Ex Parte Cheng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2017

13949958 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 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.
13/949,958 07/24/2013 Jung-Fu Cheng 1009-0439 / P39201 US2 7605
102721 7590 09/25/2017
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
ULYSSE, JAEL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2017 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUNG-FU CHENG, MATTIAS FRENNE, JOHAN FURUSKOG,
and DANIEL LARS SON
Appeal 2017-005054
Application 13/949,95 81
Technology Center 2400
Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, JASON J. CHUNG, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7—15, 17, 19-23, and 25—27. Appellants have canceled
claims 3, 6, 16, 18, and 24. Amend. 2—3, 7, 9 (filed Nov. 3, 2015). We have
jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-005054
Application 13/949,958
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention relates to the operation of
wireless communication networks—specifically with respect to carrier
aggregation of Time Division Duplex (TDD) cells. Spec. 12. In particular,
in the context of serving a half-duplex wireless device having a carrier
aggregation configuration involving primary and secondary cells with
different TDD uplink/downlink configurations, “[transmission adaptations
are taken with respect to a normal downlink subframe in a secondary cell
that is time-wise overlapped by a special subframe in the primary cell.”
Spec. 117. According to the Specification, better channel estimation and
link adaptation, improved scheduling, and revised timing for the
transmission and reception of user or control data may be improved by the
disclosed invention. Spec. 117.
For background, as is known in the art, Time Division Duplex may
operate on a single carrier frequency with uplink and downlink
transmissions occurring in different, non-overlapping time slots. See Spec.
114—5. According to the Specification, in Long Term Evolution (LTE)
networks, LTE downlink transmissions are organized in radio frames of 10
ms each, comprising 10 subframes, each 1 ms in duration. Spec. 14.
2
Appeal 2017-005054
Application 13/949,958
Figure 2 of Appellants’ Specification is illustrative and is reproduced
below.
SUB-FRAME
(Tsubrame " i nns)
#0 #1 m
RADIO FRAME = 10 ms) |■<---------------------------------- —-------- :------------------------ M
miQRART
FIG. 2
Figure 2 illustrates the frame/subframe structure of an LTE downlink
transmission. Spec. 14. A subframe may be allocated as a downlink,
uplink, or special subframe. The special subframe is provided to, inter alia,
avoid interference between uplink and downlink transmissions. Spec. 3—
5. An LTE radio frame has seven different configurations. Spec. 1 8, Fig. 4
(illustrating different allocations of uplink subframes and downlink
subframes). Further, according to the Specification, a special subframe may
comprise a downlink part, a guard period, and an uplink part. Spec. 1 5.
To support wider carrier bandwidths (e.g., for increased data rates),
more than one carrier may be used. Spec. 19. In Carrier Aggregation (CA),
one or more component carriers (e.g., a primary cell and a secondary cell)
are aggregated together. In certain Carrier Aggregation (CA) configurations,
a primary cell may have a downlink/uplink configuration different than
downlink/uplink configuration of a secondary cell. Spec. 111. Figure 6 of
Appellants’ Specification is illustrative and is reproduced below.
3
Appeal 2017-005054
Application 13/949,958
-ID
CONFIGURATION 2
(PCail)
CONFIGURATION 3
(SCeil)
|b: U :D :
w.
u D 7o)
:: n U u U
i
M D" ;:d;:
A-12
PRIOR ART
FIG. 6
Figure 6 illustrates the allocation of subframes in a primary cell (PCell) and
a secondary cell (SCeil) wherein the primary cell and secondary cell have
different downlink/uplink configurations. Spec. 114. As shown in Figure 6,
the primary cell has a special subframe allocated in the seventh subframe
(10), whereas the secondary cell has a downlink subframe allocated for the
seventh subframe (12). Spec. 114. Appellants’ claimed invention is
generally directed to the scenario wherein the primary cell has a special
subframe that coincides with a normal downlink subframe of a secondary
cell. In particular, and as recited in the claims, transmission to a wireless
device (and, similarly, reception by a wireless device) is adapted to occur
during the portion of the normal downlink subframe of the secondary cell
that coincides with the download portion of the special subframe of the
primary cell.
Claims 1 and 14 are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and are
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
1. A method at a network node in a wireless communication
network comprising:
serving a half-duplex, Time Division Duplex (TDD) wireless
device having a carrier aggregation configuration that includes a
primary cell and a secondary cell having different IJplink/Downlink
(UL/DL) configurations;
4
Appeal 2017-005054
Application 13/949,958
identifying a normal downlink subframe in the secondary cell as
having a first portion overlapped by a downlink portion of a special
subframe in the primary cell and a second portion overlapped by an
uplink portion of the special subframe;
adapting transmission to the wireless device for the normal
downlink subframe in the secondary cell, so that data targeted to the
wireless device is not sent in the second portion of the normal downlink
subframe, including limiting the transmission of user or control data to
the first portion of the normal downlink subframe, and setting
transmission parameters for the transmission of the user or control
data based on a length and position of the first portion of the normal
downlink subframe, rather than based on a full length of the normal
downlink subframe.
14. A method in a half-duplex capable wireless device operating in
a wireless communication network, said method comprising:
operating in a Time Division Duplex (TDD) mode having a
carrier aggregation configuration that includes a primary cell and a
secondary cell having different TJplink/Downlink (UL/DL)
configurations;
identifying a normal downlink subframe in the secondary cell as
having a first portion overlapped by a downlink portion of a special
subframe in the primary cell and a second portion overlapped by an
uplink portion of the special subframe; and
adapting reception for the normal downlink subframe in the
secondary cell, based on treating the normal downlink subframe as an
abbreviated downlink subframe having all user or control data targeted
to the wireless device only within the first portion, including limiting
the reception of user or control data to the first portion of the normal
downlink subframe, and assuming that transmission parameters for the
transmission of the user or control data were set based on a length and
position of the first portion of the normal downlink subframe, rather
than based on a full length of the normal downlink subframe.
The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
Final Act. 7.
5
Appeal 2017-005054
Application 13/949,958
2. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7—9, 11—15, 19, 20, 22, 25, and 26 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2012/0327821
Al; Dec. 27, 2012) (“Lin”) and Lin (US 2013/0083706 Al; Apr. 4, 2013)
(“Lin II”). Final Act. 8-34.
3. Claims 4, 10, 17, 21, 23, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Lin, Lin II, and Krishnamurthy et al. (US
2013/0301434 Al; Nov. 14, 2013) (“Krishnamurthy”). Final Act. 35^44.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in finding a lack of antecedent basis for
“the number and position of symbols transmitted on an enhanced Physical
Downlink Control Channel (ePDCCH) or on a Physical Downlink Shared
Channel (PDSCH),” as recited in claim 5?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Lin and Lin
II teaches or suggests in a carrier aggregation configuration that when a
special subframe of a primary cell coincides with a normal downlink
subframe of a secondary cell such transmission to a wireless device is
adapted such that data is not transmitted during a second portion of the
normal downlink subframe, as set forth in claim 1?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Lin, Lin II,
and Krishnamurthy teaches or suggests limiting the transmission of user or
control data to a first portion of a normal downlink subframe comprises “at
least temporarily switching the wireless device from an enhanced Physical
Downlink Control Channel (ePDCCH) to a Physical Downlink Control
Channel (PDCCH),” as recited in claim 4?
6
Appeal 2017-005054
Application 13/949,958
4. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Lin, Lin II,
and Krishnamurthy teaches or suggests adapting the transmission of any
Demodulation Reference Symbols (DMRS) for a wireless device to fall
within the first portion of a normal wireless downlink subframe “based on
using a DMRS transmission pattern used for the special subframe in the
primary cell, or used for special subframes in the secondary cell, or
according to a predefined pattern or rule,” as recited in claim 10?
5. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Lin and Lin
II teaches or suggests:
logically treating half-duplex wireless devices as belonging to a
first set of wireless devices and treating full-duplex wireless
devices as belonging to a second set of wireless devices, and
using radio blocks (RBs) from a first set of RBs to serve the first
set of wireless devices and RBs from a second set of RBs to serve
the second set of wireless devices,
as recited in claim 11?
6. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Lin and Lin
II teaches or suggests “adapting reception for the normal downlink subframe
in the secondary cell, based on treating the normal downlink subframe as an
abbreviated downlink subframe,” as recited in claim 14?
ANALYSIS2
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further recites, in relevant part,
“wherein limiting the transmission of user or control data to the first portion
2 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
July 8, 2016 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed January 31, 2017 (“Reply
Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed December 1, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the
7
Appeal 2017-005054
Application 13/949,958
of the normal downlink subframe comprises limiting the number and
position of symbols transmitted on an enhanced Physical Downlink Control
Channel (ePDCCH) or on a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH).”
(Emphasis added.) The Examiner finds there is insufficient antecedent basis
for the term “symbols.” Final Act. 7.
Appellants assert that “[sjymbols and symbol positions are inherent
elements of ePDCCH transmissions and do not require an antecedent
recitation.” App. Br. 11; see Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 1359
(Fed. Cir 2001) (holding that recitation of “an ellipse” provided antecedent
basis for “an ellipse having a major diameter” because “[tjhere can be no
dispute that mathematically an inherent characteristic of an ellipse is a major
diameter”).
In response, the Examiner finds an ePDCCH can carry various types
of information (e.g., HARQ feedback, measurements, and data). The
Examiner further finds that because information encompasses a vast amount
of data, types, bits, packets, etc., one of ordinary skill in the art would not
assume that symbols and/or positions of symbols are inherent within, for
example, the information carried by an ePDCCH. Ans. 4.
A claim is not indefinite if the scope of a claim would be reasonably
ascertainable by those skilled in the art. Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144,
1145 (BPAI 1992) (“controlled stream of fluid” provided reasonable
antecedent basis for “the controlled fluid”); see also MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Furthermore, inherent components of elements recited in a claim have an
Final Office Action, mailed January 29, 2016 (“Final Act.”), from which this
Appeal is taken.
8
Appeal 2017-005054
Application 13/949,958
antecedent basis in the recitation of the components themselves. See Bose,
274 F.3d at 1359.
We, therefore, agree with Appellants that the proper inquiry is not
what information is being carried by the channels (i.e., ePDCCH or
PDSCH), but rather how that information is conveyed. See Reply Br. 2. As
Appellants explain, ‘“symbols’ are the basic vehicle for conveying
information via the ePDCCH.” Reply Br. 2. This understanding is
consistent with both Appellants’ disclosure and the cited prior art. See, e.g.,
Spec. 8, 15, Figs. 5—8; Lin IIH 20, 21, 48, 50; Krishnamurthy H 23, 37.
Therefore, we conclude an ordinarily-skilled artisan would understand
that symbols and symbol positions are inherent elements of ePDCCH and
PDSCH transmissions and therefore do not require an explicit antecedent
recitation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
a. Independent Claims 1 and 12; dependent claims 2, 5, 7—9, and
13
Appellants assert the Examiner erred in finding Lin teaches or
suggests a network node “adapting transmission” for a normal downlink
subframe in a secondary cell by “limiting the transmission” to a first portion
of the normal downlink subframe. App. Br. 12—15; Reply Br. 3—5. In
particular, Appellants contend the “blocking” of Lin, as relied upon by the
Examiner, is performed by the user device (UE) and does not occur during a
special subframe of the primary cell coincident with a normal downlink
subframe of the secondary cell. App. Br. 13—15.
9
Appeal 2017-005054
Application 13/949,958
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of
Lin and Lin II. See Linal Act. 8—11; Ans. 6—13. We briefly review each of
these references below.
Lin is generally directed to “Time Division Duplex (TDD)
configuration^] in LTE systems with carrier aggregation.” Lin 12. In
3 GPP LTE/LTE-A systems, Lin discloses carrier aggregation may be used in
order to increase data throughput. Lin 14. further, Lin identifies potential
issues when aggregating component carriers having different TDD
configurations. Lin || 5, 38 (“Carrier aggregation with different TDD
configurations is the focus of the present invention.”). Lin further describes
applying its disclosed method to devices that support simultaneous
downlink/uplink transceiving (i.e., full-duplex) and those that do not (i.e.,
half-duplex). Lin | 6, Pig. 1.
Similar to Appellants’ Specification, Lin describes the various TDD
downlink/uplink configurations. Compare Spec., Pig. 4, with Lin, Pig. 3.
figure 5 of Lin is illustrative and is reproduced below.
f 1 sjUDL 1 ! SUBFRAME NUMBER ]
| CONFIG o 1 3 4 51 6 7 8 | §
PCELL | 0 Sms D S u u u D | S U U U
SCELL | 3 10ms D s u u u Q s I D D O
FIG. 5
figure 5 of Lin illustrates an example of carrier aggregation where there is
no aggregation constraint (i.e., TDD configurations having different
periodicities of the special subframe are permitted). Lin || 43—45. As
shown in figure 5, in subframe number 6 (i.e., the seventh subframe), a
10
Appeal 2017-005054
Application 13/949,958
special subframe has been allocated to the primary cell and a downlink
subframe has been allocated to the secondary cell.
Lin II also is directed to improving carrier aggregation in TDD
configurations. Lin II, Title, Abstract. Lin II also sets forth the same TDD
downlink/uplink configurations. Compare Lin II, 140 (Table 1), with Spec.,
Fig. 4, and Lin, Fig. 3. Lin II discloses wherein a special subframe collides
with (i.e., coincides) a downlink subframe, “a special subframe in conflict is
determined as DL [(downlink)] subframe, the UL [(uplink)] part of special
subframe would be prohibited.” Lin II142. Additionally, Lin II describes
the possible behavior for a cell in a downlink subframe if a special subframe
coincides with a downlink subframe. See Lin II || 43—62. Among the
disclosed behaviors are: (i) no reception is allowed; (ii) only PDCCH
(Physical Downlink Control Channel) is allowed; and (iii) allow partial
PDSCH (Physical Downlink Shared Channel). Lin IIH 45 49. Lin II also
discloses “[a]nother possibility is that for the cell in which the subframe type
of the seventh subframe is DL, the PDSCH in the subframe would use only
part of the subframe.” Lin II | 55; see also Lin | 61 (describing the seventh
subframe as a conflict subframe and includes a PDSCH for a cell with a
downlink subframe “and occupies only a partial subframe”).
The Examiner finds, inter alia, Lin describes conventional
information regarding the LTE radio frames as defined by 3 GPP standards
and specification. Ans. 10—11. Further, the Examiner finds an LTE
subframe “inherently or fundamentally [has] a first and second portion[,]
which are called or attributed as time slots.” Ans. 11—12; see also
Krishnamurthy 138 (“Typically, the subframe duration is 1 ms and it can
comprise two time slots of 0.5 ms duration each.”). The Examiner interprets
11
Appeal 2017-005054
Application 13/949,958
the claimed first portion and second portion as referring to the first and
second time slots, respectively. Ans. 12.
The Examiner relies on Lin II’s disclosure of a PDSCH using only
part (i.e., a portion) of a subframe and further concludes it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the methods of Lin II
(i.e., a PDSCH that carries data for a portion of a subframe) with Lin to limit
the transmission of user or control data to a first portion of a normal
downlink subframe, as claimed. Ans. 11—12 (citing Lin II || 55, 61).
In reply, Appellants again assert Lin fails to teach limiting the
transmission of user or control data to a first portion of a normal downlink
subframe because Lin teaches the user device blocks transceiving for a
secondary cell during secondary cell subframes that conflict with coincident
primary cell subframes. Reply Br. 4—6.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because Appellants’
arguments do not address the Examiner’s findings regarding Lin II’s
disclosure of a Physical Downlink Shared Channel that occupies only a
portion of the subframe (i.e., a partial PDSCH) when a special subframe of a
primary cell coincides with a normal downlink subframe of a secondary cell.
See Ans. 6—12; see also Lin II || 43—62. further, as discussed above, we
agree that Lin II teaches limiting the transmission of the PDSCH to a portion
of the subframe when primary cell special subframe coincides with a
secondary cell downlink subframe. See Lin II || 43—55.
Additionally, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Lin II
teaches or suggests adapting transmission to a wireless device by “setting
transmission parameters for the transmission of the user or control data
12
Appeal 2017-005054
Application 13/949,958
based on a length and position of the first portion of the normal downlink
subframe,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 15—19.
As an initial matter, Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding
the switchpoint periodicities listed in Table 1 of Lin II “represent the lengths
of subframes as well.” App. Br. 16 (citing Final Act. 10); Reply Br. 6—7.
Further, Appellants assert the Examiner’s finding that Lin II teaches setting
transmission parameters is based on the Examiner’s misunderstanding of Lin
II’s switchpoint periodicities. App. Br. 18. Additionally, Appellants also
contend the selection of a modulation scheme, as relied on by the Examiner,
does not meet the claimed limitation of selecting transmission parameters.
App. Br. 18.
We agree with Appellants that the switchpoint periodicity does not
indicate a length of subframes, but rather defines how many subframes there
are between the downlink-to-uplink switchpoints. Contrary to Appellants’
assertion, however, the Examiner’s finding that Lin II teaches setting
transmission parameters is not based on the Examiner’s misunderstanding of
Lin IPs switchpoint periodicities.
The Examiner notes, as do we, Appellants’ Specification describes
that setting transmission parameters to limit transmission to a first portion of
a downlink subframe may include setting a transport block size, a
modulation and coding scheme, and which Orthogonal Frequency Division
Multiplex (OFDM) resource elements are used. Ans. 12—13 (citing Spec.
11 63, 102). As discussed above, the Examiner also explains Lin II teaches
adjusting a PDSCH to occupy only a portion of a subframe. Ans. 13 (citing
Lin II11 55, 61). Additionally, Lin II describes another alternative for when
a primary cell special subframe coincides with a secondary cell downlink
13
Appeal 2017-005054
Application 13/949,958
frame is to only allow PDCCH transmission. Lin IIH 42-48. Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that Lin II teaches or reasonably suggests setting
transmission parameters including modulation and coding scheme to limit
the transmission as claimed. Appellants do not rebut persuasively the
Examiner’s findings.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1. Appellants indicate the arguments presented with respect to claim 1
apply to independent claim 12 as well. App. Br. 19. For similar reasons to
those discussed for claim 1, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 12, which recites similar limitations. Additionally, for
similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 5, 7—9, and
13, which depend therefrom and were not argued separately. See App.
Br. 21.
b. Dependent claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and further recites, “wherein limiting
the transmission of user or control data to the first portion of the normal
downlink subframe comprises at least temporarily switching the wireless
device from an enhanced Physical Downlink Control Channel (ePDCCH) to
a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH).”
Appellants acknowledge Krishnamurthy discloses switching from an
ePDCCH to a PDCCH, but assert that Krishnamurthy performs such
switching for channel quality reasons rather than to limit transmission to a
first portion of a downlink subframe. App. Br. 23. Thus, Appellants argue
an ordinarily-skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine
14
Appeal 2017-005054
Application 13/949,958
Krishnamurthy’s teaching of switching from an ePDCCH to a PDCCH with
the teachings of Lin and Lin II as means to limit transmission of user or
control data to a first portion of a subframe.
The Federal Circuit states it is irrelevant that the prior art and the
present invention may have different purposes. See In re Graf, 343 F.2d 774,
111 (CCPA 1965) (“Obviousness is not to be determined on the basis of
purpose alone.”). That is, it is sufficient that references suggest doing what
Appellants did, although the Appellants’ particular purpose was different
from that of the references. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
1983) (citing In re Gershon, 111 F.2d 535, 538-39 (CCPA 1967)).
“Common sense teaches . . . that familiar items may have obvious uses
beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill
will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a
puzzle.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007); see also
KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).
In the Specification, Appellants indicate it was well-known that
PDCCH transmissions occur with a control region that comprises the first
four OFDM symbols of the subframe. Spec. 115. Additionally, Appellants
describe it was well-known that an ePDCCH is transmitted across the latter
portion of the subframe. Spec. 116; see also Spec. Figs. 7, 8 (illustrating
PDCCH and ePDCCH transmissions; labeled as prior art). Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily-skilled
artisan trying to limit transmission to a first portion of a subframe to switch
from an ePDCCH, which transmits across the latter portion of a subframe, to
15
Appeal 2017-005054
Application 13/949,958
a PDCCH, which limits its transmission to a control region comprising the
first four OFDM symbols of a subframe. See Final Act. 36; Ans. 14—16.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
c. Dependent claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and further recites adapting the
transmission of any Demodulation Reference Symbols (DMRS) for the
wireless device to fall within a first portion of the downlink subframe “based
on using a DMRS transmission pattern used for the special subframe in the
primary cell, or used for special subframes in the secondary cell, or
according to a predefined pattern or rule.”
Appellants generally argue that the cited portions of Lin and Lin II are
silent regarding DMRS transmission patterns and that the Examiner’s
reliance on Krishnamurthy also fails to teach the claimed limitation. App.
Br. 24-25.
In response, the Examiner finds Figure 4 of Krishnamurthy illustrates
mapping sequences of DMRS to ePDCCH and PDSCH. Ans. 18 (citing
Krishnamurthy, Fig. 4). The Examiner further explains it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that in light of the mapping of
DMRS to a PDSCH, as taught by Krishnamurthy, transmission of DMRS
would be limited to a first portion of a downlink frame when combined with
Lin II’s teaching of a partial PDSCH transmission. Ans. 17—18. Appellants
do not rebut persuasively the Examiner’s findings or explanation.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.
16
Appeal 2017-005054
Application 13/949,958
d. Dependent claim 11
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Lin teaches, or
reasonably suggests:
logically treating half-duplex wireless devices as belonging to a
first set of wireless devices and treating full-duplex wireless
devices as belonging to a second set of wireless devices, and
using radio blocks (RBs) from a first set of RBs to serve the first
set of wireless devices and RBs from a second set of RBs to serve
the second set of wireless devices,
as recited in claim 11. App. Br. 21—22. Instead, Appellants assert the cited
portions of Lin relate to how a user device will handle conflicts between
primary and secondary cell downlink/uplink configurations. App. Br. 22.
figure 1 of Lin, as relied on by the Examiner (see final Act. 17), is
illustrative and is reproduced below.
17
Appeal 2017-005054
Application 13/949,958
^ 190"\
V * PCELL WITH TDD
CONFIGURATION A
FIG. 1
Figure 1 of Lin illustrates a system and method for supporting different TDD
configurations. Lin 110. As shown in Figure 1, Transceiving Mechanism
(123) is further divided into Simultaneous DL/UL Transceiving (131) and
Non-Simultaneous DL/UL Transceiving (132). Thus, Lin teaches logically
treating half-duplex (i.e., non-simultaneous transceiving) devices separately
from full-duplex (i.e., simultaneous transceiving) devices. Further, Lin
18
Appeal 2017-005054
Application 13/949,958
discloses servicing the full-duplex devices differently than the half-duplex
devices. Compare Lin || 49-53, with Lin || 77—80. See also Lin, Fig. 1
(blocks 141—144); Final Act. 17—18 (citing Lin || 3, 77, 86, Fig. 20).
For the reasons discussed supra, we do not find Appellants’
arguments persuasive of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 11.
e. Independent claims 14 and 22; dependent claims 15, 17, 19-21,
23, and 25-27
Whereas independent claims 1 and 12 relate to network-side
embodiments, independent claims 14 and 22 address device-side
embodiments. App. Br. 5. In other words, rather than adapting the
transmission (as in claims 1 and 12), claims 14 and 22 recite “adapting
reception . . . based on treating the normal downlink subframe as an
abbreviated downlink subframe.”
Appellants assert, inter alia, there is no teaching in the cited
references for adapting reception or treating a downlink subframe as an
abbreviated downlink subframe. App. Br. 20-21. Further, Appellants argue
the Examiner’s findings and explanation do not address a wireless device
treating a normal downlink subframe as an abbreviated subframe. App.
Br. 20-21.
We find Appellants’ argument persuasive of Examiner error. In
rejecting claim 14, we note the Examiner relies on the same sections of the
prior art references with similar explanations of the prior art as were relied
on in rejecting claim 1. See Final Act. 8—11, 22—25. The Examiner does not
provide sufficient persuasive evidence or technical reasoning to support a
teaching of adapted reception by a wireless device in the Final Rejection.
19
Appeal 2017-005054
Application 13/949,958
See Final Act. 22—25. Further, in the Answer, the Examiner does not
respond to Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 14.
For the reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 14. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 22, which recites similar
limitations as claim 14. Additionally, for similar reasons, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejections of claims 15, 17, 19—21, 23, and 25—27, which
depend therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ H2(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7—
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14, 15, 17, 19—
23, and 25—27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
20