Ex Parte Ekpenyong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2018

13752863 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131752,863 01129/2013
23494 7590 06/27/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
P 0 BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Anthony Edet Ekpenyong
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.
TI-71964 3795
EXAMINER
ATKINS JR, GEORGE CAL VIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2412
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2018 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTHONY EDET EKPENYONG,
RALF MATTHIAS BENDLIN, and PIERRE BERTRAND 1
Appeal2017-009243
Application 13/752,863
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 3-5, 7, 11-13, 15, and 17-22. Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10
were canceled. The Examiner has indicated claims 6, 8, 14, and 16 are
allowable. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is the Applicant, Texas
Instruments Incorporated. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-009243
Application 13/752,863
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' application relates to specifying user equipment (UE)
power control procedures for simultaneous transmission of Physical Random
Access Channel (PRACH) in a secondary serving cell and Physical Uplink
Control Channel (PUCCH)/Physical Uplink Shared Channel
(PUSCH)/Sounding Reference Symbol (SRS) in a different serving cell in
another timing advance group (TAG). Spec. i-fi-12-9. Claim 3 illustrates the
appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
3. A method comprising:
performing by one or more processors in a user
equipment device,
receiving a Physical Downlink Control Channel
(PDCCH) order to initiate a random access procedure on a
serving cell;
identifying a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH)
or Sounding Reference Symbol (SRS) transmission for a
different serving cell other than the serving cell;
transmitting a PRACH [Physical Random Access
Channel] transmission to the serving cell in a subframe;
transmitting the PUCCH or SRS transmission to the
different serving cell in the same subframe; and
scaling down the PUCCH, or SRS transmission power
level during a portion of the subframe having overlapping
PRACH and PUCCH or SRS transmissions so that a combined
transmission power level for the PRACH transmission and the
PUCCH, or SRS transmission during the overlapping portion
does not exceed a maximum transmission power for the user
equipment.
2
Appeal2017-009243
Application 13/752,863
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 3-5, 7, 11-13, 15, 17, 19, 20, and22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Feuersanger et al. (US
2013/0058315 Al; Mar. 7, 2013) and Haim et al. (US 2013/0114505 Al;
May 9, 2013). Final Act. 3-21.
Claims 18 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Baldemair et al. (US 2013/0196707 Al; Aug. 1, 2013)
and Cai et al. (US 2012/0008510 Al; Jan. 12, 2012). Final Act. 21-25.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which this
appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur
with the Examiner's conclusions. We highlight the following additional
points.
Obviousness - Feuersanger and Haim
Claim 3
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 as
unpatentable over Feuersanger and Haim. App. Br. 10-14. In particular,
Appellants argue Feuersanger teaches power control over component
carriers, but does not teach power control over serving cells. App. Br. 12-
13; Reply Br. 2-6. According to Appellants, serving cells include at least
two component carriers. Reply Br. 5-6. Appellants contend component
3
Appeal2017-009243
Application 13/752,863
carriers are but one characteristic of a serving cell and are not commonly
referred to as serving cells. Id.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Feuersanger teaches prioritized PRACH on PCell per
PDCCH order. Ans. 2-3 (citing Feuersanger ,-r 322). As found by the
Examiner, Feuersanger refers to "PCell" as the primary component carrier.
Id. F euersanger further refers to "SCell" as the secondary component
carrier. Feuersanger i-f 322. The Examiner's finding is further supported by
Feuersanger explicitly equating component carrier and cell. See, e.g.,
Feuersanger i-f 314 ("primary component carrier (i.e., the primary cell,
PCell"). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Feuersanger teaches "serving cell[s]" as recited in claim 3.
Appellants further argue Feuersanger does not teach power control
during joint PRACH and PUCCH/SRS transmission in the uplink. App.
Br. 13. However, as noted by Appellants (see id.), the Examiner does not
rely on Feuersanger alone for this limitation, instead relying on the
combination ofFeuersanger and Haim (see Final Act. 5-7). Regarding
Haim, Appellants argue Haim teaches power control for a scenario where
PUSCH/PUCCH overlap SRS, but Haim does not mention PRACH. App.
Br. 14 (citing Haim, Fig. 18b, i-f 140).
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Merck &
Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner explained that the combination
of Feuersanger and Haim, not Haim alone, discloses this limitation. See
Final Act. 5-7; Ans. 5-7. Specifically, the Examiner finds Haim teaches
4
Appeal2017-009243
Application 13/752,863
power scaling overlapping transmissions where PUSCH has a higher priority
than SRS. Ans. 7. The Examiner finds Feuersanger teaches power scaling
overlapping transmissions where PRACH has a higher priority than PUSCH.
Id. Finally, the Examiner finds an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
considered these teachings in combination and scaled SRS transmission in
the event of overlap with PRACH because PRACH has a higher priority
than SRS. Id. Appellants' argument focuses on the individual references
and fails to address this combined teaching. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded of Examiner error.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 3 as
unpatentable over Feuersanger and Haim. We also sustain the rejection of
independent claims 5, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 20, for which Appellants offer the
same arguments. See App. Br. 14-28. We also sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 4, 6, 12, 15, and 22 as unpatentable over Feuersanger and
Haim, for which Appellants rely on the same arguments. See id.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites "The method of claim 5, further comprising:
identifying one or more other uplink transmissions during the second
subframe." Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 as
unpatentable over Feuersanger and Haim because while Feuersanger may
teach simultaneous transmission, F euersanger does not teach simultaneous
transmissions during the "second subframe," as claimed. App. Br. 18.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Feuersanger teaches transmitting PUSCH/PUCCH
while performing RACH. Ans. 8-9 (citing Feuersanger ,-r 274). The
Examiner further finds Feuersanger teaches ramping PRACH during a
5
Appeal2017-009243
Application 13/752,863
second subframe. Id. (citing Feuersanger i-f 300). The Examiner finds
Feuersanger therefore teaches identifying one or more uplink transmissions
(PUCCH/PUSCH) during the second subframe. Id. Appellants have not
persuasively responded to these findings, instead providing attorney
argument and conclusory statements that the Examiner's findings are
unsupported. See Reply Br. 12-14. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 7 as unpatentable over Feuersanger and Haim.
Obviousness - Baldemair and Cai
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18 as
unpatentable over Baldemair and Cai. App. Br. 28-35. In particular,
Appellants argue Baldemair does not qualify as prior art to the present
application because Baldemair is not entitled to the priority date of its
provisional application, No. 61/591,940. App. Br. 30; Reply Br. 20-22.
According to Appellants, the '940 application does not support Baldemair's
Figure 5 or paragraph 4 7, both of which are relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting claim 18. Reply Br. 22.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. Baldemair
Figure 5 teaches a user equipment (UE) 900 sending signals to a base station
( eNB) 800 that can be used to determine timing advance (TA) values.
Baldemair Fig. 5. eNB 800 determines the TA values and sends the TA
values to UE 900. Id. UE 900 applies power scaling based on the TA
values and sends uplink transmissions to eNB 800, which demodulates the
transmissions. Id.
We find the '940 application does not include an exact duplicate of
Figure 5, but Figure S's teachings are nonetheless supported by the
6
Appeal2017-009243
Application 13/752,863
provisional application. Specifically, the '940 application teaches eNB
sending UE timing advance commands based on measurements of UL
transmissions from the UE. '940 Application at 2. UE performs uplink
transmissions using power scaling based on the TA values and eNB
demodulates the incoming transmissions. Id. at 4-6. Accordingly, we are
not persuaded the '940 provisional application fails to support Baldemair
Fig. 5.
We find the '940 provisional application also supports the priority
claim for Baldemair paragraph 4 7. Baldemair paragraph 4 7 discloses UE
900 performs UL transmissions using the power scaling in at least part of the
transition periods. Id. The '940 application teaches power scaling at the
start of a subframe and the scaling may transition into the next subframe.
'940 application at 6. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the '940
application fails to support Baldemair paragraph 4 7.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 18 as
unpatentable over Baldemair and Cai. We also sustain the rejection of
independent claim 21, for which Appellants offer the same arguments. See
App. Br. 33-35.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 3-5, 7, 11-
13, 15, and 17-22.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±)(2016).
AFFIRMED
7