Ex Parte Zhou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

13332097 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/332,097 12/20/2011
97291 7590 11/02/2016
Huawei Technologies Co,, Ltd,
c/o Wenjun Gu (Huawei ID 00229515)
Building G 1-2, Huawei Industrial Base,
Bantian, Longgang District,
Shenzhen, 518129
CHINA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Zhaojie Zhou
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.
81351039US09 5362
EXAMINER
SCHEIBEL, ROBERT C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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):
uspatent@huawei.com
shiming.wu@huawei.com
ltian@huawei.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZHAOJIE ZHOU and QI LIU
Appeal2014-003548
Application 13/332,097
Technology Center 2400
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, JOHN A. HUDALLA, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-5, 7-13, and 15-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-003548
Application 13/332,097
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application concerns "a method, apparatus, and
system for radio resource scheduling." Spec. ,-i 3. Claim 1 illustrates the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method m a communication system, the method
compnsmg:
receiving, by a user equipment (UE), a UE indication on
absolute grant (AG) table choice from a base station control
node;
receiving, by the UE, information on radio resource grant
assigned for the UE for uplink data transmission from the UE to
a base station;
obtaining, by the UE, the assigned radio resource grant by
looking up the indicated AG table selected for the UE based on
the received information on radio resource grant; and
transmitting, by the UE, uplink data to the base station
according to the radio resource grant,
wherein the received UE indication is configured to
indicate which one of at least two AG tables available to the UE
is selected by the base station control node for the UE to use in
the uplink data transmission, and
wherein the indicated AG table selected for the UE is
configured to provide a same definition about the radio resource
grant as an AG table selected by the base station control node
from at least two AG tables available to the base station for the
base station to use in assigning the radio resource grant for the
UE, the AG table selected for the base station being indicated by
a base station indication on AG table choice through a base
station signaling from the base station control node.
2
Appeal2014-003548
Application 13/332,097
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2008/0187070 Al; Aug. 7,
2008) and Chang et al. (US 2005/0220042 Al; Oct. 6, 2005).
Claims 4, 12, and 17-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kim, Chang, and Nakamata et al. (US 2007/0049277 Al;
March 1, 2007).
Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kim, Chang, and Pelletier et al. (US 2009/0290559 Al;
Nov. 26, 2009).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments, and we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. We
adopt the Examiner's findings, reasoning, and conclusions as set forth in the
Final Rejection, Advisory Action, and the Examiner's Answer. We address
Appellants' arguments in tum.
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites "obtaining, by the UE, the assigned radio resource
grant by looking up the indicated AG table selected for the UE based on the
received information on radio resource grant." Br. 12. Appellants contend
Chang fails to teach or suggest this limitation because "nowhere in Chang is
there any disclosure that the UE obtains the resources scheduled at step 1020
from the CTFC-TFCI mapping list as contended in the Final Office Action."
Id. at 5 (emphasis omitted). According to Appellants, Chang "is silent on
3
Appeal2014-003548
Application 13/332,097
how the UE analyz[es] the TFCI to obtain scheduling command from CTFC-
TFCI mapping list, let alone obtain any assigned radio resources by looking
up an AG table selected for the UE based on received information on the
assigned radio resource grant as recited by claim l ." Id. at 5-6.
Appellants' arguments ignore that the Examiner concluded that claim
l's "obtaining" step would have been obvious in light a combination of
Kim's and Chang's teachings. In particular, the Examiner found Kim
discloses "use of Absolute Grant (AG) Tables" and that, given the purpose
of the tables, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Kim
performs the disputed "obtaining" step, "although Kim is silent on certain
details." Ans. 3. The Examiner found Chang "show[ s] a similar concept for
another type of table or mapping" that teaches or suggests the missing
details. Id. Specifically, the Examiner found Chang "clearly indicates that
both [a] transmitter and [a] receiver have the same table ... and further, that
the 'transmitter selects appropriate TFs for data transmission ... and
transmits TFCI bits indicating the selected TFs to a receiver."' Id. at 4.
Based on these findings, among others, the Examiner concluded that it
would have been obvious to combine Kim's and Chang's teachings to
perform claim l's "obtaining" step. See Final Act. 4-8; Ans. 2--4.
Appellants' arguments against Chang individually have not persuaded us the
Examiner erred. "[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Appellants also argue "that combining Kim with Chang ... would not
necessarily imply that only an indication on AG table choice is transmitted
from a base station control node to both a UE and a base station, as recited in
4
Appeal2014-003548
Application 13/332,097
claim l" and therefore these limitations are not inherent. Br. 6 (emphasis
modified). Appellants assert "Kim expressly discloses that, although it's
possible to send to a WTRU (which is alleged as the UE in [the] claim[s]) an
index, an entire grant table can be signaled to the WTRU," and "Chang
discloses an RNC transmitting an entire TFCI-CTFC mapping list ... not
any index or indication on a TFCI-CTFC mapping list." Id. (emphases
modified).
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. Claim 1 does not recite
"only an indication on AG table choice is transmitted from a base station
control node to both a UE and a base station" as asserted by Appellants.
Instead, claim 1 recites "receiving, by a user equipment (UE), a UE
indication on absolute grant (AG) table choice from a base station control
node" and "the AG table selected for the base station being indicated by a
base station indication on AG table choice through a base station signaling
from the base station control node." Br. 12. The Examiner did not find
these limitations are inherent in the prior art as argued by Appellants.
Rather, as with claim l's "obtaining" step, the Examiner concluded these
limitations would have been obvious in light of a combination of Kim's and
Chang's teachings. See Final Act. 4-9; Ans. 5-6.
Moreover, "receiving ... a UE indication on absolute grant (AG)
table choice" encompasses receiving an entire AG table. Ans. 4-5. As
explained by the Examiner, the received AG table is an "indication" of the
AG table choice under the broadest reasonable interpretation of "indication."
See id. Similar reasoning applies to the "AG table selected for the base
station being indicated by a base station indication on AG table choice
through a base station signaling from the base station control node"
5
Appeal2014-003548
Application 13/332,097
limitation. Regardless, as found by the Examiner, Kim teaches "[ m ]uliple
power grant tables are stored in a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU).
The WTRU receives a signal designating which table is to be used to grant
power levels during a communication." Kim ,-i 9 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we disagree with Appellants that the cited art only teaches or
suggests receiving entire tables.
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Because Appellants have not presented separate, persuasive patentability
arguments for claims 2--4, 7, 9-12, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 22, we also sustain
the Examiner's rejections of these claims.
Claims 5 and 13
Claim 5 recites " [ t ]he method of claim 1, wherein the base station
signaling is any one of RADIO LINK SETUP signaling, a RADIO LINK
ADDITION signaling, a RADIO LINK RECONFIGURATION PREP ARE
signaling, and a RADIO LINK RECONFIGURATION REQUEST
signaling." Claim 13 recites a similar limitation. Appellants argue "Kim
and Chang each do[] not mention any one of these [types of] signaling." Br.
8. In particular, Appellants contend the Examiner did not "provide which
signaling of Chang and how the signaling of Chang is modified to support
... disclosing any one of the particular signaling recited in claims 5 and 13."
Id.
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner
construed claim 5 to encompass the following:
[T]he base station signaling is one of (a) signaling related to
setup of a radio link (RADIO LINK SETUP signaling), (b)
signaling related to the addition of a radio link (RADIO LINK
6
Appeal2014-003548
Application 13/332,097
ADDITION signaling), ( c) signaling related to preparing to
reconfigure a radio link (RADIO LINK RECONFIGURATION
PREP ARE signaling), and ( d) signaling requesting
reconfiguration of a radio link (RADIO LINK
RECONFIGURATION REQUEST signaling).
Ans. 6. Appellants have not persuasively challenged this construction.
Under this construction, the Examiner found a combination of Kim and
Chang teaches or suggests the limitation recited in claim 5 because the
"signaling ... in the combination ... at least reconfigures the radio link by
reconfiguring the AG table and thus adjusting the Absolute Grant values to
be used by the devices on the radio link." Id. Appellants' arguments against
Kim and Chang individually have not persuaded us the Examiner erred. See
Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. We therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 5 and 13 .
Claims 8 and 16
Claim 8 recites ""wherein the UE indication is received from a BetaEd
gain E-AGCH table selection IE of the RRC signaling." Br. 13. Claim 16
recites a similar limitation. Id. at 14. Appellants argue Pelletier fails to
teach or suggest this limitation because Pelletier' s "'gain factor Bed' ... is
just a mathematical parameter or variable, which represents a kind of gain
factor, not any IE or any message or signaling." Br. 8 (emphasis modified).
Moreover, according to Appellants, "nowhere in Pelletier is there any
disclosure indicat[ing] that the 'gain factor Bed' indicates or carries any
information about indication on AG table choice or an AG table selected for
a UE." Id. at 8-9.
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner found
"the combination of Kim and Chang disclose the functionality of [the
7
Appeal2014-003548
Application 13/332,097
claimed] IE, but do not name the indication in the same manner." Ans. 7.
The Examiner also found "Pelletier discloses that the BetaEd gain parameter
is known in the art. As this parameter is related to the Absolute Grant
information, it would make sense to include these parameters in the same
message." Id. The Examiner concluded "it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim and [Chang] to name the
information element BetaEd gain E-AGCH table selection." Id. Appellants
have not persuasively addressed this conclusion or its underlying findings,
and Appellants' arguments against Pelletier alone have not persuaded us the
Examiner erred. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 16.
Claims 19, 20, 23, and 24
Claims 19, 20, 23, and 24 each recite a variation of the following:
"wherein the base station indication" is either "carried via an information
element (IE)" or "included in an E-AGCH table choice IE," the IE either "of
the E-DCH FDD Information to Modify of the base station signaling" or
"named as E-DCH FDD Information to Modify, of the base signaling to
notify the base station the selected AG table for the base the station." Id. at
14-15. With respect to these claims, Appellants argue Nakamata does not
mention "E-DCH FDD Information to Modify IE," much less using this IE
in the manner recited in these claims. Br. 9-10.
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. As with claims 8 and
16, the Examiner found the combination of Kim and Chang teaches or
suggests the functionality of the claimed "base station indication" but does
not teach or suggest the "base station indication" name. Ans. 8-9. The
8
Appeal2014-003548
Application 13/332,097
Examiner found Nakamata discloses using an IE named "E-DCH FDD
Information Elements." See Final Act. 16 (discussing Nakamata Figures 6
and 7); Ans. 8-9. The Examiner found "[t]he indication is further an
indication indicating that the UE modify its configuration and as such, it
reasonable to conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would name the
information element sending the base station indications as 'E-DCH FDD
Information to Modify.'" Ans. 8 (emphasis omitted). For similar reasons,
the Examiner also concluded "that one of ordinary skill in the art would
name the information element an 'E-AGCH table choice IE."' Id. at 9.
Appellants have not persuasively challenged these conclusions or their
associated findings. Moreover, Appellants' arguments against Nakamata
alone have not persuaded us the Examiner's combination of Kim, Chang,
and Nakamata fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations. See Keller,
642 F.2d at 426. We therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 19,
20, 23, and 24.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-5, 7-13, and 15-24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9