NTT DOCOMO, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 2, 2020

2019005895 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 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.
14/910,935 02/08/2016 Hideaki Takahashi 17470/539001 1105
22511 7590 10/02/2020
OSHA LIANG L.L.P.
TWO HOUSTON CENTER
909 FANNIN, SUITE 3500
HOUSTON, TX 77010
EXAMINER
SCHEIBEL, ROBERT C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2020 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):
docketing@oshaliang.com
escobedo@oshaliang.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIDEAKI TAKAHASHI,
WURI ANDARMAWANTI HAPSARI,
TOORU UCHINO, and SADAYUKI ABETA

Appeal 2019-005895
Application 14/910,935
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA, II, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, 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 claim 2. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as NTT DOCOMO,
Inc. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-005895
Application 14/910,935

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “a mobile station and a radio base station.”
Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 2 is the only pending claim, and is reproduced below:
2. A mobile station configured to communicate with
a first radio base station using a first component carrier and a
second radio base station using a second component carrier, the
mobile station comprising:
a receiver that receives a logical channel identification
(LCID) from the first radio base station or the second radio base
station;
a memory that stores the LCID in association with a first
MAC entity or a second MAC entity;
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor
establishing:
the first MAC entity for the first radio base station;
and
the second MAC entity for the second radio base
station independent from the first MAC entity,
wherein each of the first MAC entity and the
second MAC entity is configured to determine whether
or not a MAC-PDU received via a physical layer function
is addressed to a logical channel managed by the MAC
entity itself, based on a LCID included in the MAC-PDU
header,
wherein the mobile station performs carrier aggregation
communication with the first component carrier under the first
radio base station and the second component carrier under the
second radio base station, and
wherein the mobile station uses the LCID in the MAC-
PDU header to determine an appropriate one of the first MAC
entity and the second MAC entity during the carrier aggregation
communication based on the stored LCID.
Appeal 2019-005895
Application 14/910,935

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Pelletier US 2014/0056243 A1 Feb. 27, 2014
Park US 2015/0181571 A1 Jun. 25, 2015

REJECTION
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Pelletier
and Park. Final Act. 6–10.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 2 over Pelletier and Park
The Examiner finds Pelletier and Park teach all limitations of claim 2.
Final Act. 7–10; see also Ans. 4–9.
The Examiner finds Pelletier teaches most limitations of claim 2.
Final Act. 7–9. In particular, the Examiner finds “Pelletier discloses
throughout that the WTRU (mobile station) determines whether a particular
MAC instance handles a given PDU based on the associated logical
channel.” Final Act. 8 (citing Pelletier ¶¶ 9, 111, 112, 161, 165). However,
the Examiner further finds “Pelletier does not explicitly mention that this
logical channel is carried in a MAC header.” Final Act. 9.
The Examiner finds “Park discloses the use of the LCID in the MAC-
PDU header.” Final Act. 9 (citing Park ¶ 211).
The Examiner reasons
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify Pelletier to utilize the LCID in the MAC-PDU header to
indicate the MAC instance corresponding to a given MAC-
PDU. The rationale for doing so would have been to utilize
Appeal 2019-005895
Application 14/910,935

4
existing header structures and thus to minimize the changes to
the standard required to support multiple MAC instances.
Final Act. 9–10.
Appellant contends Pelletier and Park do not teach “the mobile station
uses the LCID in the MAC-PDU header to determine an appropriate one of
the first MAC entity and the second MAC entity during the carrier
aggregation communication based on the stored LCID,” as recited in claim
2. See Appeal Br. 11–19; see also Reply Br. 2–4.
In support of this contention, Appellant presents numerous arguments.
For example, Appellant argues the following:
“Pelletier teaches the use of Information Elements (IEs) provided
from a central network controller in order to map the MAC instances.”
Appeal Br. 11. “With respect to a ‘logical channel identity,’ paragraphs
[0169]–[0171] of Pelletier describe how the logical channel identity can be
associated with the MAC instance using the IE.” Appeal Br. 13.
Pelletier does not suggest using the logical channel identity
instead of an IE. Furthermore, Pelletier does not disclose
mapping the data from the eNBs to the appropriate MAC
instance based on the logical channel. Pelletier merely discloses
that one or more logical channels may be associated with MAC
instances based on the IE.
Appeal Br. 13.
“In Park, multiple MAC instances are not disclosed, and the MAC
layer merely conventionally maps the logical channels and transport
channels.” Appeal Br. 14.
Pelletier teaches the use of IEs, not existing header structures,
and Park merely discloses conventional header structures in a
less evolved (i.e., single base station) system. Therefore, neither
Appeal 2019-005895
Application 14/910,935

5
Pelletier nor Park disclose or suggest using existing header
structures in a multiple base station environment as claimed.
Furthermore, neither Pelletier nor Park mention minimizing
changes to support multiple MAC instances.
Appeal Br. 17.
“[M]odifying Pelletier in the manner postulated by the Examiner
would destroy the primary references objectives (i.e., the use of IEs), and
thereby change its principle of operation.” Appeal Br. 18.
We do not see any error in the Examiner’s contested findings. We
concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Pelletier discloses “[w]hen a segregated UL transmission scheme is
utilized, a given radio bearer may be mapped to a given logical channel that
is associated with one of the MAC instances.” Pelletier ¶ 161 (emphasis
added). Thus, we determine Pelletier teaches the association of logical
channels to MAC entities. However, we do not see an explicit teaching of
the logical channel identification in the MAC-PDU header.
Park discloses “[t]he MAC header is of variable size and consists of
the following fields: LCID field: The Logical Channel ID field identifies the
logical channel instance of the corresponding MAC SDU or the type of the
corresponding MAC control element or padding for the DL-SCH, UL-SCH
and MCH respectively.” Park ¶ 210–211. Thus, we determine Park teaches
the logical channel identification in the MAC-PDU header.
Thus, the collective teachings of Pelletier and Park teach “the mobile
station uses the LCID in the MAC-PDU header” (see Park ¶¶ 210–211
(disclosing logical channel identification in the MAC-PDU header)) “to
determine an appropriate one of the first MAC entity and the second MAC
entity during the carrier aggregation communication based on the stored
Appeal 2019-005895
Application 14/910,935

6
LCID” (see Pelletier ¶ 161 (disclosing association of logical channels to
MAC entities)) as recited in claim 2.
The majority of Appellant’s arguments focus on the individual
teachings of Pelletier and Park. These arguments are unpersuasive of any
error because the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the
references.
Further, the Examiner has articulated a reason to combine the
references that is rational. See Final Act. 9–10 (“to utilize existing header
structures and thus to minimize the changes to the standard required to
support multiple MAC instances”). We do not agree with Appellant that the
principle of operation in Pelletier is destroyed by the proposed combination.
See Appeal Br. 18.
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. Ag
Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson’s-Black Rock[,
Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are
illustrative—a court must ask whether the improvement is more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Park’s logical channel identification in the MAC-PDU header is
readily-applicable to Pelletier’s system because Pelletier discloses
association of logical channels to MAC entities. In short, using the LCID in
the MAC-PDU header would have been a predictable use of prior art
Appeal 2019-005895
Application 14/910,935

7
elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Because Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s
proffered combination would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult
for one of ordinary skill in the art,” we agree with the Examiner that the
proposed modification would have been within the purview of the ordinarily
skilled artisan. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d
1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 2 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2 103 Pelletier, Park 2
AFFIRMED