Lindoff, Bengt et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 23, 2020

14116955 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 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.
14/116,955 12/19/2013 Bengt Lindoff 1009-0772 / P33516 US2 1088
102721 7590 04/23/2020
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
FAYED, RASHA K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2413
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/23/2020 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte BENGT LINDOFF, CHRISTIAN BERGLJUNG, and
LEIF WILHELMSSON
________________

Appeal 2019-001245
Application 14/116,955
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-001245
Application 14/116,955

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection
of claims 15–31. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Invention

The invention is related to a method for scheduling data transmission
between a first communication node and a second communication node in a
first frame using a plurality of modulation and coding schemes. Spec. 1:5–8,
4:1–6.
Claim 15 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below, with
emphases added to indicate limitations in dispute:

15. A method in a first radio communication node for scheduling a
data transmission in a first time frame, using one of a plurality of
modulation and coding schemes, wherein the data transmission is to
be transmitted between the first radio communication node and a
second radio communication node, wherein the first radio
communication node and the second radio communication node are
comprised in a radio communication system, the method comprising:

obtaining a first indication about channel quality for the first
time frame;

obtaining a second indication that reception of feedback
information in an upcoming second time frame is likely to be

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). According to Appellant, Telefonaktiebolaget LM
Ericsson (publ) is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001245
Application 14/116,955

3
unreliable, wherein the feedback information is associated with the
data transmission in the first time frame and the second time
frame is after the first time frame;

selecting a modulation and coding scheme out of said plurality
of modulation and coding schemes, based on the first indication and
the second indication; and

scheduling the data transmission in the first time frame using
the selected modulation and coding scheme.

Appeal Br. 18 (Claim App.) (emphases added to indicate disputed
limitations).

REJECTIONS
Claims 15–19, 25, 26, and 29–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heo et al. (US 2010/0034176 A1;
published Feb. 11, 2010) (“Heo”); Liu et al. (US 2012/0120839 A1;
published May 17, 2012) (“Liu”); and Sagfors et al. (US 2010/0192035 A1;
published July 29, 2010) (“Sagfors”). Final Act. 2–18.
Claims 20 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Heo, Liu, Sagfors, and Wong et al. (US 2010/0110901A1;
published May 6, 2010) (“Wong”). Final Act. 18–22.
Claims 21–24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Heo, Liu, Sagfors, Wong, and Ishii (US 2010/0091725A1;
published Apr. 15, 2010). Final Act. 22–28.

ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Appeal 2019-001245
Application 14/116,955

4
Examiner’s obviousness rejections, and the Examiner’s responses to
Appellant’s arguments. Appellant proffers sufficient argument and evidence
to persuade us of error regarding the Examiner’s underlying factual findings
and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. In our analysis below, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis.

Obviousness
Claim 15 requires, inter alia: “selecting a modulation and coding
scheme out of said plurality of modulation and coding schemes, based on the
first indication and the second indication.”
I. The Examiner’s First Finding
The Examiner finds that Heo teaches a first indication that is a
channel quality indicator (CQI). Final Act. 3; see also Heo Fig. 1, ¶¶ 8–9.
The Examiner further finds that Heo teaches a second indication that is a
High Speed-Shared Control Channel (HS-SCCH). Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 8
(clarifying that “the second indication in Heo is the HS-SCCH that is
received by the UE in a Transmission Time Interval (TTI). The UE 102
performs Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) to determine
Acknowledgement/Non-Acknowledgement (ACK/NACK).”) (emphasis
omitted).
The Examiner then finds that Heo teaches the disputed limitation
above, because Heo teaches that, “the combination of the modulation
scheme and coding scheme is called a Modulation and Coding Scheme
(MCS), and a plurality of MCS levels, i.e., 1st to nth MCS levels, can be
defined. AMC determines an MCS level depending on the channel
Appeal 2019-001245
Application 14/116,955

5
conditions between the cell and the UE.” Final Act. 4–5 (citing Heo ¶¶ 6, 8);
Ans. 8–9.
Appellant disagrees that Heo teaches the disputed limitation above,
contending, inter alia, that “there is no disclosure that Heo’s techniques for
selecting an MCS use Heo’s HS-HSCCH, which is interpreted by the Office
as a ‘second indication.’” Appeal Br. 11.
We agree with Appellant. Based on the Examiner’s express finding
that the second indication of Heo is “the HS-SCCH that is received by the
UE in a Transmission Time Interval (TTI). The UE 102 performs Cyclic
Redundancy Check (CRC) to determine Acknowledgement/Non-
Acknowledgement (ACK/NACK)” (Ans. 8), which quotes Heo paragraph 9,
we turn to the Figure 1 embodiment of Heo, which is discussed in that
paragraph of Heo. Figure 1 of Heo is reproduced below with annotations to
show the Examiner’s mapping of the first and second indications:

Appeal 2019-001245
Application 14/116,955

6

Figure 1 of Heo, above, illustrates a sequence diagram showing operations
of a conventional Dual-Cell High Speed Downlink Packet Access (HSDPA)
system including a cell and a user equipment (UE). Heo ¶ 7.
Regarding the MCS, Heo teaches that an MCS level is determined
based on “channel conditions between the cell and the UE.” Heo ¶ 6. Heo
teaches that, “a UE 102 first transmits a Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) to
a cell 101.” Id. at ¶ 8; see also “(first indication)” in Annotated Fig. 1, supra.
Heo further teaches: “Node B 101 performs scheduling based on the CQI. In
the scheduling process, Node B determines a number of code channels
available for allocation and an MCS level. Such information is transmitted to
the UE 102 through a High-Speed Shared Control Channel (HS-SCCH)
Appeal 2019-001245
Application 14/116,955

7
(105).” Heo ¶ 8 (emphasis added). Then, “the HS-SCCH is received by the
UE 102 in a Transmission Time Interval (TTI). Id. at ¶ 9; see also “(second
indication)” in Annotated Fig. 1, supra.
Here, notably, Heo teaches that the MCS level is determined in the
“data scheduling” block of Figure 1, and the MCS level (and number of code
channels available) is transmitted to the UE in step 105, using the HS-
SCCH. Id. at ¶ 8. Therefore, Heo teaches that the MCS level is
determined—at the scheduling step—prior to the second indication.
Accordingly, we disagree with the Examiner that the MCS level of Heo is
selected based on the second indication, as required by claim 15.
II. The Examiner’s Second Finding
The Examiner finds that Heo teaches, “the channel condition and
metrics represent the feedback information, which is the second indication
that is after the data transmission, which is the first indication. Therefore, the
MCS is determined based on both indications.” Ans. 9 (citing Heo ¶¶ 6–8)
(emphasis added).
Appellant argues, and we agree, that Heo at paragraphs 6 and 8,
“provides little detail regarding techniques for selecting this MCS level, and
does not suggest that this selection is based upon a second indication, as
described in claims 15 and 25. The Office’s statement that the ‘MCS is
determined based on both indications’ amounts to unsupported speculation.”
Reply Br. 4–5.
As an initial matter, the Examiner provides no explanation for the
disparate mapping of distinct elements of Heo to the second indication of the
claim. Even assuming, arguendo, that the Examiner’s second mapping of
Heo to the second indication is an alternative interpretation of Heo, we
Appeal 2019-001245
Application 14/116,955

8
disagree that Heo teaches the disputed limitation. In particular, we find no
teaching in Heo to suggest that the “channel conditions,” upon which the
MCS level is selected, include anything more than merely the CQI. See Heo
¶ 6–9. The Examiner’s finding, therefore, conflates the first indication (i.e.,
CQI) and the second indication (i.e., channel conditions) of Heo.
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner’s proposed combination does not teach or suggest the disputed
limitations of claim 15, nor independent claim 25 which recites similar
features. Because these determinations resolve the appeal with respect to
claims 15 and 25, and their respective dependent claims, we need not
address Appellant’s other arguments.

CONCLUSION
In summary:

REVERSED

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Bas
is
Affirmed Reversed
15–19, 25,
26, 29–31
103(a) Heo, Liu, Sagfors 15–19, 25,
26, 29–31
20, 27 103(a) Heo, Liu,
Sagfors, Wong
20, 27
21–24, 28 103(a) Heo, Liu,
Sagfors, Wong,
Ishii
21–24, 28
Overall
Outcome
15–31