Hao Xu et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 17, 2020

14489146 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2020)

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.
14/489,146 09/17/2014 Hao XU 135011US 1207
15055 7590 01/17/2020
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
MORLAN, ROBERT M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2416
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/17/2020 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):
PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex parte HAO XU, WANSHI CHEN, and TINGFANG JI

Appeal 2019-000556
Application 14/489,146
Technology Center 2400

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 18–37. Appeal Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
QUALCOMM Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000556
Application 14/489,146

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention generally relates to wireless communications,
and more specifically, to coverage enhancements for physical broadcast
channel (“PBCH”). Appeal Br. 5; Spec ¶ 2. A wireless multiple-access
communication system generally supports communication between multiple
wireless terminals, such as user equipment (“UE”), and base stations (“BS”),
such as evolved Node Bs (“eNBs”). Spec. ¶¶ 4, 33. Figure 1 (reproduced
below) illustrates an example wireless communication network in accord
with the present invention.

Figure 1 is a block diagram of an example communications network,
comprising user equipment communicating to different types of eNBs,
including a Macro eNB, a Pico eNB, a Femto eNB, and a relay eNB. Id.
¶¶33–35. A base station may, in response to receiving a bundled random
access channel (“RACH”) transmission, trigger bundled transmission of
broadcast information via an associated controller or processor. Id. ¶ 11. A
Appeal 2019-000556
Application 14/489,146

3
bundled transmission may be a repeated series of PBCH transmissions,
which are bundled (repeated) for the purpose of enhancing coverage. Id. ¶¶
47, 61, Fig. 3. For example, a processor may receive a bundled transmission
of a system information block (“SIB”) that indicates a bundled physical
random access channel (“PRACH”) configuration. Id. ¶ 12. In response to
receipt of this transmission, the processor may perform a bundled RACH
transmission in accordance with the PRACH configuration. Id.
Independent claim 18 is illustrative:
18. A method for wireless communications by a base station
(BS), comprising:
receiving a bundled random access channel (RACH)
transmission from a user equipment (UE); and
triggering bundled transmission of broadcast information, in
response to receiving the bundled RACH transmission.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).
Independent claims 24 and 34 recite an apparatus, and independent
claim 30 recites a method, each having limitations commensurate in scope
with claim 1. Id. Dependent claims 19–23, 25–29, 31–33, and 35–37 each
incorporate the limitations of their respective independent claims. Id.
Claims 1–17 were cancelled during prosecution. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims
App.).

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Jeong et al.
(Jeong)
US 2012/0320842 A1 Dec. 20, 2012
LG Electronics Initial procedure and consideration
points for the coverage enhancement of
MTC UEs, 3GPP DRAFT; R1-133370
Aug. 10, 2013
Appeal 2019-000556
Application 14/489,146

4
(LG)2 MTC COVERAGE (FINAL), 3RD
GENERATION PARTNERSHIP
PROJECT (3GPP), RAN WG1, no. 74,
URL: http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg
ran/WGI RL 1/TSGR1 74/Docs/
[retrieved on 2013-08-10]3

REJECTIONS
Claims 18–22 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by LG.
Claims 23–37 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of LG and Jeong.

OPINION
A. Anticipation
Appellant contends that LG does not disclose “triggering bundled
transmission of broadcast information, in response to receiving the bundled
RACH transmission [from a user equipment]” as recited in independent
claim 18. Appeal Br. 9.
The Examiner finds LG to disclose a user equipment (“UE”) that
transmits a bundled RACH transmission, which is received by a base station.
Final Act. 2; Ans. 3. Specifically, the Examiner finds LG to disclose that the
UE transmits the RACH preamble, i.e., the PRACH, according to the
configured repetition information. Id. (citing LG 4). The Examiner equates

2 We conform with Appellant’s use of “LG” to refer to this document, which
the Examiner refers to either as “LG” or as “R1-133370.”
3 The document information is that provided by Appellant in an Information
Disclosure Statement filed on May 13, 2015.
Appeal 2019-000556
Application 14/489,146

5
the repetition to the claimed “bundling.” Ans. 3–4 (stating “bundling is
synonymous with repetition in the art. Also, based on the phrasing, it is
discussing the repetition of the PRACH (i.e.[,] the repetition [or bundling] of
the preamble) in the PRACH resource.”).
The Examiner finds LG to disclose the triggering of bundled
transmission of broadcast information, in response to receiving the bundled
RACH, in the form of LG’s “PBCH and coverage enhancement level.”
Final. Act. 3 (citing LG 2 ¶ 4, (discussing the bundling of PBCH transmitted
with additional repetition according to the coverage enhancement level
supportable or required in a cell), 4 ¶¶4–5 (discussing that for a coverage-
limited UE that transmits a bundled PRACH, enhanced repetition may be
likely to be required for other transmitted and received channels as well)).
Appellant argues that LG does not explicitly teach the “triggering”
aspect of the claim. Appeal Br. 9–10. Appellant does not contest the
Examiner’s finding that LG teaches receiving a bundled random access
channel (RACH) transmission from a user equipment (UE), or that LG
teaches the base station having a bundled transmission of broadcast
information. Id. However, Appellant argues that LG discusses bundling of
transmitted information “independently” from the bundling of a received
RACH transmission. Id. at 10. Appellant argues that although LG links the
amount of bundling of the transmission (the “amount of additional PBCH
within a PBCH bundle”) to the desired coverage enhancement level, LG
does not mention triggering “bundling or no bundling” based on the received
RACH transmission. Id. Further, Appellant disputes the Examiner’s
contention that the PRACH resource indicates the desired enhancement
Appeal 2019-000556
Application 14/489,146

6
level, characterizing LG as instead disclosing that the PRACH resource is
selected according to the desired enhancement level. Id. at 11.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Each of Appellant’s
arguments relies upon an interpretation of claim 18 in which “triggering
bundled transmission of broadcast information, in response to receiving the
bundled RACH transmission” requires a determination of whether to bundle
the outgoing transmission based on whether the received transmission was
bundled. We do not read the claim as being so limiting. The claim requires
“triggering bundled transmission of broadcast information,” i.e., triggering
the transmission of broadcast information that is bundled. To the extent that
Appellant argues that LG does not teach “triggering bundling, or no
bundling” (Appeal Br. 10), the claim does not recite such a limitation. We
further agree with the Examiner’s determination that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of claim 18 does not require “opportunistically triggering
(turning on or off) bundled broadcast transmission[s]” as argued by
Appellant. Ans. 6–7. Consequently, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection for lack of teaching a “bundling or no bundling”
trigger.
With respect to Appellant’s argument that bundling is determined
independently for received and transmitted information, we further agree
with the Examiner’s determination that LG discloses a coverage
enhancement technique involving an amount of bundling (repetition) to be
applied across the PRACH, PBCH, and SIB sections. Ans. 10. LG provides
a “specific scheme/procedure for the support of coverage enhancement on
individual channels (e.g.[,] PSS/SSS, PBCH, PRACH[)] . . . to be taken into
account for [the] overall design on the coverage enhancement operation.”
Appeal 2019-000556
Application 14/489,146

7
LG 2. Both the PBCH repetition duration (PBCH bundle) and the PRACH
repetition duration are applied based on the coverage enhancement level
supportable or required in a cell. LG 2, 4. We agree with the Examiner’s
explanation that the PRACH bundling and the PBCH bundling are to
achieve the same result of supporting coverage enhancement. Ans. 8.
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that LG’s
discussion of receiving a bundled RACH (RACH preamble; i.e., PRACH)
transmission is “independent” from LG’s discussion of transmitting bundled
broadcast information. Consequently, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection for lack of teaching a bundling in the transmission
based upon an amount of bundling set in the received RACH.
For the abovementioned reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of
error, and therefore we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18.
Appellant further argues that the rejections of claims 19–22 are erroneous
for the same reasons as argued against the rejection of claim 18. Appeal Br.
12–14. For the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 18, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19 and 21–22. 37 C.F.R.
§41.67(c)(iv). With respect to claim 20, Appellant further argues that LG is
silent regarding the additional limitation of “a subset of available SIBs,” but
does not explain why the Examiner’s anticipation rejection, relying on LG 3
¶ 4 – 4 ¶ 1, is in error. Appeal Br. 13; Final Act 3. Because Appellant has
not provided any reasoned explanation of why the Examiner’s rejection is in
error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20.

Appeal 2019-000556
Application 14/489,146

8
B. Obviousness
Appellant further argues that the rejections of claims 23–37 are
erroneous for the same reasons as argued against the rejection of claim 1,
and further, that the addition of the teaching of Jeong does not cure the error.
Appeal Br. 14–16. Appellant argues that, as discussed for claim 18, the
combination of LG and Jeong does not teach or suggest “triggering bundled
transmission of broadcast information, in response to receiving the bundled
RACH transmission.” Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis omitted). For the same
reasons as discussed with respect to claim 18, we are not persuaded of error
in the obviousness rejection of claims 23–37. Additionally, Appellant
alleges that neither LG nor Jeong teach or suggest the limitation of “a subset
of available SIBs” as recited in claims 26, 32, and 36. Appeal Br. 16. For
the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 20, we are not persuaded
of error, and sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 26, 32, and 36.
With respect to claims 23, 29, 30, and 34, Appellant argues that LG in
view of Jeong does not disclose or suggest “transmitting a bundled
transmission of a system information block (SIB) that indicates a bundled
physical RACH (PRACH) configuration prior to receiving the bundled
RACH transmission.” Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis omitted). Appellant
contends that the Examiner concedes that LG does not teach this limitation.
Id. at 15. Appellant further contends that Jeong teaches bundling for RACH
can be indicated by system information, but does not teach a bundled system
information block. Id. at 15. However, the Examiner relies upon LG for
teaching bundled transmission of broadcast information comprising “at least
one system information block (SIB).” Final Act. 3 (citing LG 3 ¶ 4); Ans.
15. LG discloses that SIBs may be transmitted as a bundle. LG 3 ¶ 4.
Appeal 2019-000556
Application 14/489,146

9
Applicant has argued that Jeong does not teach every limitation of claims 23,
29, 30, and 34, but does not explain how the combination of LG and Jeong
does not teach those limitations, such argument is unpersuasive. One cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413
(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In view
of the Examiner’s reliance on LG, Appellant has not explained why the
combination of LG and Jeong does not teach or suggest the claimed
“bundled transmission of a system information block.” Accordingly, we are
not persuaded of error, and sustain the rejection of claims 23, 29, 30, and 34.

CONCLUSION
For the above-described reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 18–22 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), and we
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23–37 as being obvious under
35 U.S.C. §103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2019-000556
Application 14/489,146

10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Grounds Affirmed Reversed
18–22 102(a)(1) LG 18–22
23–37 103 LG, Jeong 23–37
Overall
Outcome
18–37

AFFIRMED