Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

12702551 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121702,551 02/09/2010
15055 7590 07/03/2018
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wanshi Chen
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
091158US 2289
EXAMINER
DUFFY, JAMES P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /03/2018 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):
qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com
P AIR_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, JUAN MONTOJO, XILIANG LUO, and
XIAOXIA ZHANG
Appeal2017-009474
Application 12/702,551 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-26 and 29-32, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. Claims 27 and 28 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Qualcomm Incorporated.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-009474
Application 12/702,551
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Invention
Appellants' invention relates to "control-data multiplexing as well as
control-data decoupling." Abstr. The claimed methods "generally include[]
determining a multiplexing mode and number of resource elements used for
data or control transmission by a user equipment (UE), transmitting a signal to
the UE indicating at least the multiplexing mode, and receiving one or more
control signals and one or more data signals from the UE utilizing the
multiplexing mode." Spec. i-f 6.
Claims 1, 14, 24, and 29-32 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the subject matter on appeal, and reads as follows:
1. A method for wireless communications, comprising:
receiving a signal, wherein the signal includes an indication
of a multiplexing mode to use for transmission of data and control
channels, the multiplexing mode being one of simultaneous
transmission of the data and control channels or multiplexing the
data and control channels in different time slots;
identifying a first set of carriers to be used for transmission of
data based on the received signal, wherein the first set of carriers . .
comprises one or more carriers;
identifying a second set of carriers to be used for transmission
of control signals based on the received signal, wherein the second
set of carriers comprises one or more carriers; and
transmitting the data and the control signals using one or more
data channels and one or more control channels on the identified
first and second sets of carriers based on the multiplexing mode.
App. Br. 18 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
2
Appeal2017-009474
Application 12/702,551
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 5-11, 13-15, 18-24, 26, and 29-32 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee et al.
(US 2006/0126558 Al; publ. June 15, 2006) ("Lee"), Kwak et al.
(US 2007/0211656 Al; publ. Sept. 13, 2007) ("Kwak"), and Ghosh et al.
(US 2008/0165873 Al; publ. July 10, 2008) ("Ghosh"). Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed Apr. 13, 2016) 7-28.
Claims 3, 12, 16, and 25 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Lee, Kwak, Ghosh, and Imamura (US 2010/0034152 Al;
publ. Feb. 11, 2010). Final Act. 28-29.
Claims 4 and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee, Kwak, Ghosh, and Lindstrom et al.
(US 2010/0197315 Al; publ. Aug. 5, 2010) ("Lindstrom"). Final Act. 29-30.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could have
made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections
from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer, and provide the
following discussion for highlighting and emphasis.
Claims 1, 2, 5-11, 13-15, 18-24, 26, and 29-32
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests "receiving a signal [that] includes an indication of a multiplexing
mode to use for [either] simultaneous transmission of the data and control
3
Appeal2017-009474
Application 12/702,551
channels or multiplexing [of] the data and control channels in different time
slots," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 2--4. Specifically,
Appellants first contend Lee's "switch[ing] between [time and frequency
division2] operating modes ... does not teach or suggest anything about how
data channels and control channels are multiplexed during the ... uplink
communications." App. Br. 12 (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellants next contend Lee's "duplexing mode ... defining whether uplink
[transmissions] are separated from downlink transmissions in the time domain
or frequency domain" does not equate to the claimed "multiplexing mode
... defining whether data and control channels are transmitted simultaneously
at different frequencies or at different times on the same frequency." App.
Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 2-3. Finally, Appellants contend "Kwak
contemplates only the use of a time [division] mode for uplink signaling
information and uplink data" (i.e., for uplink control and data channels). Id.
(emphasis omitted). On this record, however, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred.
We first address the Examiner's findings regarding each of the three
references, generally, before turning to Appellants' specific arguments. As the
Examiner finds, Lee teaches a mobile station that receives a signal causing a
switch from a time division mode for uplink transmissions (TDD UL) to a
frequency division mode for uplink transmissions (FDD UL), or vice-versa.
Final Act. 3, 7-8; Ans. 2--4; Lee i-fi-164--69; Figs. 2-3. Kwak teaches a mobile
station's time division mode for uplink control and data channels. Final Act. 3,
2 Lee references the time and frequency division modes, respectively, as time
division duplexing (TDD) and frequency division duplexing (FDD). Lee i16.
4
Appeal2017-009474
Application 12/702,551
8-10; Ans. 5---6; Kwak i-fi-158-59; Fig. 6. Ghosh teaches a mobile station's
frequency division mode for uplink control and data channels. Final Act. 4, 10-
12; Ans. 6-7; Ghosh i-fi-f 19, 24--25; Figs. 2-3. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that it would have been obvious for a mobile station to
switch between time and frequency division modes for uplink transmissions
(Lee), simultaneously transmit uplink data and control channels during the
frequency division mode (Ghosh), and multiplex the uplink data and control
channels in different time slots during the time division mode (Kwak). Final
Act. 4--5, 12; Ans. 7-8; see also KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
417 (2007) ("[A] court must ask whether the improvement is more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions");
id. at 420 ("[A] person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of
multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle").
Appellants' first argument, i.e., that Lee does not teach or suggest the
disputed claim limitation, App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 2-3, does not address the
Examiner's findings regarding the combination of references. This argument,
therefore, does not persuade us the Examiner erred. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where ... the rejections are based on combinations of
references.").
Appellants' second argument, i.e., that Lee's TDD UL and FDD UL
modes do not multiplex (and decouple) data and control channels, fails for the
same reason. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 2-3; Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. To the
extent Appellants' stated position implies Lee's TDD UL and FDD UL modes
only control whether uplink transmissions are time or frequency separated from
downlink transmissions (see Lee Fig. 3), the argument still fails to address the
5
Appeal2017-009474
Application 12/702,551
Examiner's combination of references. Namely, Appellants do not address
whether it would have been obvious to also (i.e., in addition to selectively time
and frequency separating uplink transmissions from downlink transmissions)
simultaneously transmit uplink data and control channels during Lee's FDD UL
mode, as evidenced by Ghosh, and multiplex uplink data and control channels
in different time slots during Lee's TDD UL mode, as evidenced by Kwak.
Similarly, Appellants' third argument, i.e., that Kwak contemplates only
time-division multiplexing of control and data channels, does not address the
combination of references. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 2-3; Keller, 642 F.2d at
426. 3
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 1. We, therefore, sustain the obviousness rejection of claim
3 Appellants do not argue the Examiner's rationale in combining the references.
To the extent Appellants' argument regarding Kwak implies that Kwak
purportedly teaches away from frequency-division multiplexing of control and
data channels, we are not persuaded. Kwak describes a purpose of
time-division multiplexing uplink control ("signaling information") and data
channels in a single carrier context. Kwak i-f 70. Appellants do not explain why
this known purpose shows an expectation that frequency-division multiplexing
of uplink control and data channels would be unproductive for other contexts
encompassed by the scope of claim 1. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) ("[I]n general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line
of development flowing from the reference's disclosure is unlikely to be
productive of the result sought by the applicant"); see also Spec. i-fi-128-30, 46
(indicating the invention is not limited to a single-carrier context).
6
Appeal2017-009474
Application 12/702,551
1. For the same reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 5-
11, 13-15, 18-24, 26, and 29-32. 4
Claims 3, 12, 16, and 25
Appellants contend dependent claims 3, 12, 16, and 25 are allowable
because of their dependencies on the above-discussed independent claims, and
because Imamura does not cure the deficiencies alleged for Lee, Kwak, and
Ghosh. App. Br. 15. Because we are not persuaded of error regarding the
independent claims, Appellants' argument regarding dependent claims 3, 12,
16, and 25 also is unpersuasive, and we sustain the obviousness rejection of
these claims.
Claims 4 and 17
Appellants contend dependent claims 4 and 17 are allowable because of
their dependency on claim 1, and because Lindstrom does not cure the
deficiencies alleged for Lee, Kwak, and Ghosh. App. Br. 15. Because we are
not persuaded of error regarding claim 1, Appellants' argument regarding
dependent claims 4 and 17 also is unpersuasive, and we sustain the obviousness
rejection of these claims.
4 Appellants group independent claims 14, 29, and 31 with claim 1, contend
independent claims 11, 24, 30, and 32 are allowable for the same reasons as
claim 1, and contend claims 2, 5-10, 13, 15, 18-23, and 26 are allowable
because of their dependencies on the above independent claims. App. Br.
11-14. No further argument is provided for these claims.
7
Appeal2017-009474
Application 12/702,551
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-26 and 29-32.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
8