Miho MAEDA et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 30, 2020

13420306 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 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.
13/420,306 03/14/2012 Miho MAEDA 395616US2DIV 3252
22850 7590 01/30/2020
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
ABELSON, RONALD B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2020 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):
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
patentdocket@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MIHO MAEDA, MITSURU MOCHIZUKI,
YASUSHI IWANE, TETSUYA MISHUKU,
MASAAKI KUSANO, RYOICHI FUJIE, SHIGENORI TANI,
KEIKO TADA, NORIYUKI FUKUI, and MICHIAKI TAKANO
____________

Appeal 2018-005087
Application 13/420,306
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 11. Claims 5–10 are objected to. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). On January 23, 2020, Appellant’s
counsel presented arguments at an oral hearing.
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest
as Mitsubishi Electric Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-005087
Application 13/420,306

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention “relates to a mobile
communications system in which a base station carries out radio
communications with a plurality of mobile terminals by controlling the
transmission rates, the transmission powers (the permitted transmission
powers and maximum permitted transmission powers), the transmission
timings,” and “the available frequencies” of the plurality of mobile
terminals. Spec. ¶ 1.2 In one embodiment, the system “prevent[s] the case
in which an Ack signal/Nack signal is transmitted at the same time when a
CQI [Channel Quality Indicator] signal is transmitted.” Id. ¶ 302. The
system prevents simultaneous signal transmission because “PAPR (Peak-to-
Average-Power Ratio) becomes large when an Ack signal/Nack signal is
transmitted at the same time when a CQI signal is transmitted.” Id. ¶ 300.
A large Peak-to-Average-Power Ratio may cause problems, “such as
increase in the power consumption, reduction in the transmission power, and
increase in the adjacent channel leakage power.” Id.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the subject matter of independent
claims 2 and 11. Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A mobile communication system comprising:
a mobile terminal; and

2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed March 14, 2012; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action,
mailed July 26, 2017; “Appeal Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed December 8,
2017; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed February 5, 2018; and
“Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed April 5, 2018.
Appeal 2018-005087
Application 13/420,306

3
a base station,
wherein when the mobile terminal and the base station
carry out radio communication with each other, the mobile
terminal measures quality of a downlink communication path
and periodically transmits a result of the measurement of the
quality to the base station with a predetermined transmission
cycle, and the base station carries out downlink scheduling
according to the result of the measurement of the quality, and
wherein when a periodic timing at which to transmit the
result of the measurement of the quality to the base station
coincides with a timing at which to transmit a positive response
signal or a negative response signal to the base station, the
mobile terminal transmits the positive response signal or the
negative response at a start of the transmission cycle signal and
does not transmit, at said start, the result of the measurement of
the quality.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejection on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
The Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fukui, Sakata, and Iochi. Final Act. 2–5; Ans. 2–4.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 11 in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. Based on the record before
us and for the reasons explained below, we concur with Appellant’s
Sakata US 6,311,061 B1 Oct. 30, 2001
Fukui US 2004/0067757 A1 Apr. 8, 2004
Iochi US 2006/0111119 A1 May 25, 2006
Appeal 2018-005087
Application 13/420,306

4
contentions that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of the
references teach or suggest every limitation in claims 1, 2, and 11.
Appellant’s arguments center on Fukui. See Appeal Br. 5–7; Reply
Br. 4–7. Fukui’s Figure 6 is reproduced below:

Figure 6 “depicts schematically a process for reporting a channel quality
information.” Fukui ¶ 22; see id. ¶ 29.
As depicted in Figure 6, “a transmitter (Node B) transmits data
subframes over a transmission channel and a receiver (UE)” returns either an
ACK signal “when a received subframe is found free of errors” or a NACK
signal “when a received subframe is found erroneous.” Fukui ¶ 23; see id.
¶ 6, code (57). In addition, the transmitter periodically transmits pilot
symbols to the receiver. Id. ¶¶ 9, 23, 29, Fig. 6; see id. ¶¶ 7–8, code (57).
The receiver uses the pilot symbols to determine CQI information. Id. ¶¶ 9,
23, 29. The receiver periodically transmits feedback signals containing CQI
information to the transmitter. See id. ¶¶ 7–10, 23, 29–30, code (57), Fig. 6.
Appeal 2018-005087
Application 13/420,306

5
In Figure 6, dashed arrows represent pilot-symbol transmissions, thick
arrows represent data transmissions, and plain arrows represent feedback-
signal transmissions. Fukui ¶ 29. As an example, reference numerals 610,
630, and 650 associated with dashed arrows identify periodic pilot symbols,
and reference numerals 611, 631, and 651 associated with plain arrows
identify periodic feedback signals containing CQI information resulting
from periodic pilot symbols 610, 630, and 650, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 29–30,
Fig. 6. The receiver transmits feedback signals 611, 631, and 651 at times
t'0, t'1, and t'2, respectively, with the interval Tr between transmissions. Id.
¶¶ 29–30, Fig. 6; see id. ¶¶ 8, 23.
As another example, reference numerals 620 and 640 associated with
adjacent dashed and thick arrows identify pilot symbols and data. Fukui
¶¶ 29–30, Fig. 6. Further, reference numeral 621 associated with a plain
arrow identifies a feedback signal containing a NACK signal and CQI
information resulting from transmission 620, while reference numeral 641
associated with a plain arrow identifies a feedback signal containing an ACK
signal and CQI information resulting from transmission 640. Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2,
and 11 because Fukui discloses periodically transmitting feedback signals
containing CQI information but does not disclose transmitting an ACK
signal or a NACK signal “at a start of the transmission cycle” for CQI
information. Appeal Br. 5–6; see Reply Br. 4–6. Appellant describes
Fukui’s transmission cycle as having the periodicity Tr. Appeal. Br. 6;
Reply Br. 5.
Further, referencing Fukui’s Figure 6, Appellant asserts that the
receiver periodically transmits feedback signals 611, 631, and 651
Appeal 2018-005087
Application 13/420,306

6
containing CQI information at regular times t'0, t'1, and t'2, respectively, with
the interval Tr between transmissions. Reply Br. 5. In contrast to those
periodic transmissions, Appellant asserts that the receiver (1) transmits
feedback signal 621 containing a NACK signal and CQI information at time
t' and (2) transmits feedback signal 641 containing an ACK signal and CQI
information at time t'''. Id. at 4–5. Appellant then contends that times t'
and t''' do not correspond to “the claimed transmission cycle or the claimed
start of the transmission cycle.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant also contends that
“feedback transmissions 621 and 641 occur in the middle of the interval Tr,”
not “at a start of the transmission cycle” as required by claims 1, 2, and 11.
Reply Br. 5. Appellant adds that Sakata and Iochi do not cure the deficiency
in Fukui. Id. at 6.
The Examiner “maintains that t' and t''' may represent the start of a
transmission cycle since they immediately follow the transmission of data
from the Node B.” Ans. 6; see Final Act. 5–6. In addition, the Examiner
determines that “CQI information is always transmitted at” times t' and t'''
for feedback signals 621 and 641, respectively. Ans. 6 (citing Fukui
¶¶ 29–30, Fig. 6).
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of the
references teach or suggest “periodically” transmitting a measurement
of downlink quality with a “predetermined transmission cycle” and
transmitting a positive or negative response signal at “the start of the
[predetermined] transmission cycle” when the timing for transmitting the
quality measurement “coincides” with the timing for transmitting the
response signal as required by claims 1, 2, and 11.
Appeal 2018-005087
Application 13/420,306

7
Fukui discloses “periodically” transmitting feedback signals 611, 631,
and 651 containing CQI information at regular times t'0, t'1, and t'2,
respectively, i.e., transmitting with a “predetermined transmission cycle.”
Fukui ¶¶ 7–10, 23, 29–30, code (57), Fig. 6. Fukui describes the
“predetermined transmission cycle” as the “reporting period Tr separating
two consecutive reporting times.” Id. ¶ 8. Fukui explains that “the
scheduled times” for transmitting CQI information “are regularly distributed
over time with a periodicity Tr.” Id. ¶ 23.
But Fukui does not disclose transmitting an ACK signal or a NACK
signal at regular times t'0, t'1, and t'2. Fukui ¶¶ 29–30; see id. ¶ 25, Figs. 5–6.
Instead, the receiver transmits an ACK signal or a NACK signal at irregular
times, i.e., “each time” the receiver “receives a data subframe.” Id. ¶ 8. For
instance in Figure 6, the NACK signal at time t' results from data
transmission 620 at time t, while the ACK signal at time t''' results from data
transmission 640 at time t''. Id. ¶¶ 29–30, Fig. 6. Fukui does not disclose a
periodic relationship between data transmissions, e.g., data transmission 620
at time t and data transmission 640 at time t''. Id. ¶¶ 29–30. To the extent
that the Examiner considers t' and t''' to represent the start of a transmission
cycle, the Examiner has not shown that they represent the start of a
transmission cycle that corresponds with a periodic transmission of “the
measurement of the quality to the base station,” as required by claim 1.
In the cited portions, Fukui does not indicate that the receiver
transmits an ACK signal or a NACK signal at “the start of the
[predetermined] transmission cycle” for transmitting CQI information when
the timing for transmitting the CQI information “coincides” with the timing
for transmitting an ACK signal or a NACK. signal as required by claims 1,
Appeal 2018-005087
Application 13/420,306

8
2, and 11. Further, on this record, the Examiner has not shown how the
secondary references—Sakata and Iochi—overcome this deficiency in
Fukui. Hence, we do not sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 2,
and 11.3
Because this determination resolves the appeal for claims 1, 2, and 11,
we need not address Appellant’s other arguments regarding Examiner error.
See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(explaining that an administrative agency may render a decision based on
“a single dispositive issue”).
CONCLUSION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 11 103(a) Fukui, Sakata, Iochi 1, 2, 11
REVERSED

3 In the event of continued prosecution, the Examiner should consider the
propriety of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 for claim 1 because the
phrase “the negative response at a start of the transmission cycle signal” in
claim 1 refers to a “transmission cycle signal” rather than a “negative
response signal,” unlike claims 2 and 11.