Ex Parte Shimezawa et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 30, 201814113994 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/113,994 10/25/2013 127226 7590 08/01/2018 BIRCH, STEW ART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP 8110 Gatehouse Road Suite 100 East Falls Church, VA 22042-1248 Kazuyuki Shimezawa 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. 1609-067 4 PUS 1 3066 EXAMINER CHU, WUTCHUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2468 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2018 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): mailroom@bskb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KAZUYUKI SHIMEZAW A, TOSHIZO NOGAMI, KIMIHIKO IMAMURA, and DAIICHIRO NAKASHIMA Appeal2018-001637 Application 14/113,994 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, CATHERINE SHIANG, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 18, 20-24, and 26-29, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 1-17, 19, and 25 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S. C. § 6(b ). We affrrm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is a radio communication system where a base station can notify the terminal of control information via a control channel using radio resource control (RRC) signaling when the terminal is in a 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2018-001637 Application 14/113,994 connected state where the terminal holds network information. See generally Abstract. Claim 18 is illustrative: 18. A base station configured to communicate with a terminal in a cell, the base station comprising: a control information generator configured to generate control information for the terminal; and a transmitter configured to transmit the control information on a second control channel that is a control channel different from a frrst control channel, the frrst control channel being monitored by the terminal regardless of whether the terminal is in radio resource control connected state (RRC CONNECTED state) or radio resource control idle state (RRC IDLE state), the second control channel being monitored by the terminal only while the terminal is in the RRC CONNECTED state, wherein the RRC CONNECTED state is a state where the terminal holds information concerning a network, and the RRC IDLE state is a state where the terminal does not hold information concerning a network. THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 18, 20-24, and26-29under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ji (US 2011/0044391 Al; pub. Feb. 24, 2011) ("Ji '391") and Ji (US 2012/0213108 Al; pub. Aug. 23, 2012; provisional application 61/445,411 filed Feb. 22, 2011) ("Ji '411"). 2 Final Act. 3-15. 3 2 Because the Examiner relies exclusively on Ji' s Provisional Application 61/445,411 in connection with its corresponding published application, we likewise refer to the '411 provisional application unless otherwise indicated. 3 Throughoutthis opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed January 20, 2017 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed August 18, 2017 ("App. 2 Appeal 2018-001637 Application 14/113,994 FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS The Examiner finds that Ji '391 discloses, among other things, a base station configured to communicate with a terminal in a cell, where the transmitter configured to transmit control information on a second control channel, namely an Enhanced-Physical Downlink Control Channel (E- PDCCH), that is different from a frrst control channel, namely a Packet Data Control Channel (PDCCH). Final Act. 3--4. According to the Examiner, the terminal monitors ( 1) the frrst control channel regardless of whether the terminal is in an idle or connected state, and (2) the second control channel only while the terminal is in a connected state. Final Act. 4. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Ji '391 lacks the recited RRC CONNECTED and IDLE states, the Examiner nonetheless cites Ji '411 as teaching these features in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 5. Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest monitoring a frrst control channel regardless of whether the terminal is in an RRC CONNECTED or RRC IDLE state. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants, Ji '391 's terminal enters an idle mode only if there is no data for the terminal in the beginning of a subframe. App. Br. 9. Appellants add that Ji '411 does not cure Ji '3 91 's deficiencies because, among other things, Ji '411 's user equipment (UE) that monitors paging activity while idle is not equivalent to monitoring a frrst control channel as claimed. Id. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed October 4, 2017 ("Ans."); and ( 4) the Reply Brief filed December 1, 2017 ("Reply Br."). 3 Appeal 2018-001637 Application 14/113,994 Appellants also argue that the cited prior art does not disclose a terminal that monitors a second control channel only while the terminal is in an RRC CONNECTED state. App. Br. 9-10. According to Appellants, if Ji '391 's E-PDCCH were monitored in the connected state as the Examiner proposes, this channel would need to be included in associated control signaling-which it is not. App. Br. 10. ISSUE Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18 by fmding that Ji '391 and Ji '411 collectively would have taught or suggested a terminal that monitors ( 1) the frrst control channel regardless of whether the terminal is in an RRC CONNECTED or RRC IDLE state, and (2) the second control channel only while the terminal is in an RRC CONNECTED state? ANALYSIS We begin by noting that the Examiner relies principally on Ji '391 for teaching many recited elements of independent claim 18, including a terminal that monitors frrst and second control channels, namely the PDCCH and E-PDCCH, respectively. See Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 3--4. A key aspect of the Examiner's fmdings in this regard is that Ji '391 's terminal monitors a control channel to determine if data are destined for the terminal. Ans. 4 (citing Ji '391 ,r,r 57, 153). Ifso, the terminal stays connected; otherwise, it enters an idle mode. Ans. 4. Ji '391 's Figure 1 shows a control channel region 117 labeled "PDCCH" that is a channel for transmitting data channel allocation information or power control information. See Ji '391 ,r,r 56-58 (noting that 4 Appeal 2018-001637 Application 14/113,994 control channels, including PDCCH, are transmitted within control region 117), ,r 61. As Ji '391 explains, control signalling is transmitted at the beginning of a subframe to enable a terminal to determine whether the subframe is intended for the terminal and, therefore, determine whether to receive a data channel. Ji '391 ,r,r 57. Ifno data channel is destined to the terminal, the terminal enters idle mode to save power. Id. This functionality, then, effectively monitors the control channel in a connected state as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 4. Although it is unclear whether Ji '391 's terminal also monitors the control channel when idle, we nevertheless see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Ji '411 for at least suggesting as much, particularly given Ji '411 's teachings of monitoring communication channels when idle. For example, Ji '411 's paragraph 92 notes that a UE can monitor paging activity in idle mode and, if paged, transition to a connected state to measure serving cell signal quality. When idle, a UE can also (1) make various measurements, such as measuring received signal power and quality, and (2) monitor Channel State Information Reference Signals (CSI_RS). Ji' 411 ,r,r 94, 102. Given this monitoring capability in both idle and connected modes, we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Ji '391 and Ji '411 collectively for at least suggesting monitoring a frrst control channel, namely a PDCCH, regardless of whether the terminal is in an RRC CONNECTED or RRC IDLE state, particularly given Ji '411 's RRC sublayer 616 in Figure 6 that obtains radio resources and configures lower layers using RRC signalling between the evolved Node B ( eNB) and the UE. See Ji '411 ,r 54. In short, the Examiner's proposed combination uses prior art elements predictably 5 Appeal 2018-001637 Application 14/113,994 according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007). Appellants' contention that Ji '411 's monitoring paging activity while idle is not equivalent to monitoring a first control channel (App. Br. 9) is unavailing. First, this contention is unsubstantiated by any persuasive evidence on this record and, therefore, has low probative value. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc.,424F.3d 1276, 1284(Fed. Cir. 2005)("Attomey argument is no substitute for evidence."). Second, nothing in the claim precludes Ji '411 's monitoring paging activity when idle and, therefore, Appellants' arguments in this regard are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Nevertheless, leaving aside the fact that a monitored idle-mode page triggers switching to a connected mode to measure signal quality in Ji '411 's paragraph 92, Ji '411 's idle mode is not limited to monitoring paging activity as Appellants seem to suggest, but rather can also include (1) making various measurements, such as measuring received signal power and quality, and (2) monitoring Channel State Information Reference Signals, as noted in paragraphs 94 and 102. Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner's fmding that Ji '391 at least suggests monitoring a second control channel, E-PDCCH, only while the terminal is in a connected state, namely when data are destined to the terminal. Final Act. 4 (citing Ji '391,r,r 76-77, Fig. 5). That Ji '391 's Figures 4 and 5 show R-PDCCH----a channel equivalent to E-PDCCH (Ji '391 ,r 41 }-after PDCCH such that R-PDCCH is at least partially in the data region only bolsters the Examiner's fmdings in this regard. 6 Appeal 2018-001637 Application 14/113,994 We reach this conclusion even assuming, without deciding, that Ji '391 does not include E-PDCCH(orR-PDCCH) in the control signalling as Appellants contend. App. Br. 9-10. Not only is this contention unsubstantiated by any persuasive evidence on this record, Appellants have not evidenced that such an inclusion would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). On this record, we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Ji '391 in this regard, at least to the extent that monitoring a second control channel, namely E-PDCCH, only while the terminal is in a connected state would have been at least an obvious variation. That Ji '411 's paragraph 105 indicates that a UE may monitor R-PDCCH reliability if such a channel is used only bolsters this conclusion, as does the fact that R-PDCCH can supplement, augment, or replace the PDCCH control channel as noted in Ji '411 's paragraph 84. Nor do Appellants persuasively rebut the Examiner's finding that Ji '391 's connected and idle states hold and do not hold network information, respectively, depending on whether data are destined to the terminal. See Final Act. 4--5. To be sure, Ji '391 's connected and idle states are not specifically RRC states as the Examiner acknowledges. Final Act. 5. Nevertheless, we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Ji '411 to cure that deficiency, particularly given Ji '411 's RRC sublayer 616 in Figure 6 that obtains radio resources and configures lower layers using RRC signalling between the eNB and the UE. See Ji '411 ,r 54. In short, the Examiner's proposed 7 Appeal 2018-001637 Application 14/113,994 combination uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18, and claims 20-24 and 26-29 not argued separately with particularity. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 18, 20-24, and 26-29 under§ 103. DECISION We affrrm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 18, 20-24, and 26-29. 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 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation