QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 31, 2021

2020000727 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
14/533,923 11/05/2014 Tingfang Ji 144913U2 (00007) 5222
169297 7590 08/31/2021
QUARLES & BRADY LLP/Qualcomm
ATTN: IP DOCKET
411 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE
SUITE 2400
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4428
EXAMINER
WYLLIE, CHRISTOPHER T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2021 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
pat-dept@quarles.com
qualcomm@quarles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TINGFANG JI, JOHN EDWARD SMEE,
JOSEPH BINAMIRA SORIAGA, NAGA BHUSHAN,
PETER GAAL, ALEXEI YURIEVITCH GOROKHOV,
KRISHNA KIRAN MUKKAVILLI,
MICHAEL ALEXANDER HOWARD,
ROTEM COOPER, and PETER ANG
____________

Appeal 2020-000727
Application 14/533,923
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
non-final rejection of claims 1–6, 9, 15–20, 23, 29–34, 37, 43–48, and 51.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Qualcomm Incorporated as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000727
Application 14/533,923

2
Appeal Br. 25–31 (Claims App.).2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

RELATED PTAB APPEAL
This Appeal is related to Appeal No. 2020-000700 (Application No.
14/533,954) (PTAB decision was mailed on August 23, 2021).3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The invention relates to “synchronous multiplexing and multiple
access for different latency targets utilizing a thin control channel.” Spec.
¶ 2. In particular,
[a] thin control channel can be utilized to enable multiplexing of
two or more data transmission formats. For example, a thin
control channel may carry information that enables ongoing
transmissions utilizing a first, relatively long transmission time
interval (TTI) to be punctured, and during the punctured portion

2 Appellant has withdrawn claims 10–14, 24–28, 38–42, and 52–56 (in
response to a restriction requirement), and has cancelled claims 7, 8, 21, 22,
35, 36, 49, and 50. Appeal Br. 26, 28–32 (Claims App.). Certain sections of
the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 4, 23) incorrectly identify claims 8, 22, 36, and
50, which have been cancelled, as pending claims. See Amendment dated
May 23, 2018, p. 10 (stating claims 8, 22, 36, and 50 “are cancelled”);
Appeal Br. 26, 28–29, 31 (Claims App.) (correctly indicating claims 8, 22,
36, and 50 have been cancelled).
3 U.S. Patent Application Nos. 14/567,979 (issued as U.S. Patent No.
10,278,178), 14/567,993 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,019,620), 14/567,985
(Notice of Allowance was mailed on July 1, 2021), and 14/533,893
(Response to Non-Final Action was filed on May 21, 2021) are in the same
family of patent applications. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000727
Application 14/533,923

3
of the long TTI, a transmission utilizing a second, relatively short
TTI may be inserted.

Id. ¶ 7. Claim 1 is illustrative of the disclosed invention (with emphasis
added to denote a disputed limitation):
1. A method of wireless communication, comprising:
transmitting, within a first transmission time interval
(TTI), a grant of time-frequency resources for first data within
the first TTI;
transmitting the first data on the downlink data channel
during the first TTI;
configuring control information to include a grant
modification configured to modify the grant of time-frequency
resources for the first data within the first TTI; and
transmitting the control information on a downlink
control channel during a second TTI shorter in duration than
the first TTI and that overlaps a portion of the first TTI.
Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).

Appeal 2020-000727
Application 14/533,923

4
References and Rejection4
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References
1–3, 6, 9, 15–
17, 20, 23,
29–31, 34, 37,
43–45, 48, 515
103 Nagata et al. (US 2014/0086201 A1, pub.
Mar. 27, 2014) (“Nagata”), Jiang et al. (US
2013/0301582 A1, pub. Nov. 14, 2013)
(“Jiang”), Yang et al. (US 2013/0215875
A1, pub. Aug. 22, 2013) (“Yang”)
4, 5, 18, 19,
32, 33, 46, 47
103 Nagata, Jiang, Yang, Blackenship et al.
(US 2013/0039291 A1, pub. Feb. 14, 2013)
(“Blackenship”)

The Examiner’s Rejection Relating to the Italicized Limitation
For claim construction, the Examiner cites Yang’s paragraph 23 for
defining the claimed “TTI.” Ans. 3.
In the Non-Final Office Action, the Examiner cites Yang’s S-PDCCH
[secondary physical downlink control channel] for teaching the claimed
“second TTI” and finds Yang teaches the italicized limitation:
The references [Nagata and Jiang] . . . do not explicitly
disclose transmitting the control information on a downlink
control channel during a second TTI shorter in duration than the
first TTI and that overlaps a portion of the first TTI.
However, the feature becomes obvious in light of Yang
. . . which discloses sending a short PDCCH (S-PDCCH) within
the PDSCH region to allocate a resource within the PDSCH
within the same subframe (see Figure 5 and paragraphs 0087
and 0090).

4 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Non-Final Office Action dated
November 11, 2018 (“Non-Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated May 1, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated September 5, 2019 (“Ans.”);
and (4) Reply Brief dated November 5, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
5 The heading of the rejection lists claim 8 (instead of claim 9) (Final Act.
4), which appears to be a typographical error. The Examiner’s substantive
analysis of the claims correctly includes claim 9 (not claim 8) (Final Act. 6).
Appeal 2020-000727
Application 14/533,923

5
Non-Final Act. 5 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner concludes it would
have been obvious for one skilled in the art to pursue the proposed
combination with Yang. See id.
In the Answer, the Examiner appears to shift his position and cites
Nagata’s enhanced PDCCH [physical downlink control channel] for
teaching the claimed “second TTI,” and finds Nagata teaches the italicized
limitation:
Nagata discloses a single subframe (i.e., the first TTI)
comprising a second TTI (i.e., enhanced PDCCH) (see Figures
2-3 and Figures 5A-5B). Looking at Figure 2, downlink control
information (DCI) for user terminal UEs #1 to #4 is mapped. In
the downlink control information (DCI) for user terminal UEs
#1 to #4, allocation information in the PDSCH region is
included (paragraph 0027).
. . . .
Figures 3 and 5A-5B, at least show that the second TTI
(enhanced PDCCH) is in the same first TTI and shorter than the
first TTI (full subframe) wherein paragraphs 0026-0029 and
0033-0034 disclose that a first resource assignment (DCI) in the
first TTI (full subframe) associated with UE #1-#4 and a
control information in a second TTI (DCIs in enhanced
PDCCH) associated with UE #5-#6.

Ans. 3–4 (emphases omitted).

Appellant’s Contentions Relating to the Italicized Limitation
Appellant argues the cited references do not collectively teach the
italicized limitation. See Appeal Br. 17–20; Reply Br. 8–10. Similar to the
Examiner, Appellant cites Yang’s paragraph 23 for defining the claimed
“TTI.” Appeal Br. 19. Appellant, however, argues “the Examiner failed to
Appeal 2020-000727
Application 14/533,923

6
explain how Yang’s S-PDCCH is a TTI” and “Nagata fails to teach a second
TTI.” Appeal Br. 19; Reply Br. 10.

ISSUE
Based on the record before us, the dispositive issue is whether Nagata,
Jiang, and Yang collectively teach “transmitting the control information on a
downlink control channel during a second TTI shorter in duration than the
first TTI and that overlaps a portion of the first TTI,” as recited in
independent claim 1 (emphasis added), and similarly recited in independent
claims 15, 29, and 43?

ANALYSIS6
Claim 1
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner erred in determining that the cited portions of
Nagata, Jiang, and Yang collectively teach “transmitting the control
information on a downlink control channel during a second TTI shorter in
duration than the first TTI and that overlaps a portion of the first TTI,” as
recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added). See Appeal Br. 17–20;
Reply Br. 8–10.

6 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not address the additional arguments. See,
e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (an
administrative agency’s “judicious use of a single dispositive issue approach
. . . can . . . save . . . unnecessary cost and effort”).
Appeal 2020-000727
Application 14/533,923

7
Starting with construing the claimed “TTI,” we agree with both
Appellant and the Examiner that “TTI” is a term of art and Yang defines it
as the “time required for transmitting one subframe.” Yang ¶ 23 (“A time
required for transmitting one subframe is defined as a transmission time
interval (TTI)”); Ans. 3 (citing Yang’s paragraph 23 for defining TTI);
Appeal Br. 19 (citing Yang’s paragraph 23 for defining TTI). That
definition is consistent with the Specification, which explains “a TTI may
correspond to a minimum duration for a unit of information that can
independently be decoded.” Spec. ¶ 27.
Consistent with the above definition of TTI, in an exemplary
embodiment, the Specification illustrates the italicized limitation in
connection with Figure 6 reproduced below:
Appeal 2020-000727
Application 14/533,923

8

Figure 6, reproduced above, is a schematic diagram illustrating
downlink/downlink multiplexing utilizing a thin control channel. Spec.
¶ 16. The Specification describes the italicized limitation in connection with
Figure 6 as follows:
[I]n an aspect of the disclosure [relating to Fig. 6], within a short
TTI that overlaps a portion of one or more long TTIs, the
scheduling entity 202 may transmit data designated for one or
more LoLat user(s) 504. In some examples, to accommodate the
LoLat transmission, the scheduling entity 202 may puncture the
long TTI transmission (e.g., cease the downlink data
transmission to the regular user 502) for the duration of one or
Appeal 2020-000727
Application 14/533,923

9
more short TTIs. Here, when the regular data is punctured, it may
be the case that some of the regular data is simply lost. In this
example, forward error correction coding may be utilized to
recover the user data in view of the lost symbols due to the
puncturing. In another example, the scheduling entity 202 may
implement rate matching to account for the puncturing of the
regular user data. That is, the scheduling entity 202 may modify
a portion of the regular data utilizing a rate matching algorithm
to account for the lost resources. . . .
In another aspect of the disclosure, rather than puncturing
the time-frequency resources for the regular user data, the data
for the regular user 502 and the data for the LoLat user 504 may
overlap. That is, both downlink transmissions may occupy the
same time-frequency resources. Here, the receiving devices may
be configured to account for the interference that may occur, or
in other examples, such interference may result in what may be
considered acceptable data losses. In a further example,
modification of the regular user data transmission 502 may be
made to account for the overlapped transmissions, e.g., by
adjusting the rate matching algorithm as described above.
Accordingly, already allocated time-frequency resources
may dynamically be re-allocated in real time from one user to
another, as enabled by virtue of the thin control channel 506.
Spec. ¶¶ 60–62 (emphases added).
Contrary to the Examiner’s finding that Yang’s S-PDCCH teaches the
claimed “second TTI” (Non-Final Act. 5), we agree with Appellant that the
portions of Yang cited by the Examiner do not describe the S-PDCCH as a
TTI. See Appeal Br. 17–20. Instead, Yang describes the S-PDCCH as a
secondary physical downlink control channel that may include scheduling
information for a plurality of serving cells. Yang ¶¶ 10, 84, 86. As
discussed above, a “TTI” is defined as the “time required for transmitting
one subframe,” and the Examiner has not explained how the S-PDCCH
constitutes the claimed “second TTI” in light of that definition.
Appeal 2020-000727
Application 14/533,923

10
Similarly, contrary to the Examiner’s finding that Nagata teaches the
“second TTI (i.e., enhanced PDCCH)” (Ans. 3), we agree with Appellant
that the portions of Nagata cited by the Examiner do not describe the
enhanced PDCCH as a TTI. See Reply Br. 10. Instead, Nagata describes
the enhanced PDCCH as a physical downlink control channel that is
frequency-division-multiplexed with a physical downlink shared channel.
Nagata ¶¶ 27, 32. Similar to the discussion above, the Examiner has not
explained how the enhanced PDCCH constitutes the claimed “second TTI”
in light of the TTI definition.
Because the Examiner has not demonstrated Nagata and Yang, either
individually or collectively, teach the claimed “second TTI,” the Examiner
has not shown Nagata, Jiang, and Yang collectively teach “transmitting the
control information on a downlink control channel during a second TTI
shorter in duration than the first TTI and that overlaps a portion of the first
TTI,” as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added).7 As a result, we
are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 1.

Claims 2–6, 9, 15–20, 23, 29–34, 37, 43–48, and 51
Each of independent claims 15, 29, and 43 recites a limitation that is
similar to the italicized limitation of claim 1. See claims 15, 29, and 43.
The Examiner applies the same findings and conclusions (discussed above
regarding claim 1) to these claims. Non-Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 3–5, 9.
Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to independent

7 The Examiner does not rely on Jiang for teaching the italicized limitation.
Appeal 2020-000727
Application 14/533,923

11
claim 1, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claims 15, 29, and 43.
By virtue of its dependency, each of dependent claims 2–6, 9, 16–20,
23, 30–34, 37, 44–48, and 51 includes the italicized limitation or a similar
limitation. The Examiner applies the same findings and conclusions
(discussed above regarding claim 1) to these claims. Non-Final Act. 4–6;
Ans. 3–5, 14–15. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above with
respect to independent claim 1, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of dependent claims 2–6, 9, 16–20, 23, 30–34, 37, 44–48, and 51.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–6, 9, 15–20,
23, 29–34, 37, 43–48, and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6, 9,
15–17, 20,
23, 29–31,
34, 37, 43–
45, 48, 51
103 Nagata, Jiang,
Yang
1–3, 6, 9,
15–17, 20,
23, 29–31,
34, 37, 43–
45, 48, 51
4, 5, 18, 19,
32, 33, 46,
47
103 Nagata, Jiang,
Yang, Blackenship
4, 5, 18, 19,
32, 33, 46,
47
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 9, 15–
20, 23, 29–
34, 37, 43–
48, 51
Appeal 2020-000727
Application 14/533,923

12

REVERSED