Panasonic Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2021

2019004432 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021)

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.
14/233,821 01/20/2014 Takashi Tamura 52125 3244
52054 7590 03/02/2021
PEARNE & GORDON LLP
1801 EAST 9TH STREET
SUITE 1200
CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
EXAMINER
FAYED, RASHA K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2413
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2021 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):
patdocket@pearne.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte TAKASHI TAMURA, TORU OIZUMI,
and JOACHIM LOEHR
____________________

Appeal 2019-004432
Application 14/233,8211
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ invention is a wireless communication terminal
communicating with two types of cells that make up a component carrier set.
A dedicated scheduling request (DSR) resource is used when transmitting a
scheduling request for requesting grant of an uplink resource, and is set for a

1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Panasonic Intellectual
Property Corporation of America. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004432
Application 14/233,821

2
second cell that is smaller in cell coverage than a first cell. The DSR
management section requests grant of the uplink resource by transmitting a
scheduling request to a wireless communication device using the DSR
resource of the second cell if the uplink resource is not granted to the
wireless communication terminal. Spec. ¶ 8.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A wireless communication terminal in which, among two types
of cells that make up a component carrier set that is used in
carrier aggregation, a dedicated scheduling request resource that
is used when transmitting a scheduling request for requesting
grant of an uplink resource to a wireless communication device
capable of communicating with the wireless communication
terminal is set for a second cell that is smaller in cell coverage
than a first cell, the wireless communication terminal
comprising:
a dedicated scheduling request ("DSR") management
section configured to, when the uplink resource is not granted
to the wireless communication terminal and when uplink data
occurs in the wireless communication terminal, perform
processing that requests the grant of the uplink resource to the
wireless communication device by transmitting the scheduling
request to the wireless communication device using the
dedicated scheduling request resource of the second cell; and
a random access channel ("RACH") management section
configured to perform a random access procedure that requests
the grant of the uplink resource to the wireless communication
device by transmitting a random access preamble to the
wireless communication device, when the grant of the uplink
resource in response to the scheduling request is not performed.

Appeal Br. 25, Claims App.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Appeal 2019-004432
Application 14/233,821

3
Name Reference Date
Uemura US 2009/02018565 A1 Aug. 13, 2009
Pelletier US 2011/0134774 A1 June 9, 2011
Lohr US 2012/0147830 A1 June 14, 2012
Dinan US 2018/0098354 A1 Apr. 5, 2018

Claims 1–6, 8–15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Pelletier, Dinan, and Uemura. Final Act. 2.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Pelletier, Dinan, Uemura, and Lohr. Final Act. 38.
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pelletier and Dinan. Final Act. 44.

Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed February 21, 2019), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
May 16, 2019), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 21,
2019) for their respective details.
ISSUE
1. Does the combination of Pelletier and Dinan teach or suggest, when
the uplink resource is not granted to the wireless communication terminal,
transmitting a scheduling request to the wireless communication device
using the dedicated scheduling request resource of the second cell?
2. Does the combination of Pelletier, Dinan, and Uemura teach or
suggest transmitting a random access preamble to the wireless
communication device when the grant of the uplink resource in response to
the scheduling request is not performed?
Appeal 2019-004432
Application 14/233,821

4
ANALYSIS
Dedicated Scheduling Request limitation
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, a dedicated scheduling
request (“DSR”) management section configured to, when the uplink
resource is not granted to the wireless communication terminal, request “the
grant of the uplink resource to the wireless communication device by
transmitting the scheduling request to the wireless communication device
using the dedicated scheduling request resource of the second cell,” said
second cell being smaller in coverage than a first cell making up a
component carrier set.
Independent claims 7, 8, 15 recite a substantially identical limitation.
Independent claims 16 and 17, while method claims, recite a limitation
substantially identical to that expressed in claim 1.
Independent claim 10 recites a DSR management section highly
similar to that of claim 1, which transmits the scheduling request using the
dedicated scheduling request resource of the first cell or the second cell. The
DSR management section is configured to transmit the scheduling request
using the dedicated scheduling resource of the second cell if it is determined
by a “priority determination section” that the uplink data is of low priority.
Independent claim 13 similarly recites a control section configured to,
when the uplink resource is not granted, transmit configuration information
related to a dedicated scheduling request of the second cell (smaller in cell
coverage that a first cell).
The Examiner finds that Pelletier does not disclose transmitting a
scheduling request to the wireless communication device using the dedicated
Appeal 2019-004432
Application 14/233,821

5
scheduling request resource of the second cell, but cites to Dinan for a
teaching of this limitation. Final Act. 3–4; Dinan ¶¶ 46, 82, 84, 99, 115.
Dinan teaches, in pertinent part, that “[a] UE [user equipment] may
transmit a scheduling request on PUCCH [i.e., physical uplink control
channel] when the UE has data for uplink transmission and UE do not have
uplink grants for transmission of a buffer status report.” Dinan ¶ 46.
Appellant argues that Dinan fails to teach transmitting a scheduling
request to the wireless communication device using the dedicated scheduling
request (“DSR”) resource of the second cell when the uplink resource is not
granted to the wireless communication terminal. Appeal Br. 18; Reply Br. 3.
We agree with Appellant. We find that Dinan teaches “parallel
transmission of a preamble on an uplink carrier (SCell PRACH) and
PUCCH (e.g., on at least one other carrier, for example, the pCell).” Dinan ¶
75. We further find that Dinan exclusively teaches transmission of PUCCH
on the larger-coverage pCell. Dinan ¶¶ 116, 121. We find that Dinan does
not at any point teach transmitting PUCCH on the smaller-coverage sCell, as
the claims require. Appellant discloses that the claimed “second cell” that is
smaller in cell coverage than a first cell corresponds to sCell. Spec. ¶ 6;
Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant further argues, and we agree, that none of paragraphs
[0048], [0082], [0049], [0083–85], [0089], and [0109–111], cited by the
Examiner in support, describe transmitting a scheduling request to the
wireless communication device using the dedicated scheduling request
resource of the second cell, when the uplink resource is not granted to the
wireless communication terminal. Reply Br. 3–5. Dinan describes that the
base station triggers a sync process to uplink synchronize the first SCell if
Appeal 2019-004432
Application 14/233,821

6
radio resources are required. Dinan ¶ 48. Dinan teaches that control
messages cause assignment of each of the plurality of secondary cells to a
cell group in a plurality of cell groups. Dinan ¶ 82.
With respect to the slightly different language of claim 10, the
Examiner relies on Pelletier for a teaching that transmitting a scheduling
request using the dedicated scheduling request resource of the second cell if
it is determined that the uplink data is of low priority. Final Act. 21. As with
respect to independent claim 1 discussed supra, the Examiner does not
identify a teaching in Pelletier or Dinan, and we do not find such a teaching,
that a scheduling request is transmitted using the dedicated scheduling
request resource of the second cell (i.e., the sCell) if it is determined that the
uplink data is of low priority.
Random Access Channel limitation
The Examiner finds that Uemura teaches the claimed RACH
management section that requests the grant of the uplink resource by
transmitting a random access preamble to the wireless communication
device, when the grant of the uplink resource in response to the scheduling
request is not performed. Final Act. 6. In response to Appellant’s argument
that Uemura does not teach performance of the random access procedure by
the RACH management section when the grant of the uplink resource in
response to the scheduling request is not performed, as the claims require,
the Examiner simply repeats that “[t]he structure of the wireless
communication terminal disclosed in Uemura was combined with the
method disclosed in Pelletier and Dinan.” Appeal Br. 21; Ans. 10.
We find that the Examiner erred in finding that Uemura supplies the
RACH limitation conceded to be missing from Pelletier and Dinan. In
Appeal 2019-004432
Application 14/233,821

7
neither the Final Action nor the Examiner’s Answer does the Examiner cite
to evidence in Uemura that supports a finding that Uemura teaches
requesting a grant of the uplink resource by transmitting a random access
preamble to the wireless communication device when the grant of the uplink
resource in response to the scheduling request is not performed. Uemura
Figure 9 and paragraph [0184], relied upon by the Examiner, are silent
concerning transmitting a random access preamble when grant of the uplink
resource is not performed.

Because we find that the Examiner erred in finding that Pelletier in
combination with Dinan teaches the DSR limitation, and erred in finding
that Pelletier in combination with Dinan and Uemura teaches the RACH
limitation, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6, 8–15,
and 18 over Pelletier, Dinan, and Uemura. We do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 7 over Pelletier, Dinan, Uemura, and Lohr. We do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16 and 17 over Pelletier and
Dinan.

CONCLUSION
1. The combination of Pelletier and Dinan does not teach or suggest,
when the uplink resource is not granted to the wireless communication
terminal, transmitting a scheduling request to the wireless communication
device using the dedicated scheduling request resource of the second cell.
2. The combination of Pelletier, Dinan, and Uemura does not teach or
suggest transmitting a random access preamble to the wireless
Appeal 2019-004432
Application 14/233,821

8
communication device when the grant of the uplink resource in response to
the scheduling request is not performed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–15,
18
103 Pelletier, Dinan,
Uemura
1–6, 8–15,
18
7 103 Pelletier, Dinan,
Uemura, Lohr
7
16, 17 103 Pelletier, Dinan 16, 17
Overall
Outcome

1–18

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-18 is reversed.

REVERSED