Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2017

13022621 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2017)

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.
13/022,621 02/07/2011 Wanshi Chen 100916US 7055
15055 7590 10/20/2017
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
CHANG, KAI J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2017 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, HAO XU, NAGA BHUSHAN, SAI YIU
DUNCAN HO, and TINGFANG JI
Appeal 2017-006780
Application 13/022,621
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, BETH Z. SHAW, and PHILLIP A.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 8—12, 30-33, 35, 37—41, 59,
61-64, 66, 68—72, and 90—96, which are all the pending claims. App. Br.
14—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to the assignment of resources to
user equipment in wires communication systems. See Spec. 12.
Appeal 2017-006780
Application 13/022,621
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below, with disputed
limitations italicized:
1. A method of wireless communication, comprising:
generating a control message for indicating an allocation
of channel resources to a plurality of access terminals on a
shared channel;
generating a packet, wherein the packet comprises:
a unique identifier for identifying a first access terminal
of the plurality of access terminals, a payload for the first access
terminal, and information for indicating an allocation of
channel resources for the first access terminal to utilize on an
uplink transmission; and
transmitting the control message on a control channel and
the packet on the shared channel.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1—4, 6, 8—12, 30-33, 35, 37—41, 59,
61-64, 66, 68—72, and 90—93 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Montojo et al. (US 2009/0143072 Al; June 4, 2009, hereinafter,
“Montojo”), Ranta-aho et al. (US 2007/0189236 Al; Aug. 16, 2007,
hereinafter, “Ranta-aho”) and Kashima et al. (US 2008/0031191 Al;
Feb. 7, 2008, hereinafter, “Kashima”). Final Act. 3.1
1 Appellants filed an Amendment After Final on June 6, 2016, canceling
claims 7, 36, and 67, and adding new claims 94—96, which the Examiner
entered for purposes of appeal, stating that all pending claims stand rejected.
See Advisory Action dated July 14, 2016. Claims 94—96 were not separately
argued in the Appeal Brief. App. Br. 7—13. Accordingly, we understand
both the Examiner and Appellants agree claims 94—96 stand rejected for the
reasons stated in the Advisory Action.
2
Appeal 2017-006780
Application 13/022,621
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Appellants do not proffer sufficient evidence to persuade us of error in
the Examiner’s findings. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings
and conclusions, as discussed in detail below. Final Act. 2—36; Ans. 2—6;
Advisory Action.
Claim 1
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding Kashima teaches
“information for indicating an allocation of channel resources for the first
access terminal to utilize on an uplink transmission,” as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 8—10. Appellants acknowledge that Kashima “discloses a signal
indicating a[] UL resource allocation,” but contend the signal in Kashima is
a control signal rather than a signal transmitted on a shared channel. Id. at 8.
However, the Examiner relies on Ranta-aho, not Kashima, for transmitting a
signal on a shared channel. Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 2—3. The Examiner relies
on Kashima for teaching “information for indicating an allocation of channel
resources for the first access terminal to utilize on an uplink transmission,”
as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 6 (citing Kashima | 68); Ans. 3^4.
Consequently, Appellants’ individual attack on Kashima, as not teaching a
signal transmitted on a shared channel, does not persuade us of error by the
Examiner.
Appellants generally argue, without further explanation, that Kashima
does not provide a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine a UL
resource allocation with a unique identifier and a payload.” App. Br. 9.
Appellants’ argument with respect Kashima, which consists of a conclusory
statement unsupported by evidence from the record, is insufficient to
3
Appeal 2017-006780
Application 13/022,621
overcome the Examiner’s prima facie conclusion in the Final Action and
Answer regarding the combination of references. See, e.g., Ans. 3—4, Final
Act. 6 (citing Kashima 148).
Although Appellants argue that “transmitting a UF resource allocation
in a packet on a shared channel solves an issue which is not contemplated by
any of the references cited on record,” App. Br. 9—10, “the problem
motivating the patentee may be only one of many addressed by the patent’s
subject matter.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
The question is not whether the combination was obvious to the
patentee but whether the combination was obvious to a person
with ordinary skill in the art. Under the correct analysis, any
need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for
combining the elements in the manner claimed.
Id. at 420. Therefore, we are unpersuaded one skilled in the art would not
have recognized the combination of Montojo, Ranta-aho, and Kashima
teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. With respect to
claims 2—4, 10, 31—33, 39, 62—64, and 70, Appellants present no new
arguments or essentially the same argument as claim 1. App. Br. 12—13;
Reply Br. 6—7. For the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 1,
we sustain the rejection of these claims.
Dependent Claim 9
Appellants also argue that Montojo fails to teach the “control channel
comprises at least a portion of a data region of a resource block,” as recited
in dependent claim 9. In particular, Appellants argue that “a person of
ordinary skill would understand a ‘data region’ of a resource block to mean
4
Appeal 2017-006780
Application 13/022,621
the portion of the resource block that the PDSCH occupies.” App. Br. 11.
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner’s interpretation of the
claim is unreasonable because we do not agree that Appellants’ references to
paragraph 93 and Figure 14 of their Specification support Appellants’
proposed interpretation. We do not read the Specification as stating that a
data region of a resource block must mean the portion of the resource block
that the PDSCH occupies.
Rather, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the claimed
“control channel comprises at least a portion of a data region of a resource
block,” is encompassed by Montojo’s teachings. Montojo teaches that the
physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) includes at least a portion of
physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) (which the Examiner finds
teaches the data region) within the subframe (which the Examiner finds
teaches the resource block). Ans. 4—5 (citing Montojo 147—148).
Although Appellants argue that the PDCCH in Montojo is “transmitted in a
control region of a resource block[,] not a data region of a resource block,”
(Reply Br. 5), this argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 9,
which does not recite anything about how information is “transmitted.”
Appellants argue that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand [Montojo’s OFDM symbols/tones of a PDCCH] as a control
region, not a data region.” App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4—5. We are similarly not
persuaded by this conclusory statement, which is merely attorney argument
that is unsupported by evidence in the record. Instead, we agree with the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions that Montojo’s description in
paragraphs 147, 148, and Figure 4A teaches “the control channel comprises
at least a portion of a data region of a resource block,” as recited in
5
Appeal 2017-006780
Application 13/022,621
dependent claim 9. Ans. 4—5. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 9, and claims 38 and 69, which are argued together with
claim 9. We sustain the rejection of the remaining pending claims, which
are not argued separately. App. Br. 7—13.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1—4, 6, 8—12, 30—33,
35, 37—41, 59, 61—64, 66, 68—72, and 90—96 is affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
6