Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2016

13056223 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/056,223 01127/2011
9629 7590 10/19/2016
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA)
1111 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Moon II Lee
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.
002027-5027 2014
EXAMINER
KADING, JOSHUA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2016 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):
patents@morganlewis.com
karen.catalano@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MOON IL LEE, SO YEON KIM,
JAE HOON CHUNG, HYUN SOO KO, and
SEUNG HEE HAN
Appeal2015-005765
Application 13/056,223
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 12-26. Claims 1-11 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is LG Electronics Inc.
(Br. 2).
Appeal2015-005765
Application 13/056,223
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 12, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter with disputed limitations emphasized:
12. A method of transmitting control information in a multiple
carrier system, the method comprising:
configuring, by a user equipment (UE) supporting carrier
aggregation associated with a plurality of downlink (DL)
component carriers (CCs), a first DL CC and a second DL CC on
which the UE can receive signals simultaneously from a single
base station, the first DL CC and the second DL CC being
configured by using a first center frequency value and a second
center frequency value different from the first center frequency
value, respectively, the first center frequency value indicating a
center of contiguous subcarriers assignable by the first DL CC in
a frequency domain, the second center frequency value
indicating a center of contiguous subcarriers assignable by the
second DL CC in the frequency domain;
determining, by the UE, a single uplink (UL) CC used for
transmitting feedback information for the first DL CC and the
second DL CC via a physical uplink control channel (PUCC1l);
determining, by the UE, a resource used for a transmission
of the PUCCH; and
transmitting, by the UE to the single base station (BS), the
feedback information on the PUCCH of the single UL CC.
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 12-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Malladi (US 2008/0095106 Al; published Apr. 24, 2008)
and Lindoff(US 2009/0257533 Al; published Oct. 15, 2009). (Final Act.
3-8).
2
Appeal2015-005765
Application 13/056,223
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Malladi teaches or suggests
"determining, by the UE, a single uplink (UL) [component carrier (CC)]
used for transmitting feedback information for the first [downlink (DL)] CC
and the second DL CC via a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH)," as
recited in claim 12 and similarly recited in claim 24?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Action (Final Act. 3-8) from which this appeal is
taken and the findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 2--4). We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Malladi teaches or
suggests "determining, by the UE, a single uplink (UL) CC used for
transmitting feedback information for the first DL CC and the second DL
CC via a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH)," as recited in claim 12
and similarly recited in claim 24. (Br. 6-10). Specifically, Appellants argue
Malladi does not teach "a single uplink (UL) component carrier (CC)"
because Malladi's uplink is not "a 'single orthogonal subcarrier' or 'single
SCM signal."' (Id. at 7-8 (emphasis omitted)).
We are not persuaded. As an initial matter, the Examiner reasonably
interprets a "component carrier" as "one or more physical channels
comprised of a set of subcarriers, where the subcarriers are spaced apart an
3
Appeal2015-005765
Application 13/056,223
amount corresponding to Lif~." (Ans. 3). The Examiner's interpretation is
based on Appellants' Specification-specifically, the disclosures of Figure
3, describing that "a component carrier (CC) corresponds to at least one
physical channel ('PHY')," and Figure 4, describing that "each PHY is made
of a bandwidth of subcarriers, where each subcarrier is defined by at least a
spacing corresponding to L'ifm [(subcarrier spacing of the PHY #m)]." (Id. at
3 (citing Spec. i-fi-1 59---66, Figs. 3--4) ). Appellants do not provide
persuasively address the Examiner's interpretation of a "component carrier."
(See Br. 6-10). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the broadest
reasonable interpretation "component carrier" encompasses "one or more
physical channels comprised of a set of subcarriers, where the subcarriers
are spaced apart an amount corresponding to L'ifm." (Ans. 3).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Malladi's Virtual Frequency
Resource (VFR) teaches a single uplink component carrier because the VFR
is a "physical frequency resource, or channel, made of a set of subcarriers
separated by a fixed frequency amount." (Ans. 3 (citing Malladi Figs. 3--4B,
i-fi-136-38, 51)). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Malladi's VFR
"transmit[s] feedback information (i.e., ACKs) for at least two downlink
component carriers (e.g., ACKl, ACK2, etc.) via a PUCCH." (Id. (citing
Malladi i-fi-131, 36, 38, 39, 50, Figs. 6-7A); Final Act. 4--5 (citing Malladi
,-r,-r 44--48)).
Appellants' arguments, that Malladi's "'VFR' is a set of subcarriers"
which "allocate[ es] a plurality of orthogonal subcarriers" rather than
"allocating a single orthogonal subcarrier or a single SCM signal" (Br. 8
(emphasis omitted)) is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The
claims do not recite, and therefore do not require, that feedback information
4
Appeal2015-005765
Application 13/056,223
is transmitted using either a single orthogonal subcarrier or a single SCM
signal. Instead, the claims recite feedback information is transmitted using
"a single uplink (UL) CC." As discussed above, the Examiner reasonably
interprets a component carrier as encompassing "one or more physical
channels comprised of a set of subcarriers, where the subcarriers are spaced
apart an amount corresponding to L'ifm." In light of our interpretation,
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding
Malladi's VFR is a single uplink component carrier. Accordingly, we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Malladi teaches or suggests
"determining, by the UE, a single uplink (UL) CC used for transmitting
feedback information for the first DL CC and the second DL CC via a
physical uplink control channel (PUCCH)," within the meaning of claims 12
and 24.
Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims
13-23, 25, and 26 which depend directly or indirectly from claims 12 or 24.
(See Br. 10). For the reasons set forth above, therefore, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting the independent claims.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of 13-23, 25, and 26. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 12-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Malladi and Lindo ff 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)(l )(iv).
5
Appeal2015-005765
Application 13/056,223
AFFIRMED
6