Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

13056460 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/056,460 01/28/2011
9629 7590 09/02/2016
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.
002027-5025 4113
EXAMINER
ROUDANI, OUSSAMA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2413
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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, SEUNG HEE HAN,
HYUN SOO KO, JAE HOON CHUNG, and SO YEON KIM
Appeal2015-006491
Application 13/056,460
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 10, 11, 16-19, 24, and 25, i.e., all pending claims. 2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is LG Electronics Inc.
App. Br. 2.
2 Appellants provide conflicting information about the pending claims.
Although pages 2 and 3 in the Appeal Brief indicate that this appeal involves
claims 12-15, page 14 indicates that claims 12-15 were canceled.
A June 2013 Amendment states on page 6 that "[c]laims 12-15 ... have
been canceled without prejudice or disclaimer." Moreover, the Appeal Brief
does not include any arguments regarding claims 12-15. So the statements
on pages 2 and 3 in the Appeal Brief about this appeal involving claims
12-15 seem erroneous.
Appeal2015-006491
Application 13/056,460
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, "[t]he present invention relates to
wireless communications, and more particularly, to a method and an
apparatus of receiving data in a wireless communication system." Spec.
i-f 1. 3 More particularly, "[t ]he method includes receiving a downlink (DL)
grant on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) through a first DL
component carrier (CC) .... " Abstract.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 10 exemplifies the subject matter of the claims
under consideration and reads as follows:
10. A method of communication in a wireless
communication system, carried in a user equipment (UE),
the method comprising:
receiving a radio resource control (RRC) message
indicating at least one downlink component carrier (CC)
selected among a plurality of available downlink CCs on which
the UE can receive signals simultaneously, the plurality of
available downlink CCs being set to be received via different
frequency bands;
monitoring a physical downlink control channel
(PDCCH) in a subframe of the at least one downlink CC;
3 This decision employs the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the
Specification, filed January 28, 2011; "Final Act." for the Final Office
Action, mailed July 16, 2014; "App. Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed
December 15, 2014; and "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed
April 22, 2015.
2
Appeal2015-006491
Application 13/056,460
when a PDCCH candidate is successfully decoded,
acquiring a CC indication field on the successfully decoded
PDCCH candidate, the CC indication field indicating an uplink
CC associated with a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH);
and
transmitting uplink data using the PUSCH through the
uplink CC indicated by the CC indication field.
App. Br. 13 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Schwarz et al.
Parkvall et al.
("Parkvall")
US 2007/0264994 Al Nov. 15, 2007
US 2011/0059767 Al Mar. 10, 2011
(filed Jan. 28, 2009)
3GPP TS 36.212 V8.1.0, 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical
Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial
Radio Access (E-UTRA); Multiplexing and Channel Coding (2007)
("3GPP TS 36.212")
3GPP TS 36.213 V8.3.0, 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical
Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial
Radio Access (E-UTRA); Physical Layer Procedures (2008)
("3GPP TS 36.213")
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 10, 16, 18, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Parkvall and Schwarz. Final Act. 4--8; App. Br. 5.
Claims 11 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Parkvall, Schwarz, and 3GPP TS 36.212. Final Act. 9;
App. Br. 6.
3
Appeal2015-006491
Application 13/056,460
Claims 17 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Parkvall, Schwarz, and 3GPP TS 36.213. Final
Act. 9--10; App. Br. 6.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 10, 11, 16-19, 24, and 25
in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons
explained below, we disagree with Appellants' assertions regarding error by
the Examiner.
The Rejection of Claims 10, 16,
18, and 24 Under 35 US.C. § 103(a)
Independent Claims 10 and 18
For claims 10 and 18, Appellants argue that Parkvall "fails to disclose
or render obvious 'a control message' indicating component carriers on
which PDCCH is to be transmitted" as required by the claims. App. Br. 7.
In particular, Appellants contend that Parkvall's "resource allocation
message" specifies component carriers for data rather than a control signal,
i.e., component carriers for a physical download shared channel (PDSCH)
for data rather than a physical download control channel (PDCCH). Id.
Appellants also contend that the data in Parkvall' s "resource allocation
message" does not include a physical download control channel (PDCCH).
Id.
For a physical download control channel (PDCCH) according to the
claims, the Examiner relies on Parkvall' s disclosure that ( 1) "in each
subframe a radio base station transmits over a control channel control
information indicating which terminals are supposed to receive data and
4
Appeal2015-006491
Application 13/056,460
upon which resources in the current downlink subframe that data will be
transmitted" and that "[t]his control signaling is typically transmitted in the
first 1, 2 or 3 symbols in each subframe." See Final Act. 5---6 (citing
Parkvall i-fi-1 5---6); Ans. 3--4 (citing Parkvall i-fi-1 5---6). Further, the Examiner
finds that an L TE Quick Reference shows that providing a physical
download control channel (PDCCH) in the first 1, 2 or 3 symbols in each
subframe of a component carrier was well known in the art. Ans. 4; see
Final Act. 6.
Appellants do not address (1) the portions of Parkvall that the
Examiner relies on for a physical download control channel (PDCCH)
according to the claims or (2) the Examiner's finding regarding the LTE
Quick Reference. App. Br. 6-9. Moreover, the portions of Parkvall that the
Examiner relies on parallel the Specification's explanation of using the first
1, 2 or 3 symbols in each subframe for providing a physical download
control channel (PDCCH). Spec. i-fi-176-78, Fig. 9.
Appellants also argue that the claimed subject matter differs from
Parkvall because Parkvall' s base station does not transmit a "resource
allocation message" when a mobile terminal (user equipment) performs
uplink communications. App. Br. 7, 8 (citing Parkvall i-f 41 ). But that
argument fails to address the Examiner's findings that ( 1) the "base station
indicates to [the] mobile terminal [user equipment] which component carrier
to use for uplink transmissions" and (2) the mobile terminal "then
transmit[s] data over those shared channels, i.e., PUSCH." Final Act. 7
(citing Parkvall i-fi-128, 50); see id. at 6-7 (citing Parkvall i-fi-128, 35).
Appellants further argue that "Schwarz fails to cure the deficiency of
Parkvall" relating to radio resource control (RRC) signaling. App. Br. 9.
5
Appeal2015-006491
Application 13/056,460
More specifically, Appellants assert that "Schwarz merely discloses a
receiving a [sic] radio resource control (RRC) message indicating a target
base station when a user equipment (UE) performs a handover from a source
base station to the target base station." Id. But Appellants do not dispute
that the radio resource control (RRC) message specifies a band or carrier for
the user equipment. Id. Thus, Appellants' argument does not undermine the
Examiner's finding that "Schwarz teaches receiving a radio resource control
(RRC) message indicating at least one downlink component carrier (CC)."
Final Act. 3, 7 (citing Schwarz i-f 22); see Ans. 4.
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10 and 18 for obviousness based on
Parkvall and Schwarz. Hence, we sustain the obviousness rejection.
Dependent Claims 16 and 24
Claims 16 and 24 depend from claims 10 and 18, respectively. App.
Br. 14--15 (Claims App.). Appellants present the same patentability
arguments for these dependent claims as for claims 10 and 18. App. Br. 10.
Because Appellants do not argue the claims separately, they stand or fall
together. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Hence, we sustain the
obviousness rejection.
The Rejections of Claims 11, 17,
19, and 25 Under 35 US.C. § 103(a)
Claims 11 and 17 depend from claim 10, and claims 19 and 25 depend
from claim 18. App. Br. 14--16 (Claims App.). Appellants do not articulate
any patentability arguments for these dependent claims beyond the
arguments regarding the independent claims. Id. at 10. For instance,
Appellants say nothing about 3GPP TS 36.212 and 3GPP TS 36.213. Id.
6
Appeal2015-006491
Application 13/056,460
Because Appellants do not argue the claims separately, they stand or fall
together. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Hence, we sustain the
obviousness rejections.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 10, 11, 16-19, 24, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7