 6, 12, and 13
In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed
to obviousness Rejection R2 of claims 6, 12, and 13 under § 103 (see Appeal
Br. 6–7), we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Arguments
not made are waived.4
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellant may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 1–2) not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s position in
the Answer, arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the
Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s
Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellant has not shown.
CONCLUSIONS
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections. More specifically:
(1) Appellant has not persuasively argued that the Examiner erred
with respect to anticipation Rejection R1 of claims 1–5, 7–11, and 14–25
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2), and we sustain the rejection.
(2) Appellant has not persuasively argued that the Examiner erred
with respect to obviousness Rejection R2 of claims 6, 12, and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over the cited prior art combination of record, and we sustain
the rejection.

4 Appellant merely argues, “Iyer et al., ‘311, fails to address the above noted
deficiencies of Liao et al., ‘396, relative to the independent claims.
Correspondingly, the above noted distinctions relative to the independent
claims 1 and 21 noted above continue to be relevant to the present rejection
of claims 6, 12 and/or 13, based on the alleged obviousness.” Appeal Br. 7.
Appeal 2020-004111
Application 15/675,271

11
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–
11, 14–25 102(a)(2)
Liao 1–5, 7–11, 14–25
6, 12, 13 103 Liao, Iyer 6, 12, 13
Overall
Outcome 1–25
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)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED