Wanshi Chen et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 6, 2020

14245173 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 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.
14/245,173 04/04/2014 Wanshi CHEN 132535US 5007
15055 7590 01/06/2020
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
SMITH, MARCUS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/06/2020 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 WANSHI CHEN, PETER GAAL, and HAO XU

Appeal 2019-000732
Application 14/245,173
Technology Center 2400

Before, JUSTIN BUSCH, JASON J. CHUNG, and JAMES W. DEJMEK,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8, 10–14, 16–22, 24–28, and 30,
which constitute all the claims pending in this Application. 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) (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
QUALCOMM Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000732
Application 14/245,173

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s “disclosure relates generally to wireless communication,
and more particularly, to methods and apparatus for employing multiple
subframe configurations for HARQ [(hybrid automatic repeat request)]
operations.” Spec. ¶ 2. According to the Specification, the invention
addresses inefficiency and other issues with using a single reference
downlink/uplink (DL/UL) subframe configuration in conventional LTE-A
(Long Term Evolution-Advanced) systems by using multiple reference
UL/DL configurations. Spec. ¶¶ 65–68, Abstract. The claimed invention
identifies a first configuration for HARQ operations uplink transmissions
(sent/received in a System Information Block Type 1 (SIB1) broadcast
signal) and a second configuration for HARQ operations downlink
transmissions, determining transmission of feedback information based on
the second configuration, and communicating based on the configurations.
Claims 1, 11, 18, and 25 are independent claims. Claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. A method for wireless communications by a user
equipment (UE), comprising:
identifying a first reference subframe configuration to use
as a reference for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ)
operations for transmissions on an uplink;
identifying a second reference subframe configuration to
use as a reference for HARQ operations for transmissions on a
downlink;
determining transmission of at least one of a periodic
channel state information feedback and a periodic scheduling
request based on the second reference subframe configuration;
and
communicating with at least a node on the uplink and the
downlink based on the first and second reference subframe
configurations,
Appeal 2019-000732
Application 14/245,173

3
wherein at least the first reference subframe configuration
for transmissions on the uplink is received via broadcast
signaling including a System Information Block (SIB) Type 1.
REJECTION
Claims 1–6, 8, 10–14, 16–22, 24–28, and 30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Yin (US 2014/0301255 A1; Oct. 9,
2014) and Wang (US 2013/0039231 A1; Feb. 14, 2013). Final Act. 4–12.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds a combination of Yin and Wang teaches or
suggests every limitation recited in independent claims 1, 11, 18, and 25.
Final Act. 4–10. More specifically, the Examiner finds Yin teaches or
suggests everything in the independent claims except the determining
transmission step. Final Act. 4–10. The Examiner finds a combination of
Ying and Wang teaches or suggests the determining transmission step. Final
Act. 6–7, 9–10. More specifically, the Examiner finds Yin teaches a
secondary cell’s (SCell) configuration information includes physical uplink
control channel (PUCCH) and physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH)
configuration fields and that “physical configuration information includes
HARQ-ACK feedback information.” Final Act. 6–7 (citing Yin ¶¶ 183,
249), 9–10 (citing the same). The Examiner finds Wang, similar to Yin,
teaches configuring user equipment (UE) to communicate using different
cells having different TDD UL-DL (time division duplex uplink-downlink)
configurations. Final Act. 6 (citing Wang ¶ 54, Fig. 7), 9 (citing same). The
Examiner further finds Wang teaches transmitting uplink control
information (on a PUCCH), which can include ACK/NACK
(acknowledgement/negative-acknowledgement) feedback; channel state
Appeal 2019-000732
Application 14/245,173

4
information (CSI); and a scheduling request (SR), on a secondary cell. Final
Act. 6–7 (citing Wang ¶¶ 34, 41–45, Fig. 6), 9 (citing same). The Examiner
concludes it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
to have Yin’s PUCCH configuration information include the particular
configuration information (i.e., periodic CSI and scheduling request) taught
by Wang “in order to improve network efficiency for configuring uplink
control resources for TDD cells/carriers.” Ans. 16; Final Act. 7 (citing Wang
¶¶ 44–45).
Appellant acknowledges Wang teaches transmitting uplink control
information, such as CQI and SR, but contends Wang fails to teach
“determining transmission of at least one of a periodic channel state
information feedback and a periodic scheduling request based on the second
reference subframe configuration” (i.e., the configuration used as a
referenced for transmissions on a downlink), as recited in independent claim
1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 11, 18, and 24. Appeal
Br. 9. Appellant asserts Yin teaches dynamic TDD UL-DL configurations
that use the DL-reference configuration for downlink HARQ (e.g., physical
downlink shared channel (PDSCH) HARQ associations) and UL-reference
configurations for uplink HARQ (e.g., PUSCH HARQ associations). Reply
Br. 4. Appellant argues Wang does not teach or suggest dynamic TDD
UL-DL configurations and the combination of Wang and Yin fails to teach
the disputed determining transmission limitation—namely, determining
transmission of uplink feedback control information based on the second
reference subframe configuration, which is the configuration used as a
reference for HARQ operations for downlink transmissions. Appeal
Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 3–4; see also Appeal Br. 11 (arguing that, even
Appeal 2019-000732
Application 14/245,173

5
accepting Yin teaches a secondary TDD UL-DL configuration including
PUCCH configuration, the combination of Yin and Wang still fails to teach
determining transmission of CQI and SR based on the reference
configuration used for downlink transmissions).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not explained
sufficiently how the proposed combination of Yin and Wang teaches or
suggests the particular relationship claimed in the determining transmission
limitation recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claims 11, 18, and 25. Specifically, even accepting the
Examiner’s findings regarding Yin’s and Wang’s teachings, the Examiner’s
proposed combination results in determining transmission of CQI and SR
based on the reference subframe configuration used for uplink transmissions,
whereas the claim recites the determination is based on the reference
subframe configuration used for downlink transmissions. The Examiner
reproduces various portions from Yin and Wang in support of the above
findings, Ans. 13–18, but the Examiner fails to explain sufficiently how the
combined disclosures from Yin and Wang would have taught or suggested to
a person of ordinary skill in the art the recited step of determining
transmissions of CQI and SR based on the configuration for downlink
transmissions as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claims 11,
18, and 25.
Accordingly, we are constrained by this record to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 11, 18, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Yin and Wang. Claims 2–6, 8, 10,
12–14, 16, 17, 19–22, 24, 26–28, and 30 ultimately depend from one of
claims 1, 11, 18, and 25, and incorporate the limitations of the respective
Appeal 2019-000732
Application 14/245,173

6
independent claim. Therefore, for the same reasons, we also reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2–6, 8, 10, 12–14, 16, 17, 19–22,
24, 26–28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Yin and
Wang.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6, 8, 10–14, 16–22, 24–28, and
30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8, 10–
14, 16–22,
24–28, 30
103 Yin, Wang 1–6, 8, 10–14,
16–22, 24–28,
30
REVERSED