Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2018

13451954 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/451,954 04/20/2012
68103 7590 06/25/2018
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
YingyangLI
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.
0201-0483 4402
EXAMINER
ROSE, DERRICK V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2018 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):
usdocketing@jeffersonip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YINGY ANG LI and JINGXING FU
Appeal2018-001386 1
Application 13/451,954
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 10-16, 18, 21, and 22. 2 See App. Br. 3. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is identified as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
2 The Examiner indicates claims 8, 9, 19, and 20 contain allowable subject
matter. See Final Act. 6. Claims 6 and 17 have been canceled. See App. Br.
15-17.
Appeal 2018-001386
Application 13/451,954
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to a wireless communication system, and
particularly to a "method and an apparatus for transmitting
Acknowledgement/Non-Acknowledgement (ACK/NACK) signals in a Time
Division Duplexing (TDD) system supporting Carrier Aggregation (CA)."
Spec. i-f 2. Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below
for reference (with method step lettering added):
1. A method for transmitting acknowledgement/non-
acknowledgement (ACK/NACK) signals by a user equipment
(UE) in a wireless communication system using carrier
aggregation (CA), the method comprising:
[a] identifying a reference uplink (UL)/downlink (DL)
configuration based on a pair formed by a primary cell (Pcell)
UL/DL configuration and a secondary cell (Scell) UL/DL
configuration in a time division duplexing (TDD) mode;
[b] identifying a timing position for transmitting a
response signal including at least one of an ACK signal and a
NACK signal based on the identified reference UL/DL
configuration; and
[ c] transmitting the response signal in the identified timing
position,
[ d] wherein, if the Pcell UL/DL configuration and the
Scell UL/DL configuration are the same, the reference UL/DL
configuration includes the Pcell UL/DL configuration.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-5, 7, 10-16, 18, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Han (US 2014/0016594 Al; Jan. 16,
2014,) and Yamada (US 2012/0257513 Al; Oct. 11, 2012). Final Act. 3.
2
Appeal 2018-001386
Application 13/451,954
ANALYSIS
Appellants do not separately argue the claims. See App. Br. 3. We
select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. We are not persuaded of Examiner error; we adopt the
Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own, and we add the following
primarily for emphasis. Any arguments Appellants could have made but
chose not to raise in the Briefs are deemed waived. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d
1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("it has long been the Board's practice to
require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's
rejections").
A. Method Step [a]
Appellants argue the cited references do not teach or suggest
"identifying the reference UL/DL configuration based on the pair configured
by the primary cell (Pcell) uplink (UL)/downlink (DL) configuration and
secondary cell (Scell) UL/DL configuration in the TDD mode as recited in
claim 1." App. Br. 5 (emphasis omitted). Appellants contend that, in
contrast with the claim, "Han does not describe any operation of identifying
the reference UL/DL configuration based on the pair." App. Br. 7.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Han, as cited by the
Examiner, teaches "determining which UL subframe of which corresponding
CC [(component carrier)] to transmit the UL feedback." Han i-f 43; Final
Act. 3; see also Han Figs. 1, 2, i-f 20 ("FIG. 1 illustrates an example of
overlapped subframes in a CC specific TDD configuration"). Han explains
that such determination can be based on the set of "four CCs [which] may be
3
Appeal 2018-001386
Application 13/451,954
configured for the UE," including "Pcell may be configured with TDD
configuration 5" and "Scell#l may be configured with TDD configuration 0
... as shown in FIG. 5." Han i-f 44. Appellants do not explain how the
claimed reference UL/DL configuration based on the pair, in light of the
Specification, differs from the disclosure of Han, or otherwise provide
evidence or technical reasoning to show that Han does not teach or suggest
this limitation. See Final Act. 2; Ans. 7; compare Han Figs. 1, 5, 9
(operation 200, 210), i-fi-13 (teaching both aligned and different
configurations across cells), 42 ("ACK/NACK bits may need transmission
for multiple DL CCs and/or DL subframes"), with Spec. i-fi-19, 45; see also In
re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 201 l)("[W]e hold that the Board
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.");
In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not
the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued
by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.").
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
recited step of identifying a reference uplink (UL)/downlink (DL)
configuration based on a pair is taught or suggested by the cited references.
See Final Act. 2-3.
B. Method Steps [b] and [c]
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in citing to Han for method steps
[b] and [ c ], because "Han makes absolutely no disclosure of identifying a
timing position for transmitting a response signal including at least one of
4
Appeal 2018-001386
Application 13/451,954
the ACK signal and the NACK signal based on the identified reference
UL/DL configuration recited in claim 1." App. Br. 9. Particularly,
Appellants contend Han does not teach "the pair formed by the Pcell UL/DL
configuration and Scell UL/DL configuration as recited in claim 1," and "the
UL feedback timing of Han relates to a determination based on the
generating time of the CC set." App. Br. 9, 10.
Appellants' arguments are focused on the recitation of "reference
UL/DL configuration," which was argued above for method step [a]. See
App. Br. 7-10. We find such arguments unpersuasive, because, as discussed
above, we agree with the Examiner that Han teaches the claimed reference
UL/DL configuration. Appellants, thus, do not persuasively show the
Examiner erred in finding Han teaches or suggests identifying a timing
position and transmitting the response signal, within the meaning of claim 1.
See Final Act. 3; Han i-fi-13, 42 ("The timing manager 150 may be configured
to determine UL feedback timing.").
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Han teaches method
steps [b] and [ c] of independent claim 1. See Ans. 7.
C. Wherein Clause [ d]
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in citing to Yamada for wherein
clause [d]:
Yamada merely discloses that the uplink transmission timing of
the one or more Scell is the same as the uplink transmission
timing of the Pcell. That is, Yamada merely discloses adjusting
the uplink transmission timing as for a plurality of groups
including the one or more cells (which include the Pcell group
including the Pcell and non-Pcell group not including the Pcell)
to have the same uplink transmission timing, but fails to disclose
5
Appeal 2018-001386
Application 13/451,954
the feature related to the reference UL/DL configuration (the
reference UL/DL configuration identified based on the pair
formed by the primary cell (Pcell) uplink (UL)/downlink (DL)
configuration and secondary cell (Scell) UL/DL configuration)
recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 12.
Appellants' arguments with respect to Yamada do not show the
Examiner's rejection-based on the combined teachings of Han and
Yamada-is in error. See Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
that Yamada's disclosure of the same uplink timing teaches or suggests that
the PCELL and the SCELL configurations are the same. See Final Act. 4;
Yamada i-fi-160, 243. Further, Appellants do not challenge the Examiner's
finding that the references' "transmission timing [is] equivalent to the
[claimed] configuration." Final Act. 4 (emphasis omitted); see also Spec.
,-r,-r 6, 31, 49.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Yamada and Han's, (as discussed above with respect to
method steps [a]-[ c ]), teaches or suggests wherein clause [ d] of claim 1. 3
3 We note claim 1 is a method claim and the wherein clause in step [d]
recites a conditional limitation: "if ... the configuration[ s] are the same." If
the condition is not satisfied (i.e., the configurations are not the same), then
the remainder of wherein clause [ d] may not need to be performed to be
found disclosed or taught by the prior art. See Ex parte Schulhauser, No.
2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *4 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016)
(precedential) (discussing construction of conditional limitations in method
claims). We do not reach this issue, however, as we agree with the
Examiner that all of wherein clause [ d] is rendered obvious by the cited
references.
6
Appeal 2018-001386
Application 13/451,954
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 10-16, 18, 21, and
22 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).
AFFIRMED
7