Panasonic Intellectual Property Corporation of America

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 3, 2021

2020003645 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 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.
15/467,827 03/23/2017 TETSUYA YAMAMOTO 731456.430C1 2872
125045 7590 08/03/2021
Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panasonic (PIPCA)
701 5th Avenue, Suite 5400
Seattle, WA 98104
EXAMINER
LINDENBAUM, ALAN LOUIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2021 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):
USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com
pairlinkdktg@seedip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TETSUYA YAMAMOTO, MASAYUKI HOSHINO, and
SEIGO NAKAO
Appeal 2020-003645
Application 15/467,827
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOYCE CRAIG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 12–29 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by Appellant,
and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1 See Final Act.
1; Appeal Br. 11.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Panasonic
Intellectual Property Corporation of America. Appeal Br. 2.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Mar. 23, 2017;
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Dec. 6, 2019; and Reply Brief (“Reply
Appeal 2020-003645
Application 15/467,827
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
By way of background, the Specification describes that in an LTE
(Long Term Evolution) system, a base station uses downlink control
information (DCI) “for informing the terminal of resource allocation for the
uplink data.” Spec. ¶ 7. “[A] plurality of SC-FDMA data symbols and a
demodulation reference signal (DMRS) are time-multiplexed” on a Physical
Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) by a terminal. Spec. ¶ 3. “Upon receiving
the PUSCH, the base station performs channel estimation using the DMRS”
and “the base station demodulates and decodes the SC-FDMA data symbol
using the result of the channel estimation.” Id.
The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant (see Appeal Br.
9), generally relates to a communication device, such as a terminal that
includes a receiving unit, a DMRS generating unit, and a transmitting unit
(Spec. ¶ 55). In “MTC [machine type communication] coverage
enhancement mode,” the uplink DCI “includes an MSCI (Multiple-subframe
spreading code indicator) for indicating the multiple-subframe spreading
code to the terminal.” Id. ¶ 37. Specifically, “if, for example, the cyclic
shift and the OCC [orthogonal cover code] used by the terminal are
determined in advance (are not dynamically changed), the cyclic shift and
the OCC need not be indicated from the base station to the terminal (need
not be dynamically changed) by using the DCI.” Id. ¶ 78. That is, the base
station “uses the field for indicating the cyclic shift and the OCC used for
DMRS transmitted on the PUSCH to transmit information (MSCI)
indicating one multiple-subframe spreading code sequence.” Id. ¶ 79. For a

Br.”), filed Apr. 13, 2020. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office
Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Apr. 17, 2019; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed
Feb. 12, 2020.
Appeal 2020-003645
Application 15/467,827
3
terminal that is not in the MTC coverage enhancement mode, the uplink DCI
“includes information indicating the cyclic shift and the OCC [orthogonal
cover code] used for DMRS.” Id. ¶ 37. Claim 12 (directed to a
communication device) and claim 21 (directed to a communication method)
are independent. Claim 12, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
12. A communication device comprising:
a receiver, which, in operation, receives downlink control
information (DCI) transmitted from a base station;
circuitry, which, in operation, generates a demodulation
reference signal (DMRS) for a physical uplink shared channel
(PUSCH) using a combination of a cyclic shift and an orthogonal
sequence; and
a transmitter, which, in operation, transmits, to the base
station, the PUSCH and the generated DMRS,
wherein:
whether the combination used for generating the
DMRS is dynamically changed or not depends on whether
the communication device is configured in a coverage
enhancement mode;
when the communication device is configured in the
coverage enhancement mode, in which the PUSCH is
allowed to be transmitted with repetitions spanning a
plurality of subframes, the combination used for
generating the DMRS is fixed and not dynamically
changed by the DCI; and
when the communication device is not configured
in the coverage enhancement mode, the combination used
for generating the DMRS is dynamically changed by the
DCI.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-003645
Application 15/467,827
4
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Pajukoski et al.
(“Pajukoski”)
US 2014/0254536 A1 Sep. 11, 2014
Takeda et al.
(“Takeda”)
US 2015/0036651 A1 Feb. 5, 2015

REJECTIONS3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 12–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
being indefinite. See Final Act. 2–3.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 12–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Pajukoski and Takeda. See Final Act. 3–7.
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness Rejection of Claims 12–29
The Examiner concludes that “the terms ‘fixed’ and ‘not dynamically
changed’ [in independent claims 12 and 21] are indefinite because no time
period is associated with them.” Final Act. 2.
Appellant contends that “Claim 12 makes clear that the time period
during which ‘the DMRS is fixed and not dynamically changed by the DCI’
is ‘when the communication device is configured in the coverage
enhancement mode,’ which is a definite duration of time.” Appeal Br. 12.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding claims 12
and 21 to be indefinite. The plain language of claim 12 ties the use of a

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 103, 112. Because the present
application has an effective filing date after the AIA’s effective date (March
16, 2013), this decision refers to AIA-amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 103, 112.
Appeal 2020-003645
Application 15/467,827
5
“fixed and not dynamically changed” combination of a cyclic shift and an
orthogonal sequence to “when the communication device is configured in
the coverage enhancement mode.” That is, the combination used to generate
the DMRS is fixed while in the coverage enhancement mode. Claim 21
recites similar language. Claims 12 and 21 do not specify an actual length of
time for the coverage enhancement mode, but “[b]readth of a claim is not to
be equated with indefiniteness.” MPEP § 2173.04 (citing In re Miller, 441
F.2d 689 (CCPA 1971) and In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786 (CCPA 1970)).
The Examiner finds that dependent claims 13 and 22 “recite that the
DMRS is fixed by the DCI” but “Applicant’s Specification disclosed how a
DRMS [sic] may be changed by a DCI in a coverage enhancement mode,
which contradicts the limitation in claims 12 and 21 that the DMRS is not
dynamically changed by the DCI in a coverage enhancement mode.” Final
Act. 2–3.
Appellant contends that “[t]he specification discloses that in coverage
enhancement, the cyclic shift and the orthogonal sequence ‘are not
dynamically changed’ by the DCI” and that “refraining from dynamically
changing the combination is tantamount to having the combination be
fixed.” Appeal Br. 13.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding claims 13
and 22 to be indefinite. The Specification describes that, “in MTC coverage
enhancement,” when “the cyclic shift and the OCC used by the terminal are
determined in advance (are not dynamically changed), the cyclic shift and
the OCC need not be indicated from the base station to the terminal (need
not be dynamically changed) by using the DCI.” Spec. ¶ 78. Rather, the
base station “uses the existing DCI field” “to transmit information (MSCI)
indicating one multiple-subframe spreading code sequence.” Id. ¶ 79. To
Appeal 2020-003645
Application 15/467,827
6
the extent this disclosure sheds light on the meaning of a combination of a
cyclic shift and orthogonal sequence “fixed by the DCI,” as recited in claims
13 and 22, it is consonant with the meaning of a combination “fixed and not
dynamically changed by the DCI,” as recited in claims 12 and 21. In other
words, we do not see (and the Examiner has not identified) any disclosure in
the Specification that requires an interpretation of claims 13 and 22 that
contradicts recited limitations in claims 12 and 22. See Final Act. 2–3.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding independent claims 12 and 21, and dependent
claims 13 and 22, to be indefinite. Claims 14–20 and 23–29 depend from
and stand with claims 12 and 21, respectively. Thus, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claims 12–29.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 12–29
The Examiner rejects independent claim 12 (as well as independent
claim 21, and dependent claims 13–20 and 22–29) as being obvious over
Pajukoski and Takeda. See Final Act. 3–7. In particular, the Examiner finds
Pajukoski teaches “whether the combination used for generating the DMRS
is dynamically changed or not depends on whether the communication
device is configured in a coverage enhancement mode,” as recited in claim
12. Id. at 4.
Appellant contends, among other things, that “Pajukoski is silent on
linking whether the combination used for generating the DMRS is
dynamically changed or not to whether the communication device is
configured in a coverage enhancement mode.” Appeal Br. 15; see also
Reply Br. 4 (“Pajukoski does not disclose that whether the combination (of a
cyclic shift and an orthogonal sequence) is dynamically changed or not
depends on whether a device is configured in a mode . . . .”).
Appeal 2020-003645
Application 15/467,827
7
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Pajukoski and Takeda teaches the claim 12 limitation of
“whether the combination used for generating the DMRS is dynamically
changed or not depends on whether the communication device is configured
in a coverage enhancement mode.” In claim 12, the communication device
must be capable of determining whether it is “configured in a coverage
enhancement mode” in order for “the combination [of a cyclic shift and an
orthogonal sequence] used for generating the DMRS” to be either “fixed and
not dynamically changed” or “dynamically changed” depending on the
device’s mode. The Examiner has not specifically shown that Pajukoski
teaches such capability of determining whether a communication device is
configured in a coverage enhancement mode in order to properly generate
the DMRS using a fixed or dynamically changed combination of the cyclic
shift and orthogonal sequence.
The Examiner alleges that Pajukoski teaches two modes of operation:
1) “a first (typical) mode of operation where RRC signaling (control
signaling in the downlink) comprises a DMRS SCI field which indicates a
cyclic shift and OCC for dynamically changing a DRMS”; and 2) “a second
(enhancement) mode of operation in which coverage is ‘enhanced by
repetition transmission’ . . . using overlay cover codes between repeated
subframes.” Ans. 16.
Pajukoski describes the following:
The dynamic resource allocation may comprise a
demodulation reference signal cyclic shift indicator (DM RS
CSI) field in an uplink scheduling grant message, in addition to,
replacing or included in a DM RS cyclic shift, indicating used
spreading code for data and a potential demodulation reference
signal cyclic shift orthogonal cover code (DM RS OCC).

Appeal 2020-003645
Application 15/467,827
8
Pajukoski ¶ 47. Pajukoski also describes that “[r]epetition transmission may
be carried out by using orthogonal block spreading codes” and “spreading
may be extended over multiple subframes by applying an additional overlay
cover code between repeated subframes, for instance.” Id. ¶¶ 58, 61.
Even if Pajukoski’s repetition transmission (id. ¶ 61) suggests using a
fixed combination of a cyclic shift and an orthogonal sequence, the
Examiner has not explained how this teaches a coverage enhancement mode
of operation that is different than what the Examiner refers to as Pajukoski’s
“typical” mode of operation (Ans. 16), where using a fixed combination
depends on determining the device is configured in a coverage enhancement
mode. Nor has the Examiner provided reasoning explaining why using a
fixed combination depending on configuration in a coverage enhancement
mode would have been obvious. See Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 16–18.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Pajukoski and Takeda
renders obvious claim 12. Independent claim 21 includes limitations of
commensurate scope. Claims 13–20 and 22–29 depend from and stand with
claims 12 and 21, respectively. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 12–29.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12–
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Appellant has also shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 12–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 12–29.

Appeal 2020-003645
Application 15/467,827
9
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
12–29 112(b) Indefiniteness 12–29
12–29 103 Pajukoski, Takeda 12–29
Overall
Outcome
12–29

REVERSED