Ex Parte Somasundaram et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 26, 2018

14195620 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/195,620 03/03/2014 Kiran Somasundaram
109682 7590 12/28/2018
Holland & Hart LLP/Qualcomm
P.O. Box 11583
Salt Lake City, UT 84147
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.
PQ041.0l (81679.0171) 5278
EXAMINER
RAHMAN, M MOSTAZIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2411
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2018 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
patentdocket@hollandhart.com
qualcomm@hollandhart.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KIRAN SOMASUNDARAM, HAO XU,
WANSHI CHEN, and TINGFANG JI
Appeal2018-002507
Application 14/195,620
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-002507
Application 14/195,620
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 10-12, 16-19, 23-26, and 30-42. App. Br. 4. 2
Claims 4---6, 8, 9, 13-15, 20-22, and 27-29 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to an association scheme for machine-
type communication (MTC) devices in wireless communications. Spec. ,r 5.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with our emphasis:
1. A method for wireless communications, comprising:
identifying, at a user equipment (UE), one or more
properties of a channel supported by a first base station for
machine type communication (MTC), the one or more properties
being identified based at least in part on one or more bits in a
signal received from the first base station through a broadcast
channel;
decoupling an uplink channel of the UE from a downlink
channel of the UE such that the uplink channel is associated with
the first base station and the downlink channel is associated with
a second base station; and
communicating downlink MTC information with the first
base station and uplink MTC information with the second base
station based on the one or more channel properties.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm
Incorporated. App. Br. 2.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection ("Final Act.")
mailed March 2, 2017; the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed May 31, 2017;
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed November 9, 2017; and the Reply
Brief ("Reply Br.") filed January 8, 2018.
2
Appeal2018-002507
Application 14/195,620
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Palanki et al. US 2011/0158164 Al
Sawahashi et al. US 2011/0211500 Al
Li et al. US 2012/0178464 Al
THE REJECTION
June 30, 2011
Sept. 1, 2011
July 12, 2012
Claims 1-3, 7, 10-12, 16-19, 23-26, and 30-42 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Li, Palanki, and Sawahashi. Final
Act. 7-20. 3
THE EXAMINER'S FINDINGS
The Examiner finds that Li teaches every limitation recited in
independent claim 1 except for (1) identifying one or more properties and
(2) decoupling an uplink channel from a downlink channel. Final Act. 8-9.
In concluding that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious,
the Examiner finds that Palanki teaches identifying properties and
Sawahashi teaches the recited decoupling. Id. at 10-12. In particular, the
Examiner finds Sawahashi teaches that the UE connects to base station BS 1
for the downlink channel and base station BS2 for the uplink channel when
the downlink signal's power from BSI is greater than from BS2. Ans. 28
( citing Sawahashi ,r 48). The Examiner presents the same rejection for
independent claims 10, 17, and 24, which also recite decoupling.
Final Act. 13-16, 20.
3 Although the Examiner omits claim 18 from the rejection's heading, the
Examiner discusses claim 18 in the substantive portion of the rejection. See
Final Act. 7, 19. Thus, like Appellants, we treat claim 18 as rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Li, Palanki, and Sawahashi.
App. Br. 4.
3
Appeal2018-002507
Application 14/195,620
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
Appellants argue that Sawahashi does not teach or suggest the recited
decoupling to associate the uplink and downlink channels with different base
stations. App. Br. 6-9. Appellants argue that, unlike claim 1, Sawahashi
connects to a single base station at a time for both uplink and downlink. Id.
According to Appellants, Sawahashi merely separates the uplink and
downlink channels of a frequency division duplex (FDD) scheme using a
center gap. Id. at 6. Appellants argue that, after separating the channels in
this way, Sawahashi's FDD scheme is associated with a single base station.
Id.
ISSUE
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10, 17, and
24 by finding that Sawahashi teaches or suggests decoupling an uplink
channel of the UE from a downlink channel of the UE to associate ( 1) the
uplink channel with the first base station and (2) the downlink channel with
a second base station?
ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown that
Sawahashi teaches the recited decoupling.
In particular, the Examiner finds that Sawahashi's decouples the
uplink and downlink using a central frequency in an FDD scheme. Ans. 27.
Sawahashi's center gap is illustrated in Figure 1, which is shown below.
4
Appeal2018-002507
Application 14/195,620
Sawahashi Fig. 1.
UPLINK
.--- ·················-'"---~'""·'-...
1150 nas
DOWNLINK
H!80 MHz
___________________ ,.....,...."""·"······································-~
60MHz 35- MHz
Sawahashi's Figure 1 (above) is a diagram illustrating an example of
frequency utilization in an FDD scheme. Id. , 14.
Sawahashi's FDD scheme uses different frequencies for uplink and
downlink. Id. ,r 6. This allows a radio apparatus's duplexer to separate
them. Id. The separation is based on the duplexer's frequency-separating
characteristics. Id. Sawahashi calls the bandwidth between uplink and
downlink a "center gap." Id.
Even assuming, without deciding, that the center gap decouples the
uplink channel from the downlink channel, the Examiner has not shown that
the uplink channel is associated with the first base station and the downlink
channel is associated with a second base station. App. Br. 6-9. Rather,
Sawahashi's UE connects to BS1 or BS2 for both uplink and downlink. See,
e.g., Sawahashi ,r 46 ("FIG. 7 shows how connection is made to the BS1 for
both uplink and downlink."), ,r 47 ("Conversely to FIG. 7, FIG. 8 shows how
connection is made to the BS2 for both uplink and downlink.").
To be sure, Sawahashi states that "when a user exists in a section of
the above-shaded section, a macro cell may be connected to and a pico cell
may be connected to." Id. ,r 48. But here, we agree with Appellants that
Sawahashi is referring to a UE that connects to either a macro cell or a pico
cell separately. Reply Br. 4. For example, paragraph 48 further discusses
5
Appeal2018-002507
Application 14/195,620
reducing interference in Figures 7 and 8. Sawahashi ,r 48. The interference
problem occurs when neighboring base stations use the same frequency and
have different transmission powers. Id. ,r 25. In Figures 7 and 8, the
neighboring base stations are BS 1 and B S2. Id. ,r,r 46-4 7. Yet, as discussed
above, Sawahashi's UE connects to either BS 1 or BS2 for both uplink and
downlink in these embodiments, unlike the claimed invention. Id.
On this record, we are persuaded that the Examiner has erred in
rejecting claims 1, 10, 17, and 24 by finding that Sawahashi teaches or
suggests decoupling an uplink channel of the UE from a downlink channel
of the UE to associate (1) the uplink channel with the first base station and
(2) the downlink channel with a second base station.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 10, 17, and 24 or dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 16,
18, 19, 23, 25, 26, and 30-42.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 7, 10-12,
16-19, 23-26, and 30-42.
REVERSED
6