Ex Parte HUANG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2018

14292235 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/292,235 05/30/2014
77399 7590 07/02/2018
Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd
(for Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd)
Two Prudential Plaza Suite 4900
180 North Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Qufang HUANG
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.
HW716901 6800
EXAMINER
DANIEL JR, WILLIE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2018 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):
Chgpatent@leydig.com
uspatent@huawei.com
hwpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte QUF ANG HUANG and QINGHAI ZENG 1
Appeal2018-000003
Application 14/292,235
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-12 and 18-21. Claims 13-17 are canceled. App. Br.
2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., identified in
the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000003
Application 14/292,235
Invention
The Specification discloses a method for implementing data
scheduling by using a buffer status report (BSR) and correspondence
between a logical channel and a base station. Abstract.
Representative Claim
1. A method for implementing data scheduling in a network
including at least a user equipment device (UE), a primary base
station and a component base station, the method comprising:
receiving, by the UE, a notification of a correspondence
between a logical channel and a base station, wherein the base
station is one of either the primary base station or the
component base station, and the UE is served by both the
primary base station and the component base station; and
transmitting, by the UE to the base station, a buffer status
report (BSR) comprising an amount of uplink data to be
transmitted on a logical channel group to which the logical
channel corresponding to the base station in the notification
belongs.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-12 and 18-21 under 3 5 U.S. C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (US 2012/0099452 Al;
published Apr. 26, 2012) ("Dai") and Fabien et al. (US 2010/0272091 Al;
published Oct. 28, 2010) ("Fabien"). Final Act. 2-6.
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
Dai teaches user equipment that can be allotted radio resources on
multiple uplink component carriers. Dai ,r,r 139, 171. The Examiner finds
that this acquisition of radio resources teaches or suggests "receiving, by the
UE, a notification of a correspondence between a logical channel and a base
station," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2 (citing Dai ,r,r 135, 139, 145,
2
Appeal2018-000003
Application 14/292,235
171, Figs. 4--5). Fabien teaches the efficient transmission of a buffer status
report with carrier aggregation "with component carriers belonging to or
associated ... with different base stations." Fabien ,r 15. The Examiner
finds this use of different base stations teaches or suggests "the UE is served
by both the primary base station and the component base station," as recited
in claim 1. Final Act. 3 (citing Fabien ,r,r 15, 18, 53, 59).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "in Dai only one base
station serves the UE." App. Br. 7. Appellant, thus, argues that it is
unnecessary in Dai "for the eNB [evolved NodeB] to send the claimed
notification to the UE informing the UE regarding which base station the
BSR should be sent." Id.; see also Reply Br. 6-7. Appellant further argues,
"Fabien does not describe the claimed 'receiving' wherein the UE is notified
of a correspondence between a logical channel and a base station, the base
station being either the primary base station or the component base station."
App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 9. Appellant similarly argues that the recited
transmitting step is nonobvious because in Dai "there is only one base
station, [thus,] the BSR finally has to be transmitted to such the base station,
without other possible candidate base station." See App. Br. 8.
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellant's arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
We agree with the Examiner that Appellant's arguments against Dai
and Fabien individually are unpersuasive. See Ans. 9. Appellant repeatedly
3
Appeal2018-000003
Application 14/292,235
emphasizes that "in Dai only one base station serves the UE." App. Br. 7;
see also id. at 8-9; Reply Br. 6-9. However, Dai teaches or suggests the
allocation of multiple uplink component carriers (Dai ,r 171) while Fabien
teaches or suggests uplink carrier aggregation with component carriers
belonging to different base stations (Fabien ,r 15). We agree with the
Examiner that Fabien's use of component carriers belonging to different
base stations renders obvious modifying Dai to include service to user
equipment by multiple base stations. See Final Act. 3. We also agree with
the Examiner that the recitations of claim 1 related to such servicing ( e.g.,
"receiving ... notification of a correspondence between a logical channel
and a base station" and "transmitting ... a buffer status report ...
comprising an amount of uplink data to be transmitted on a logical channel
group") would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in light of
the combined teachings and suggestions of Dai and Fabien. See id. at 2-3.
Appellant's arguments that "Dai does not hint that the UE requires a
notification of a logical channel ... " and that in Dai "the BSR finally has to
be transmitted to [ only one] base station, without [an ]other possible
candidate base station" unpersuasively fail to address the Examiner's
reliance on the Dai as modified by Fabien. App. Br. 7-8.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, and claims 2-12 and 18-21, which Appellant argues are
patentable for similar reasons. Id. at 10. Appellant's conclusory statements
declaring certain features of the dependent claims are not taught or
suggested are not considered arguments for separate patentability of the
claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
4
Appeal2018-000003
Application 14/292,235
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 and 18-21.
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(±).
AFFIRMED
5