QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 4, 2021

2019005947 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 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.
14/858,960 09/18/2015 Shimman PATEL 030284.10234/147355 2377
15142 7590 03/04/2021
Arent Fox, LLP and Qualcomm, Incorporated
1717 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-5344
EXAMINER
ZHANG, RUIHUA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2416
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2021 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
patentdocket@arentfox.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHIMMAN PATEL, WANSHI CHEN,
PETER GAAL, ALEKSANDAR DAMNJANOVIC,
YONGBIN WEI, DURGA PRASAD MALLADI, and
HAO XU
___________

Appeal 2019−005947
Application 14/858,960
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4−15, 17−22,
24−27, 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 6. Claims 3, 16,

1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s
determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed October 9, 2018), the
Reply Brief (filed August 5, 2019), the Final Action (mailed April 12, 2018),
and the Answer (mailed June 13, 2019), for the respective details.

2 We use the term Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies QUALCOMM Incorporated as the real party
in interest. Appeal Brief 4.

Appeal 2019-005947
Application 14/858,960
2

23, and 28 are canceled. See Final Action 2. Claims 1, 14, 21 and 26 are
independent. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Introduction
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter “relates generally
to communication systems, and more particularly, to a downlink frame
structure and method of downlink transmission for managing
communications with user equipment in a wireless communication system.”
See Specification ¶ 2.

Representative Claim3
1. A method of managing user equipment (UE) communications in a
wireless communication system, comprising:

obtaining, at a network entity, user data for transmission to one or
more UEs on a downlink channel;

determining one or more delivery constraints associated with at least
one of the user data and the one or more UEs;

generating, based on the user data for transmission and the one or
more delivery constraints, a data structure for allocating downlink channel
resources for transmission of the user data, wherein the data structure
comprises:

multiple resource element blocks into which a frequency
bandwidth is divided within a symbol, wherein the symbol is one of

3 Appellant contends, “[I]ndependent claim 1 is patentable over the art of
record. Independent claims 14, 21, and 26 recite similar aspects to those of
independent claim 1.” Appeal Brief 14. Accordingly, we select independent
claim 1 as the representative claim focusing on subject matter common to
independent claims 1, 14, 21, and 26. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-005947
Application 14/858,960
3

multiple symbols in a downlink subframe and defines a transmission
time interval (TTI), wherein a resource element block of the
multiple resource element blocks defines both of a control region and
a data region, and wherein the resource element block includes a same
number of resource elements as another resource element block of the
multiple resource element blocks; and

a downlink resource grant, located within the control region and
granting resources in the data region in the resource element block, for
a UE of the one or more UEs served by the downlink channel; and

transmitting the user data to the UE according to the downlink
resource grant of the data structure.

References
Name4 Reference Date
Kim US 2010/0246499 A1 September 30, 2010
Chen US 2011/0235584 A1 September 29, 2011
Mizusawa US 2012/0064834 A1 March 15, 2012
Ahmadi US 2013/0114525 A1 May 9, 2013
Bhorkar US 2015/0349929 A1 December 3, 2015

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8−15, 17, 19−22, 24, 26, 27 and 29 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ahmadi, Chen, and
Mizusawa. Final Action 2–18.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ahmadi, Chen, Mizusawa, and Bhorkar. Final Action 18–
19.

4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.

Appeal 2019-005947
Application 14/858,960
4

Claims 7, 18, 25 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ahmadi, Chen, Mizusawa, and Kim. Final Action
19–21.

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends:
the structure in FIG. 2B of Ahmadi is a completely different
structure to solve the limitations of the structure in FIG. 1, and is
intended to cure deficiencies in the structure of FIG. 1. For at
least this reason, one having ordinary skill would not seek to
combine these two structures in Ahmadi to arrive at the claimed
subject matter (at least not without the benefit of Applicant’s
disclosure), and any reliance on combining FIGs. 1 and 2B of
Ahmadi to reject the claims would not be proper, and should not
be given merit.

Appeal Brief 11; see Final Action 3.
The Examiner finds, “FIG. 2B of Ahmadi presents an example as part
of proposed improvement based on the basic LTE frame structure in
FIG. 1.” Answer 5. The Examiner surmises that, “Ahmadi categorizes
FIG. 1 as a prior art, because it is not part of those described in Ahmadi as
an improvement or claimed invention.” Answer 6. The Examiner
determines, that “Ahmadi does not exclude the FIG. 1 from FIG. 2B.”
Answer 6.
Appellant argues that, “Ahmadi . . . fails to disclose or suggest using
the structure of FIG. 2B, in any regard, in conjunction with the structure of
FIG. 1, so Appellant asserts that there is no disclosure or suggestion to
combine these structures or how such a combination may be achieved or
even be possible.” Appeal Brief 12.
Appeal 2019-005947
Application 14/858,960
5

We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings and determinations and
find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of Examiner error. Ahmadi’s
Figure 1 discloses an illustration of the prior art Long Term Evolution (LTE)
control channel structure a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH).
Ahmadi ¶ 50. Ahmadi discloses in regard to the Figure 1 prior art’s PDCCH
structure that “Each frame spans 10ms and, consists of ten (10) subframes
(numbered #0 to #9); where each subframe consists of two (2) slots
(numbered #0, #1); and each slot consists of seven (7) OFDM [Orthogonal
Frequency Division Multiplexing] symbols (numbered #0 to #6).” Ahmadi
¶ 50 (emphasis added).
However, Ahmadi discloses that unlike the prior art PDCCH channel
structures, “one exemplary embodiment of the present invention, an
ePDCCH [Enhanced Physical Downlink Control Channel] region is defined
in the time and frequency domain.” Ahmadi ¶ 67. Ahmadi also discloses
that “this configurable structure enables, inter alia, frequency division
multiplexing of ePDCCH with other channels such as e.g., Physical
Downlink Shared Channels (PDSCH).” Ahmadi ¶ 68 (emphasis added).
The Examiner determines, “As described by Ahmadi in
paragraph [0071], the ePDCCH based control structure would be backward
compatible with legacy PDCCH or legacy UEs” and “FIG. 5 illustrated the
data structure 500 for both legacy UEs and those UEs based on ePDCCH
control signaling.” Answer 6. The Examiner further determines,
“Apparently, Ahmadi does not exclude the FIG. 1 from FIG. 2B.”
Answer 6.
We find that Ahmadi does not substantiate the Examiner’s
determination. Ahmadi discloses that in one backwards compatible
ePDCCH variant, an “even-region ePDCCH shares the even numbered slots
Appeal 2019-005947
Application 14/858,960
6

with legacy PDCCH formats” and an “odd-region ePDCCH occupies the
odd numbered slots.” Ahmadi ¶ 71. Ahmadi emphasizes that it is “[t]his
configuration [that] ensures backward compatibility and legacy support
while introducing a new frequency division multiplexed (FDM) control
structure.” Ahmadi ¶ 71 (emphasis added); see Appeal Brief 11. We find
Ahmadi’s paragraph 71 does not support the Examiner’s determination that
Ahmadi’s backward compatibility means the prior art as illustrated in
Figure 1 has to be incorporated within the Ahmadi’s invention disclosed in
Figure 2B as proposed by the Examiner. See Answer 6.
Ahmadi’s invention is based on the FDM technique while the prior art
shown in Figure 1 is based upon the OFDM technique. See Ahmadi ¶ 71.
We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would acknowledge the
similarities as well as the differences between the two multiplexing
techniques, but would realize they are not the same. Further, as noted above,
Ahmadi Prior Art Figure 1’s LTE structure includes OFDM symbols.
Ahmadi determines that “existing PDCCH operation is based on a resource
allocation granularity of one, two, or three OFDM symbols for the PDCCH”
where “[e]ach OFDM symbol consumes approximately 7% of network
overhead; this resource allocation granularity is quite large, and contributes
to an excessive amount of wasted resources.” Ahmadi ¶ 64 (emphasis
added). However, Ahmadi’s claimed invention utilizes a method for
“dynamic allocation of resources for transmission control information within
an extensible and scalable control channel of a wireless network” that may
be “based on a frequency division multiplexing (FDM) scheme.” Ahmadi
¶ 108 (emphasis added). Ahmadi further discloses, “Moreover, those of
ordinary skill in the related arts will recognize that unlike legacy schemes
for control channel operation (e.g., see Prior Art Physical Downlink Control
Appeal 2019-005947
Application 14/858,960
7

Channel (PDCCH))[,] which are based on a number of OFDM symbols at
the start of each subframe, various embodiments of the present invention
may operate on varying degrees of granularity.” Ahmadi ¶ 112 (emphasis
added).
Accordingly, we find that Ahmadi does not bridge the technical divide
between the two multiplexing techniques in regard to Figures 1 and 2B, as
the Examiner alleges. See Answer 6; see also Final Action 3. Therefore, it
is not clear how much, if any, of the prior art Figure LTE structure shown in
Figure 1 is included in the structure of the enhanced Physical Downlink
Control Channel (ePDCCH) illustrated in Figure 2B. We additionally find
that Chen and Mizusawa fail to address Ahmadi’s noted deficiencies.
Consequently, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1, 14, 21 and 26, as well as the obviousness rejections of
dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 8−13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 27 and 29 because
Ahmadi’s ambiguity does not support the Examiner’s findings that “Ahmadi
does not exclude the FIG. 1 from FIG. 2B.” Answer 6.
CONCLUSION
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 6,
8−15, 17,
19−22, 24,
26, 27, 29
103 Ahmadi, Chen,
Mizusawa
1, 2, 5, 6,
8−15, 17,
19−22, 24,
26, 27, 29
4 103 Ahmadi, Chen,
Mizusawa, Bhorkar
4
7, 18, 25,
30
103 Ahmadi, Chen,
Mizusawa, Kim
7, 18, 25, 30
Appeal 2019-005947
Application 14/858,960
8

Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4−15,
17−22,
24−27, 29, 30

REVERSED