Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2018

13793587 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

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.
13/793,587 03/11/2013 Wanshi Chen 121923US 8606
15055 7590 03/30/2018
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
MIAN, OMER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2018 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):
qu alcomm @ pattersonsheridan .com
PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.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 XU1
Appeal 2017-010502
Application 13/793,587
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—6, 8—14, 16—33, 48—53, 55—61, 63—
80, 95-98, 101-104, 107, and 108. Claims 7, 15, 34—47, 54, 62, 81-94, 99,
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm
Incorporated. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-010502
Application 13/793,587
100, 105, and 106 have been canceled. App. Br. I.2,3 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants ’ Invention
The invention at issue on appeal generally relates to “wireless
communications and ... to techniques for power control for coordinated
multi-point (CoMP) transmission and reception in heterogeneous networks
(HetNet).” Spec. 12. More particularly, the invention at issue concerns
apparatuses, computer readable storage media, and methods for wireless
communications by a user equipment (mobile phone). The method includes
utilizing at two or more separate power control algorithms to adjust
transmission power of uplink transmissions on a first uplink channel and
transmitting a single power headroom report (PHR) based on only one of the
utilized power control algorithms. The single PHR is further generated
based on a comparison of a current uplink transmit power to a threshold
value. Spec. Tflf 6—30; Abstract.
2 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) filed Mar. 11, 2013
(claiming benefit of US 61/615,036, filed Mar. 23, 2012); Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.”) filed Mar. 3, 2017; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Aug. 2,
2017. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action (Final Rejection)
(“Final Act.”) mailed Sept. 2, 2016, and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed June 6,
2017.
3 The Examiner’s listing of the claims (see Final Act. 1) includes claims 7,
15, 54, and 62, canceled by Appellants’ Amendment filed Dec. 22, 2015.
We find the Examiner’s inclusion of the canceled claims, a typographical
error, harmless and omit the canceled claims from the list of pending claims
for clarity and consistency of the record.
2
Appeal 2017-010502
Application 13/793,587
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method for wireless communications by a user
equipment (UE), comprising:
utilizing at least two separate power control algorithms
for adjusting transmission power of uplink transmissions on a
first uplink channel to at least one access point; and
transmitting a single power headroom report (PHR),
wherein the PHR is based on only one of the two separate power
control algorithms utilized, the single PHR generated based on
a comparison of a current uplink transmit power to a threshold
value.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1—3, 6, 8—13, 16—23, 25—31, 33,
48-50, 53, 55-60, 63-70, 72-78, 80, 95-98, 101-104, 107, and 1084 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baldemair et al. (US
2012/0008552 Al, published Jan. 12, 2012) (“Baldemair”) and Nory et al.
(US 2011/0205978 Al, published Aug. 25, 2011) (“Nory”).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 51 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baldemair, Nory, and Loehr et al. (US
2014/0029586 Al, published Jan. 30, 2014 (filed Dec. 6, 2011)) (“Loehr”).
4 The Examiner’s statement of rejection (see Final Act. 2) includes canceled
claims 7, 15, 54, and 62 (see footnote 3, supra), and omits claims 31 and 58
(discussed in the substantive rejection (see Final Act. 16)). We find the
Examiner’s inclusion of the canceled claims and omission of claims 31 and
58, which are typographical errors, harmless. We omit the canceled claims
and include the omitted claims in our statement of the rejection for clarity
and consistency of the record.
3
Appeal 2017-010502
Application 13/793,587
3. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 14, 20, 52, 61, and 67 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baldemair, Nory,
and Haim et al. (US 2011/0081936 Al, published Apr. 7, 2011) (“Haim”).
4. The Examiner rejects claims 24, 32, 71, and 79 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baldemair, Nory, and Fong et
al. (US 2013/0051214 Al, published Feb. 28, 2013 (filed Sept. 24, 2010))
(“Fong”).
ISSUES
Based upon our review of the record, Appellants’ contentions, and the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the issues before us are as follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination Baldemair and
Nory would have collectively taught or suggested
utilizing at least two separate power control algorithms for
adjusting transmission power of uplink transmissions on a first
uplink channel to at least one access point; and
transmitting a single power headroom report (PHR),
wherein the PHR is based on only one of the two separate power
control algorithms utilized, the single PHR generated based on a
comparison of a current uplink transmit power to a threshold
value
as recited in Appellants’ claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims
11,17, 25, 48, 58, 64, 72, 95-98, and 101-104?
ANALYSIS
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claim 1
Appellants argue independent claims 1, 11, 17, 25, 48, 58, 64, 72, 95—
98, and 101—104, and dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 8—10, 12, 13, 16, 18—23, 26—
31, 33, 49, 50, 53, 55-57, 59, 60, 63, 65-70, 73-78, 80, 107, and 108,
4
Appeal 2017-010502
Application 13/793,587
together as a group with respect to the § 103(a) rejection. See App. Br. 19.
We select independent claim 1 as representative of Appellants’ arguments
with respect to claims 1—3, 6, 8—13, 16—23, 25—31, 33, 48—50, 53, 55—60,
63-70, 72-78, 80, 95-98, 101-104, 107, and 108. 37 C.F.R.
§41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as being obvious in view of
Baldemair and Nory. See Final Act. 2-4; Ans. 4—13. The Examiner cites
Nory as teaching multiple (a plurality of) component carriers (see Final Act.
4; Ans. 5, 10, 12—13 (citing Nory || 16, 33)) and Baldemair as teaching the
remainder of the disputed limitations (see Final Act. 2-4; Ans. 4—13 (citing
Baldemair || 9—12, 22, 58, 60—62, 70, 75, 78, 82). Appellants contend that
Baldemair and Nory do not teach the disputed limitations of claim 1. See
App. Br. 16—20; Reply Br. 2—6. Specifically, Appellants contend Baldemair
does not teach “utilizing at least two power control algorithms” (App. Br.
17 ; see App. Br. 16—18; Reply Br. 2—5), and Baldemair in view of Nory does
not teach “transmitting a single PHR when utilizing multiple power control
algorithms” (App. Br. 18; see App. Br. 18—19; Reply Br. 5—6).
We disagree with Appellants that (1) Baldemair does not teach
“utilizing at least two power control algorithms” (App. Br. 17) and that (2)
Baldemair and Nory do not teach “transmitting a single PHR when utilizing
multiple power control algorithms” (App. Br. 18). The Examiner provides a
detailed explanation of how Baldemair and Nory teach or suggest these
disputed features. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 2-4), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans. Ans. 4—13) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We
5
Appeal 2017-010502
Application 13/793,587
concur with the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we
address specific findings, conclusions, and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
With respect to Appellants first contention of error, we agree with the
Examiner that Baldemair describes two separate power control algorithms.
See Final Act. 3; Ans. 4—9. In particular, we agree with the Examiner that
Baldemair describes a power control equation (see Baldemair 110) that
includes a closed loop correction function [fc(i)] and that the equation
(algorithm) has two different modes. In a first mode, the closed loop
correction function operates in absolute power control according to the
function (equation/algorithm) [fc(i)=8puscHC(i — Kpusch)]. In a second mode,
the closed loop correction function operates in accumulated power control
according to the function (equation/algorithm) [fc(i)=fc(i-l)+ SpuscHC(i —
Kpusch)]- See Ans. 4—7 (citing Baldemair H 10-12, 60-61). Accordingly.
Baldemair at least suggests two separate power control algorithms, which
comports with Appellants own teaching in their Specification. See Ans. 8
(citing Spec. 1122).
With respect to Appellants second contention of error, we agree with
the Examiner that Baldemair and Nory describe transmitting a single PHR
when utilizing multiple power control algorithms. See Final Act. 3; Ans.
10—13. In particular, we agree with the Examiner that Baldemair describes
transmitting a single PHR report for an activated component carrier (CC)
(see Ans. 10-13 (citing Baldemair H 11, 57)), and Nory describes the
capability of activating (and transmitting over) multiple CCs, but a scenario
where only one CC is activated resulting in a single PHR report (see Ans.
12—13 (citing Nory 133)). Therefore, Baldemair in combination with Nory
6
Appeal 2017-010502
Application 13/793,587
at least suggests the disputed single PHR report feature of claim 1—
“transmitting a single power headroom report. . . based on only one of the
two separate power control algorithms . . . [and] based on a comparison of a
current uplink transmit power to a threshold value” (claim 1).
Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 1. Accordingly,
we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1, independent
claims 11, 17, 25, 48, 58, 64, 72, 95—98, and 101—104, that include
limitations of commensurate scope, and dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 8—10, 12,
13, 16, 18-23, 26-31, 33, 49, 50, 53, 55-57, 59, 60, 63, 65-70, 73-78, 80,
107, and 108, not separately argued with particularity {supra).
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 4 and 51
Appellants present nominal arguments with respect to dependent
claims 4 and 51. See App. Br. 19-20. Appellants, however reiterate the
same reasoning present with respect to claim 1 {supra) and contend that
“Loehr fails to overcome the deficiencies of Baldemair in view of Nory”
(App. Br. 20). We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive of Examiner
error for the same reasons as claim 1 {supra).
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 5, 14, 20, 52, 61, and 67
Appellants contend “Haim fails to disclose or suggest ‘a relationship
between the at least two separate power control algorithms is such that the at
least one access point may determine power conditions corresponding to the
at least two separate power control algorithms from the single PHR’ as
recited in dependent claim 5” (App. Br. 20-21, emphasis omitted), and
“Haim fails to disclose or suggest such a deterministic relationship between
7
Appeal 2017-010502
Application 13/793,587
separate uplink power control algorithms” (App. Br. 21) “or that the eNB
can determine” such power conditions (App. Br. 22).
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 5 as being obvious in view of
Baldemair, Nory, and Haim. See Final Act. 18—19; Ans. 15—19. The
Examiner cites Haim as teaching a relationship with two power control
algorithms such that an access point may determine power conditions
corresponding to the at least the two power control algorithms from a single
PHR. See id. (citing Haim ]f]f 131—135). In particular the Examiner explains
that Haim describes an eNodeB (eNB) determining power conditions based
on certain saved parameters (including P0 pusch, f(i), and a closed loop
control) from the signaled maximum CC power difference, and that the
algorithms described by Baldemair {supra) include a common term (PLC—a
path loss) for each component carrier, which indicates a relationship
between the algorithms. See id.
We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 18—19),
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer
(Ans. 15—19) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the
findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we address specific
findings, conclusions, and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants do not directly address the Examiner’s rejection—that
Baldemair describes a common term and, therefore, a relationship between
algorithms and Haim describes the eNB determining power conditions
corresponding to the two algorithms from a single PHR. Instead, Appellants
reiterate the claim language, assert Haim does not describe the recited
limitation, and reiterate the arguments made with respect to claim 1 {supra)
8
Appeal 2017-010502
Application 13/793,587
with respect to Haim (i.e., that Haim does not teach separate power control
algorithms).
Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of dependent claim 5. Accordingly, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 and dependent claims 14, 20, 52, 61, and 67,
not separately argued with particularity (see App. Br. 22).
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 24, 32, 71, and 79
Appellants present nominal arguments with respect to dependent
claims 24, 32, 71, and 79. See App. Br. 22. Appellants, however reiterate
the same reasoning present with respect to claim 1 {supra) and contend that
“Fong fails to overcome the deficiencies of Baldemair in view of Nory”
(App. Br. 22). We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive of Examiner
error for the same reasons as claim 1 {supra).
CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—
6, 8-14, 16-33, 48-53, 55-61, 63-80, 95-98, 101-104, 107, and 108 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—6, 8—14, 16—33, 48—
53, 55-61, 63-80, 95-98, 101-104, 107, and 108.
9
Appeal 2017-010502
Application 13/793,587
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10