Ex Parte Tseng

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2017

13863712 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/863,712 04/16/2013 Li-Chih Tseng 1291-181.101 1807
106622 7590 09/28/2017
Rliie Fanital T aw Firm Pf
EXAMINER
650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1530
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
SHIH, ALBERT K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2411
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2017 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):
docketing @bluecapitallaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LI-CHIH TSENG
Appeal 2017-006235
Application 13/863,712
Technology Center 2400
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, BARBARA A. BENOIT and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—12 and 15—22. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1, 2, 5—7, 11, 12, and 17—19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Ericsson (“Initial TA value,” Ericsson, ST
Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 #77bis, Jeju, South Korea, March 26—20,
2012) and Kwon (US 2011/0249641 Al; Oct. 13, 2011). Final Act. 4-11.
Appeal 2017-006235
Application 13/863,712
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Ericsson, Kwon, and Zhao et al. (US 2014/0233535 Al, published Aug. 21,
2014). Final Act. 11-13.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Ericsson, Kwon, and Zhao. Final Act. 13—18.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Ericsson, Kwon, and Kwon2 et al. (US 2014/0112308 Al, published Apr.
24,2014). Final Act. 18-20.
Claims 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Ericsson, Kwon, and Park et al. (US 2010/0195640 Al, published Aug. 5,
2010). Final Act. 20-24.
Claims 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Ericsson, Kwon, and Kwon2. Final Act. 24—35.
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to “a method and apparatus for reducing
signaling and delay for uplink scheduling in a wireless communication
network.” Spec. 12. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method for reducing signaling for UL (Uplink)
scheduling, comprising:
activating a newly configured SCell (Secondary Cell);
starting a TA (Timing Alignment/Advance) timer
associated with the SCell upon detection of a specific DL
(Downlink) signaling in order to avoid using unnecessary TA
commands;
detecting and processing a PDCCH (Physical Downlink
Control Channel) for a PUSCH (Physical Uplink Shared
Channel) transmission; and
2
Appeal 2017-006235
Application 13/863,712
sending a MAC (Mac Access Control) PDU (Protocol
Data Unit) corresponding to the PDCCH scheduling on a
PUSCH of the SCell based on an UL transmission timing equal
to a specific value.
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1,2,5-7,11,12, and 17-19 over
Ericsson and Kwon
The Examiner finds Ericsson and Kwon teach all limitations of claim
1. Final Act. 4—6. In particular, the Examiner finds Ericsson teaches (claim
1) “starting a TA (Timing Alignment/Advance) timer associated with the
SCell upon detection of a specific DL (Downlink) signaling in order to avoid
using unnecessary TA commands.” Final Act. 4—5.
Ericsson, in pertinent part, discloses
Since we in Rel-11 now have SCell TA groups which do not
perform random access for initial access it makes sense to extend
the current behaviour to always assume an initial TA value of
zero, as opposed to only assume an initial TA value of zero for
preamble transmissions. The eNB would then have the
possibility to start a UEs TA timer with a TAC MAC CE
containing zero. The UE would then according to current
specification start the associated TA timer without the need to
perform a random access procedure which would reduce RACH
load and delay. This goes in line with the intention of the
activation/deactivation functionality of cells which was
introduced to fast start/stop transmissions on a cell and avoiding
the delay and RACH load of random access procedures.
Furthermore, if a random access procedure can be avoided it
would be possible to avoid configuring RACH on small cells.
Ericsson p. 2.
Appellant contests the Examiner’s finding that Ericsson teaches
(claim 1) “starting a TA (Timing Alignment/Advance) timer associated with
3
Appeal 2017-006235
Application 13/863,712
the SCell upon detection of a specific DL (Downlink) signaling in order to
avoid using unnecessary TA commands.” See App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br.
4—6.
In support of this contention, Appellant presents the following
principal argument: “Ericsson teaches that the eNB needs to use a TA
command containing zero (more specifically, a TAC MAC CE containing
zero) to start the TA timer . . . the claims do not require using a TAC MAC
CE containing zero (which is a TA command) to start the TA timer as
described in Ericsson.” App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 4—6.
In response, the Examiner explains:
Ericson page 2 paragraph 2 thereby teaches that initial TA value
can either be “assumed” for SCell TA groups which do not
perform random access for initial access, or it can be set by a
“TAC MAC CE”, such that either case of using TA command or
not using TA command are both disclosed.
Ans. 4.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
This case turns on a single issue: did the Examiner err in finding
Ericsson discloses assuming the initial TA value and starting the TA timer
without sending the TAC MAC CE command containing zero, and
concluding that this disclosure in Ericsson teaches the key disputed
limitation (claim 1) “starting a TA (Timing Alignment/Advance) timer
associated with the SCell upon detection of a specific DL (Downlink)
signaling in order to avoid using unnecessary TA commands”?
We agree with Appellant that, in Ericsson, when the TA value is
assumed to be zero, the TAC MAC CE command containing zero is sent.
4
Appeal 2017-006235
Application 13/863,712
That is, we find Ericsson discloses either sending the TAC MAC CE
command, or performing the random access procedure. See Ericsson p. 2
(“The eNB would then have the possibility to start a UEs TA timer with a
TAC MAC CE containing zero. The UE would then according to current
specification start the associated TA timer without the need to perform a
random access procedure which would reduce RACH load and delay.”).
Thus, the Examiner’s conclusion that Ericsson teaches the key disputed
limitation is based upon an erroneous fact finding.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We
also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 5—7, which
depend from claim 1.
Independent claim 11 also recites “starting a TA (Timing
Alignment/Advance) timer associated with the SCell upon detection of a
specific DL (Downlink) signaling in order to avoid using unnecessary TA
commands.” We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
11. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 17—19,
which depend from claim 11.
The Remaining Rejections
Independent claims 9 and 21 each also recite “starting a TA (Timing
Alignment/Advance) timer associated with the SCell upon detection of a
specific DL (Downlink) signaling in order to avoid using unnecessary TA
commands.” Claims 3, 4, 8, 10, 15, 16, 20, and 22 variously depend from
claims 1, 9, 11, and 21.
The Examiner does not find Zhao, Kwon2, or Park teaches “starting a
TA (Timing Alignment/Advance) timer associated with the SCell upon
5
Appeal 2017-006235
Application 13/863,712
detection of a specific DL (Downlink) signaling in order to avoid using
unnecessary TA commands” as recited in each of independent claims 1, 9,
11, and 21. See Final Act. 11—35, Ans. 4—5. We, therefore, also sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 3, 4, 8—10, 15, 16, and 20-22
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—12 and 15—22 is reversed.
REVERSED
6