Motorola Mobility LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 17, 20212020004111 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation