2019005312 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2021)

QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 28, 2021

2019005312 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 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. 14/567,985 12/11/2014 Tingfang Ji 144914U2 (00023) 1054 169297 7590 01/28/2021 QUARLES & BRADY LLP/Qualcomm ATTN: IP DOCKET 411 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE SUITE 2350 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4426 EXAMINER PATEL, HARDIKKUMAR D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2473 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/28/2021 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, PETER ANG, MICHAEL ALEXANDER HOWARD, and ROTEM COOPER ____________ Appeal 2019-005312 Application 14/567,985 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, 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 rejection of claims 1–4, 14, 24–27, 37, 47–50, 60, 70–73, and 83, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. The Examiner (i) objects to claims 5, 10–13, 15, 20–23, 28, 33–36, 38, 43–46, 51, 56–59, 61, and 66–69, but such claims are allowable if rewritten in independent form (Final Act. 16); (ii) has withdrawn the rejections of claims 6–9, 16–19, 1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Qualcomm as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-005312 Application 14/567,985 2 29–32, 39–42, 52–55, 62–65, 75–78, 85–88 (Ans. 3); and (iii) indicates claims 74, 79–82, 84, and 89–92 are rejected, but has not provided any substantive rejection of the claims. Therefore, those claims are also not before us. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. RELATED PTAB PROCEEDING This appeal is related to Appeal No. 2019-005313 (Application No. 14/567,993), which is pending before the PTAB. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The present invention relates to “pairing an inter-band carrier with a time division duplex (TDD) carrier to achieve full duplex communication.” Spec. ¶ 2. “If the paired band is a frequency division duplex (FDD) band, then base stations and mobile devices may transmit and receive additional thin control channels on FDD carriers to enable full duplex operations. . . . With the introduction of a paired channel and fast control channels, rapid uplink/downlink switching may be achieved for TDD carriers efficiently and effectively.” Spec. ¶ 7. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method of wireless communication operable at a scheduling entity, comprising: wirelessly communicating utilizing a first transmission time interval (TTI) over a first carrier, the first carrier being a time division duplex (TDD) carrier; and wirelessly communicating utilizing a second TTI having a different duration than the first TTI and at least partially overlapping the first TTI, over a second carrier paired with the first carrier but separated from the first carrier in frequency. Appeal 2019-005312 Application 14/567,985 3 References and Rejections2 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References 1, 2, 4, 24, 25, 27, 47, 48, 50, 70, 71, 73 102(a)(1) Sorond (US 2010/0124183 A1, published May 20, 2010) 3, 26, 49, 72 103 Sorond, Kishiyama (EP 2613600 A1, published July 10, 2013) 14, 37, 60, 83 103 Sorond, Yang (US 9,332,466 B2, issued May 3, 2016) ANALYSIS3 Anticipation 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 finding the cited portions of Sorond disclose “utilizing a first transmission time interval (TTI) over a first carrier, . . . utilizing a second TTI having a different duration than the first TTI and at least partially overlapping the first TTI, over a second carrier paired with the first carrier,” as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added). See Appeal Br. 24–26; Reply Br. 4. The Examiner finds Sorond’s TDD [time division duplex] and FDD [frequency division duplex] teach the claimed “first carrier” and “second 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated Oct. 16, 2018 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated Jan. 29, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated May 2, 2019 (“Ans.”); and (4) Reply Brief dated July 2, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). 3 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not address the additional arguments. Appeal 2019-005312 Application 14/567,985 4 carrier,” respectively. See Final Act. 3. The Examiner cites Sorond’s Figures 5a, 5b, 12a, and 12b for teaching the italicized limitation and finds: utilizing a second TTI having a different duration than the first TTI and at least partially overlapping the first TTI over a second carrier . . . (. . . interval of TDD is partially overlapping the interval of FDD ... the time duration of FDD (Tu+ Td) is different from the time duration of TDD (Tu), Figs. 5a, b-12a, b . . .). Final Act. 3 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner also finds “[a]s discussed in Figs. 5a, b-12a, b that FDD having a TTI (t2-t0) and TDD having a TTI (t1-t2). Thus, it is interpreted that FDD TTI is different in duration than the TDD TTI and TDD TTI is overlapped by FDD TTI.” Ans. 18 (emphasis omitted). We disagree. As pointed out by Appellant (Appeal Br. 25), the Specification defines the term TTI [transmission time interval] as “a minimum duration of a unit of information that can be decoded.” Spec. ¶ 37. The Examiner does not dispute that definition. In an exemplary embodiment, the Specification illustrates the italicized limitation in Figure 5: Appeal 2019-005312 Application 14/567,985 5 Spec., Fig. 5. FIG. 5 illustrates one example of pairing a TDD carrier with an FDD carrier, providing for multiplexing of LoLat uplink transmissions with regular uplink transmissions (i.e., transmissions from a subordinate entity) on the TDD carrier. In the illustrated example, the TDD carrier is illustrated . . . with uplink resources allocated to different users being represented by the large blocks spanning a long TTI. . . . . Spec. ¶ 80 (emphasis added). As these uplink transmissions are ongoing, if a particular subordinate entity, denoted as the LoLat user 504, wishes to request resources for a LoLat uplink transmission, this subordinate entity may transmit a LoLat scheduling request 507 on the thin feedback channel 506 on the FDD uplink component carrier. Here, the LoLat scheduling request 507 may Appeal 2019-005312 Application 14/567,985 6 utilize the short TTI, although this is not necessarily always the case. . . . . Spec. ¶ 82 (emphasis added). Contrary to the Examiner’s conclusory assertion that Sorond’s (t2-t0) discloses the claimed “second TTI” because Sorond’s “FDD ha[s] a TTI (t2- t0)” (Ans. 18), the cited Sorond’s portions do not describe (t2-t0) as the TTI of FDD.4 As discussed above, the Specification defines TTI as “a minimum duration of a unit of information that can be decoded” (Spec. ¶ 37), and the Examiner has not explained why (t2-t0) constitutes the claimed “second TTI” in light of that definition. Because the Examiner has not demonstrated Sorond discloses the claimed “second TTI,” the Examiner has not shown Sorond teaches “utilizing a second TTI having a different duration than the first TTI and at least partially overlapping the first TTI, over a second carrier paired with the first carrier,” as required byclaim 1 (emphasis added). Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 24, 47, and 70 for similar reasons. We also reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of corresponding dependent claims 2, 4, 25, 27, 48, 50, 71, and 73. Obviousness 4 Sorond describes (t2-t1) as an “uplink time interval or uplink time slot,” and (t1-t0) as a “downlink time interval or downlink time slot.” Sorond ¶ 49. Appeal 2019-005312 Application 14/567,985 7 The Examiner cites additional references for the obviousness rejections of claims 3, 14, 26, 37, 49, 60, 72, and 83. See Final Act. 6–8. The Examiner relies on Sorond in the same manner discussed above in the context of claim 1, and does not rely on the additional references in any manner that remedies the deficiencies of the underlying anticipation rejection. See Final Act. 6–8. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 3, 14, 26, 37, 49, 60, 72, and 83. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision (i) rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 24, 25, 27, 47, 48, 50, 70, 71, and 73 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and (ii) rejecting claims 3, 14, 26, 37, 49, 60, 72, and 83 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 24, 25, 27, 47, 48, 50, 70, 71, 73 102(a)(1) Sorond 1, 2, 4, 24, 25, 27, 47, 48, 50, 70, 71, 73 3, 26, 49, 72 103 Sorond, Kishiyama 3, 26, 49, 72 14, 37, 60, 83 103 Sorond, Yang 14, 37, 60, 83 Overall Outcome 1–4, 14, 24–27, 37, 47–50, 60, 70–73, 83 REVERSED