2019002086 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2020)

QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 4, 2020

2019002086 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2020)

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. 14/599,775 01/19/2015 Aamod D. Khandekar 081352USC01 8228 15055 7590 06/04/2020 Patterson + Sheridan, L.L.P. Qualcomm 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77046 EXAMINER SKRIPNIKOV, ALEX ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2416 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2020 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): PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AAMOD D. KHANDEKAR, JUAN MONTOJO, and AVANEESH AGRAWAL Appeal 2019-002086 Application 14/599,775 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 and 23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies QUALCOMM Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-002086 Application 14/599,775 2 TECHNOLOGY The application relates to defining new control channels in legacy wireless networks. Spec. Abstract. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at issue emphasized: 1. A method for receiving control data over non-legacy control channels in a wireless communication network, comprising: receiving, by a wireless communications apparatus, non- legacy control data over a set of non-legacy control data resources, wherein the set of non-legacy control data resources are defined within general data communication resources of a legacy frame, and wherein the nonlegacy control data comprises at least one of an uplink or downlink resource assignment assigned to the wireless communications apparatus for transmitting general data communications thereover; and decoding the non-legacy control data. REFERENCE The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references: Ahmadi US 2008/0095195 A1 Apr. 24, 2008 Cai US 2009/0185632 A1 July 23, 2009 Ho-A-Chuck US 5,828,962 Oct. 27, 1998 Kobayashi US 6,721,564 B1 Apr. 13, 2004 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–12, 14–17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ahmadi and Cai.2 Final Act. 2–5. 2 Although claim 23 is also initially listed, see Final Act. 2, it is not substantively analyzed under this rejection and instead is analyzed under its own rejection as noted below. Id. at 2–5. Appeal 2019-002086 Application 14/599,775 3 Claim 23 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ahmadi, Cai, and Kobayashi. Final Act. 5. Claims 3, 8, 13, and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ahmadi, Cai, and Ho-A-Chuck. Final Act. 6. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding Cai teaches or suggests “the non-legacy control data comprises at least one of an uplink or downlink resource assignment assigned to the wireless communications apparatus for transmitting general data communications thereover,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites “the non-legacy control data comprises at least one of an uplink or downlink resource assignment assigned to the wireless communications apparatus for transmitting general data communications thereover.” Independent claims 6, 11, and 16 recite commensurate limitations. The Examiner finds that Cai “discloses the Frame Sync and Control signal 200 defines the subframe structure of the entire frame,” including “the directionality 202 of each subframe (i.e., whether the subframe is used for downlink or uplink transmissions).” Ans. 3–4 (citing Cai ¶ 65, Fig. 2). According to the Examiner, in Cai, the word “‘uplink’ refers to transmissions from a Mobile Station (MS) to a Base Station (BS)” whereas the word “‘downlink’ refers to transmission from BS to MS.” Id. at 4 (citing Cai ¶ 19). Therefore, the Examiner determines that “a person of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the Frame Sync and Control signal 200 is a resource assignment because MS uses Frame Sync and Control signal 200 Appeal 2019-002086 Application 14/599,775 4 to determine when to use the resource (subframe) for transmission to the BS (uplink) and when to expect transmissions from the BS (downlink).” Id. Appellant argues that although “Frame Sync and Control signal 200 provides . . . information indicating . . . which of the subframes . . . are uplink subframes and which are downlink subframes,” it fails to indicate “which of these subframes . . . are assigned to the first wireless apparatus” as opposed to being “assigned to a completely different second wireless apparatus.” Appeal Br. 10. We agree with Appellant. The Specification explains that “[t]he resource allocation component 206 can assign one or more RBs to the wireless device 302 and/or other legacy wireless devices.” Spec. ¶ 54. Even if Cai taught a “special case” where there was only a single sender and a single recipient, see Cai ¶ 19, the claims require that “the non-legacy control data comprises . . . [the] resource assignment assigned to the wireless communications apparatus,” not that the assignment can be inferred from the control data. Therefore, the Examiner has not sufficiently shown how Cai’s directionality teaches or suggests this limitation. The Examiner does not rely upon the additional references Kobayashi and Ho-A-Chuck to make up for the deficiency in Cai. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1– 20 and 23. Appeal 2019-002086 Application 14/599,775 5 DECISION The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–7, 9–12, 14–17, 19, 20 § 103 Ahmadi, Cai 1, 2, 4–7, 9–12, 14–17, 19, 20 23 § 103 Ahmadi, Cai, Kobayashi 23 3, 8, 13, 18 § 103 Ahmadi, Cai, Ho-A-Chuck 3, 8, 13, 18 OVERALL 1–20, 23 REVERSED