Ex Parte Luo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

14484194 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/484,194 09/11/2014
15757 7590 07/03/2018
Qualcomm /Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
2200 Ross A venue
Suite 3600
Dallas, TX 75201-7932
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tao Luo
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.
QLXX.P0433US/11407506 4632
EXAMINER
ULYSSE, JAEL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /03/2018 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
doipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAO LUO, WANSHI CHEN, and PETER GAAL
Appeal2017-009156
Application 14/484,194 1
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants' Brief ("App. Br.") identifies QUALCOMM Incorporated as
the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-009156
Application 14/484, 194
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a transmitter management under transmitter
uncertainty. Claims 1 and 11, reproduced below, are illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method of wireless communication, comprising:
pre-preparing, at a transmitter, a plurality of candidate
combined transmission waveforms of cross-carrier control
information for one of at least one non-guaranteed transmission
carriers and one or more of: control information and data for a
guaranteed transmission carrier before detecting a result of a
clear channel assessment (CCA);
receiving, at the transmitter, a transmission status for the
at least one non-guaranteed transmission carriers, wherein the
transmission status is the result of the CCA to indicate clear
transmission or no transmission on the at least one non-
guaranteed transmission carriers;
selecting, by the transmitter, a transmission waveform
from the plurality of candidate combined transmission
waveforms based on the transmission status; and
transmitting, by the transmitter, the selected transmission
waveform to a receiver.
App. Br. 15 (Claims Appendix).
11. A method of wireless communication, comprising:
entering, by a transmitter, a first subframe of a
transmission frame;
receiving, at the transmitter, a transmission status for at
least one non-guaranteed transmission carriers associated with
the transmitter, wherein the transmission status is a result of a
clear channel assessment (CCA) to indicate clear transmission or
no transmission on the at least one non-guaranteed transmission
carriers;
transmitting, by the transmitter, a non-time critical signal
over a non-guaranteed transmission carrier for a fixed number of
symbols of the first subframe after the receiving the transmission
status; and
2
Appeal2017-009156
Application 14/484, 194
transmitting, by the transmitter, a transmission waveform
generated in response to the transmission status beginning at a
first transmission symbol after the fixed number of symbols in
the first subframe, wherein the transmission waveform is based
on the transmission status.
App. Br. 17 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Famolari
Koskela
Freda
US 2006/0223541 Al Oct. 5, 2006
US 2013/0163447 Al June 27, 2013
US 2013/0163543 Al June 27, 2013
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Freda and Famolari. Final Act. 3-16.
Claims 11-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Freda, Famolari, and Koskela. Final Act. 16-27.
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Freda teaches or
suggests "pre-preparing, at a transmitter, a plurality of candidate combined
transmission waveforms of cross-carrier control information," as recited in
claim 1?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited prior art
teaches transmitting "non-time critical signal over a non-guaranteed
transmission carrier for a fixed number of symbols of the first subframe"
3
Appeal2017-009156
Application 14/484, 194
before transmitting "a transmission waveform generated in response to the
transmission status," as recited in claim 11?
ANALYSIS
First Issue
Claim 1 recites the limitation:
pre-preparing, at a transmitter, a plurality of candidate combined
transmission waveforms of cross-carrier control information for
one of at least one non-guaranteed transmission carriers and one
or more of: control information and data for a guaranteed
transmission carrier before detecting a result of a clear channel
assessment (CCA);
App. Br. 15 (Claims Appendix). In rejecting claim 1 as obvious over Freda
and Famolari, the Examiner finds Freda teaches all of this limitation except
for detecting the result of a "clear channel assessment," which the Examiner
finds is taught by Famolari. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner finds Freda
teaches that an eNB (the recited "transmitter") prepares PDCCH candidates
and carriers for transmission (the recited "cross-carrier control information")
and also discloses sensing the channel to make sure it is available prior to
transmission (corresponds to the recited "detecting a result"). Ans. 6 (citing
Freda i-fi-16, 43, 44, 117, 124, 134, and 202).
Although the Examiner finds the sensing performed by Freda prior to
transmission to be "indicative of a CCA," (Ans. 8), the Examiner
acknowledges that Freda does not teach the explicit use of a "clear channel
assessment," and relies on Famolari to provide this teaching. The Examiner
finds Famolari teaches performing CCA on candidate radio access channels
to select a channel for transmission. Final Act. 5-6 (citing Famolari i-fi-136,
45, 51, 53, 55, 58, and 59). The Examiner finds it would have been obvious
4
Appeal2017-009156
Application 14/484, 194
to combine the teachings of Freda and Famolari in order to send control
information to a receiver and prevent network traffic congestion. Final Act.
6-7.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the Examiner's
conclusion of obviousness relies on an erroneous construction of the term
"pre-preparing." Appellants argue the "pre-preparing [of] a plurality of
candidate combined transmission waveforms of cross-carrier control
information" must occur before the result of the clear channel assessment,
and provide sufficient time to prepare transmissions. App. Br. 7-8.
Appellants argue the Examiner's construction of "pre-preparing" is
unreasonably broad because the Examiner merely interprets the term to
mean "preparing," and that definition overlooks an explicit definition
provided in the Specification and impermissibly reads the prefix "pre" in
"pre-preparing" out of the claim. Reply Br. 3--4.
The key issue with respect to the rejection of claim 1 is whether the
Examiner's construction of the term "pre-preparing" as meaning "the act of
preparing, make ready or prepare," accords with its broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of Appellants' Specification. We conclude that it does
not. In construing "pre-preparing," the Examiner finds the Specification
does not provide a specific definition for "pre-preparing." Ans. 3
("Appellant[ s] did not provide a specific definition to the term pre-
preparing. "). We agree with Appellants that the Specification provides a
specific definition of "pre-preparing" that governs here. Specifically, the
Specification states "[p ]re-preparing here would mean beginning the
encoding and/or multiplexing operations at time tl-X, and/or buffer the
waveforms for each of the prepared combinations [ ] [ w ]here X would be at
5
Appeal2017-009156
Application 14/484, 194
least sufficient time to prepare the packet for transmission." Spec. i-f 100.
The Specification defines tl as the time at which transmission will take
place. Thus, acting as their own lexicographer, Appellants have defined
"pre-preparing" to mean beginning the encoding and/or multiplexing
operations for a data transmission early enough so that it is ready for
transmission at the time transmission is set to take place.
Applying Appellants' reasonable definition, we agree with Appellants
that Freda does not teach "pre-preparing" of candidate combined
transmission waveforms. Rather, Freda describes preparing a physical
datalink control channel ("PDCCH") for license exempt ("LE") bands and
supplementary component carrier ("SuppCC") in response to receiving an
indication of the availability of a particular LE band or SuppCC. See, e.g.,
Freda i-f 204 ("when the channel is determined to be unoccupied, at 2224, the
eNB may transmit a special format IC message 2222 ... to notify the LE-
capable WTRU s to start decoding PDCCH 2220 on the activated SuppCC").
Thus, in Freda's system the PDCCH (which the Examiner finds corresponds
to the recited "candidate combined transmission waveforms of cross-carrier
control information") is not prepared until after the channel has been
assessed and the carrier selected. Because claim 1 requires that the
preparation begin prior to the clear channel assessment, we agree with
Appellants that Freda does not teach or suggest the "pre-preparing" of claim
1. Accordingly, we do not sustain this rejection.
Second Issue
Independent claim 11 recites a different approach to addressing the
potential failure of a transmitter after detecting a clear channel. Rather than
"pre-preparing" the candidate waveforms as recited in claim 1, claim 11
6
Appeal2017-009156
Application 14/484, 194
recites a process by which the start of data transmissions is delayed for a
fixed number of symbols for the first subframe by sending a non-time
critical signal after receiving the transmission status from the clear channel
assessment. The selected transmission waveform is prepared after the CCA
and during the transmission of the non-time critical signals. See App. Br. 17
(Claims Appendix); see also Spec. i-fi-f 119-120, FIG. 8A.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "transmitting, by the transmitter, a non-
time critical signal over a non-guaranteed transmission carrier for a fixed
number of symbols of the first subframe after the receiving the transmission
status." App. Br. 17 (Claims Appendix). In rejecting claim 11, the
Examiner finds Freda and Famolari "are silent on transmitting, by the
transmitter, a non-time critical signal over a non-guaranteed transmission
carrier for a fixed number of symbols of the first subframe." Final Act. 18.
The Examiner cites Koskela for this limitation, finding that it teaches
transmitting a common reference signal CRS (non-time critical signal)
included in a PDCCH field (non-guaranteed transmission carrier) in a
subframe that includes individual symbols. Final Act. 18 (citing Koskela i-fi-1
9, 45, 50, 60, and 76). The Examiner does not find Koskela teaches the
recited "after the receiving the transmission status." Final Act. 18. Instead,
the Examiner finds Famolari teaches "after the receiving the transmission
status" because it describes selecting a channel after the outcome of the
CCA. Final Act. 18 (citing Famolari i-fi-136, 45, and 53).
Appellants contend the Examiner has erred because there is no
indication in Koskela that the transmitting of the non-time critical signal
takes place after receiving the transmission status. App. Br. 11. Appellants
also argue Koskela fails to teach that the transmission of the non-time
7
Appeal2017-009156
Application 14/484, 194
critical signal occurs "for a fixed number of signals of the first subframe"
and before transmission of the selected waveform has begun. Reply Br. 7-8.
Appellants further contend Koskela is deficient because it "is wholly silent
on providing any 'buffer' (transmission of [a] non-time critical signal) to
allow more time to prepare a transmission waveform." App. Br. 12-13. We
agree with Appellants.
The approach described by Koskela does not involve inserting buffer
signals to immediately capture the channel and allow time to generate a
transmission waveform after receiving a positive clear channel assessment
on a secondary carrier. Koskela describes transmitting for a number of
symbols to allow for the sensing or clear channel assessment to take place.
See Koskela i-f 48 ("[T]he eNB may utilize its PDCCH field ... for listening
to (measuring of) the transmission medium of the secondary carrier."); see
also Koskela i-f 60 ("symbols are used for sensing on SCC"). Because the
symbols are used to allow time for sensing on the secondary carrier to take
place, they are not transmitted "after the receiving the transmission status,"
as recited in claim 11. Instead, these symbols are used to determine the
transmission status. This approach differs from the claimed approach
because, in the claimed approach, the fixed number of symbols is used to
capture the channel to avoid the potential failure of a transmitter after
detecting a clear channel. Accordingly, we are persuaded the cited
references do not teach or suggest "transmitting ... a non-time critical signal
over a non-guaranteed transmission carrier for a fixed number of symbols of
the first subframe after the receiving the transmission status," and we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 11.
8
Appeal2017-009156
Application 14/484, 194
Remaining Claims
Independent claim 14 is identical to claim 11, except that it uses a
"guaranteed transmission carrier" instead of one that is "non-guaranteed."
The same reasoning for claim 11 applies to independent claim 14.
Accordingly, we also do not sustain its rejection. The remaining claims
depend from one of the independent claims discussed above and, therefore,
stand together with their respective independent claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-16.
REVERSED
9