Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 4, 2021

2019005877 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 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.
15/064,529 03/08/2016 Aris Papasakellariou 2015.03.004.SR0 1659
106809 7590 03/04/2021
Docket Clerk - SAMS
P.O. Drawer 800889
Dallas, TX 75380
EXAMINER
ROSE, DERRICK V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2021 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):
munckwilson@gmail.com
patent.srad@samsung.com
patents@munckwilson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ARIS PAPASAKELLARIOU
___________

Appeal 2019−005877
Application 15/064,529
Technology Center 2400

____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1−10 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 11−25. Claims 11−20 are withdrawn. See
Claims Appendix. Claims 1 and 6 are independent. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s
determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 4, 2019), the
Reply Brief (filed July 30, 2019), the Final Action (mailed August 10, 2018)
and the Answer (mailed May 31, 2019), for the respective details.
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. as
the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 3.

Appeal 2019-005877
Application 15/064,529

2

We affirm.
Introduction
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter “relates generally
to wireless communications and, more specifically, to transmitting control
channels to user equipments (UEs) and to scheduling transmissions to or
from UEs.” See Specification ¶ 2, ¶¶ 102−105; see also Figure 9.

Representative Claim3
1. A base station comprising:
a transmitter configured to transmit, in a first subframe
and within a first narrowband that includes six consecutive
resource blocks (RBs) in a downlink (DL) system bandwidth, a
physical DL control channel (PDCCH), wherein:
each RB includes a number of resource elements (REs)
indexed in ascending order in a frequency domain and the six
consecutive RBs in the first narrowband are indexed in
ascending order according to the indexes of respective REs,
when the PDCCH is transmitted over a set of two RBs,
the PDCCH is mapped to a first number of control channel
elements (CCEs), each CCE from the first number of CCEs
includes resource elements groups (REGs) from a first RB and
from a second RB, and each REG includes a number of REs
either from the first RB or from the second RB,
when the PDCCH is transmitted over a set of four RBs,
the PDCCH is mapped to a second number of CCEs, each CCE
from the second number of CCEs includes REGs from a third
RB, a fourth RB, a fifth RB, and a sixth RB, and each REG

3 Appellant contends, “Claim 1 and its dependent claims are patentable over
the proposed combination of references cited in the Final Office Action.
Similar arguments apply to independent Claim 6 and its dependent claims.”
Appeal Brief 18–19. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as the
representative claim focusing on subject matter common to independent
claims 1 and 6. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
Appeal 2019-005877
Application 15/064,529

3

includes a number of REs either from the third RB, or from the
fourth RB, or from the fifth RB, or from the sixth RB, and
when the PDCCH is transmitted over the six consecutive
RBs, the PDCCH is mapped over REs first across the six
consecutive RBs, starting from the RE with the lowest index,
and then across symbols of the first subframe.

References
Name4 Reference Date
Shen US 2012/0182931 A1 July 19, 2012
Blankenship US 2013/0039291 A1 February 14, 2013
Ahn US 2014/0133433 A1 May 15, 2014
Shimezawa US 2015/0036615 A1 February 5, 2015
Damnjanovic US 2016/0227541 A1 August 4, 2016
Lee US 2016/0353440 A1 December 1, 2016

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3−6 and 8−10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ahn, Blankenship, Damnjanovic, Shen and
Shimezawa. Final Action 4–8.
Claims 2 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ahn, Blankenship, Damnjanovic, Shen, Shimezawa and
Lee. Final Action 8.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 5, 6 and 10
Although disclosing the majority of limitations of claim 1, the
Examiner finds, “Ahn however is silent when the PDCCH is transmitted

4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.

Appeal 2019-005877
Application 15/064,529

4

over the six RBs, the PDCCH is mapped over REs first across the six RBs,
starting from the RE with the lowest index, and then across symbols of the
first subframe.” Final Action 5. The Examiner further finds, “However in
an analogous art Blankenship remedies this deficiency:
(Blankenship, Fig. 5 [prior art] and 6b; ¶0047− 4th and 5th sentences−
R/E−PDCCH[5] extended across the subframe).” Final Action 5.
Appellant contends that the Examiner is factually incorrect in regard
to Blankenship because “Blankenship merely mentions extending the PDCCH
into the PDSCH [physical downlink shared channel].” Appeal Brief 13−14;
see Reply Brief 6. Appellant argues “An PDCCH region that extends across
a subframe has nothing to do with the PDCCH being transmitted over the
six consecutive RBs.” Appeal Brief 14.
The Examiner’s response is
the primary reference of Ahn recites the six (6) RBs being
indexed according to the indexes of the respective REs (Ahn
¶0036[6]; ¶0040− 3rd sentence;¶0129, ¶0131− 2nd sentence).
Where Ahn is silent Blankenship remedies where when the
PDCCH is transmitted over the six RBs, the PDCCH is mapped
over REs first across the six RBs, starting from the RE with the
lowest index, and then across symbols of the first subframe
(Blankenship, Fig. 5 and 6b; ¶0047− 4th and 5th sentences
R/E−PDCCH extended across the subframe).

5 The R/E-PDCCH term is not disclosed in Blankenship paragraph 47 nor
Figures 5 and 6B. See Final Action 5, Answer 8. We determine that the
R/E-PDCCH term is a possible term of art for enhanced/relay PDCCH (E/R-
PDCCH). See Blankenship ¶ 59.
6 “A resource block (RB) is a resource allocation unit, and includes a
plurality of subcarriers in one slot. For example, if one slot includes 7
OFDM symbols in a time domain and the RB includes 12 subcarriers in a
frequency domain, one RB can include 7□12 resource elements (REs).”
Ahn ¶ 36.
Appeal 2019-005877
Application 15/064,529

5

Answer 8; see Blankenship ¶ 47, 4th and 5th sentences (“An example of an
R−PDCCH [relay PDCCH] configuration is shown in FIG. 5. An
R−PDCCH may transmit from the first slot for DL data scheduling and/or
the second slot for UL data scheduling. Multiple R−PDCCHs may be
multiplexed either with or without cross interleaving.”).
Appellant argues, “arguendo,” that “the combined teachings of Ahn
and Blankenship, which the Appellant does not concede are properly
combinable, . . . suffers [from] the same deficiencies as the respective
references.” Appeal Brief 17. Appellant contends, “Nothing in the
proposed combination discloses or suggests (1) PDCCH transmission over
six consecutive RBs, (2) any mapping of the PDCCH over REs, and (3) any
mapping starting from the RE with the lowest index and then across symbols
of the first subframe as recited in Claim 1.” Appeal Brief 17. Appellant
concludes, “Damnjanovic, Shen, and Shimezawa, considered alone or in
combination, do not provide a disclosure remedying the noted deficiencies
of Ahn and Blankenship.” Appeal Brief 17−18; see Reply Brief 7, 8.
The Examiner finds, “Ahn and Blankenship however are silent where
the RBs are in consecutive order. However in an analogous art Damnjanovic
cures this deficiency: (Damnjanovic, ¶0095− 4th sentence).” Final Action
6. Appellant does not address the Examiner’s reliance upon the
Damnjanovic reference with any specificity. See Appeal Brief 17−18; see
also Reply Brief 7, 8. The Examiner also finds, “Ahn, Blankenship and
Damnjanovic however are silent where the REs are indexed in ascending
order. However in an analogous art Shen remedies this deficiency: (Shen
¶0044, ¶00108, ¶0145−last sentence).” Final Action 6. Appellant does not
Appeal 2019-005877
Application 15/064,529

6

address the Examiner’s reliance upon the Shen reference with any
specificity. See Appeal Brief 17−18; see also Reply Brief 7, 8. The
Examiner further finds:
Ahn, Blankenship, Damnjanovic and Shen are silent where the
PDCCH is transmitted over a set of two RBs, the PDCCH is
mapped to a first number of control channel elements (CCEs);
each CCE from the first number of CCEs includes resource
elements groups (REGs) from a first RB and from a second RB,
and each REG includes a number of REs either from the first RB
or from the second RB when the PDCCH is transmitted over a
set of four RBs, the PDCCH is mapped to a second number of
CCEs, each CCE from the second number of CCEs includes
REGs from a third RB, a fourth RB, a fifth RB, and a sixth RB,
and each REG includes a number of REs either from the third
RB, or from the fourth RB; However in an analogous art
Shimezawa cures this deficiency: ((Shimezawa ¶0128−
E−PDCCH is mapped in two RBs); (Shimezawa, Fig.5−
¶0107− 5th −8th sentences); (Shimezawa ¶0106, ¶107−lst − 3rd
and 7th sentences).
Final Action 6−7.
Appellant does not address the Examiner’s reliance upon the
Shimezawa reference with any specificity. See Appeal Brief 17−18; see also
Reply Brief 7, 8. Once the Examiner has satisfied the burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness, the burden then shifts to Appellant to
present evidence and/or arguments that persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
prima facie case. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Since Appellant did not particularly point out errors in the Examiner’s
reasoning to persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness, the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 5, 6 and 10 are therefore
sustained. See Appeal Brief 18−19 (“Claim 1 and its dependent claims are
patentable over the proposed combination of references cited in the Final
Appeal 2019-005877
Application 15/064,529

7

Office Action. Similar arguments apply to independent Claim 6 and its
dependent claims. The rejection of Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 under § 103 as
unpatentable over Ahn, Blankenship, Damnjanovic, Shen, and Shimezawa is
clear error.”).

Claims 3 and 8
Appellant contends:
[T]here is nothing in the cited paragraphs of Ahn that relates to a
transmission of a data channel. This is certainly not related to the
mapping of a PDSCH over REs first across the set of RBs,
starting from the RE with the lowest index, and then across
symbols of the second subframe as recited in Claim 3. In sum,
the cited portions of Ahn have nothing to do with the recited
elements of Claim 3.
Appeal Brief 20.
The Examiner finds:
As to claims 3 and 8 the combined teachings of Ahn,
Blankenship, Damnjanovic, Shen and Shimezawa disclose the
base station and the user equipment of claims 1 and 6
respectively, wherein the transmitter is further configured to
transmit, in a second subframe and over a set of RBs within
a second narrowband that includes six consecutive RBs, a
physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) that is mapped over
REs first across the set of RBs, starting from the RE with the
lowest index, and then across symbols of the second subframe
(Ahn ¶0058− 2nd, 3rd and 4th sentences; ¶ 0060−2nd sentence).
Final Action 7.
The Examiner relied upon a combination of references and not solely
upon Ahn to reject claims 3 and 8. However, Appellant did not address the
combination of references with any specificity to identify the alleged error of
the combination of references relied upon by the Examiner. See Appeal
Appeal 2019-005877
Application 15/064,529

8

Brief 20. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record, Appellant has not
persuaded us that the Examiner has erred and therefore we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 3 and 8.

Claims 4 and 9
Appellant argues, “The cited portion of Shimezawa has no relevance
to the claimed features that REs used for transmission of CSI−RS [channel
state information reference signals] are not used for transmission of the
PDCCH as recited in Claim 4.” Appeal Brief 22. Appellant further argues,
“Claim 4 is patentable over the proposed combination of references in its
own right as well as by virtue of its dependency. Similar arguments apply to
dependent Claim 9.” Appeal Brief 23. Appellant concludes, “The rejection
of Claims 4 and 9 under§ 103 as unpatentable over Ahn, Blankenship,
Damnjanovic, Shen, and Shimezawa is clear error.” Appeal Brief 23.
The Examiner finds:
As to claims 4 and 9 the combined teachings of Ahn,
Blankenship, Damnjanovic, Shen and Shimezawa disclose the
base station and the user equipment of claims 1 and 6
respectively wherein REs used for transmission of channel state
information reference signals (CSI−RS), are not used for
transmission of the PDCCH (Shimezawa ¶0140− second to last
sentence− Transmission mode 10).
Final Action 7.
The Examiner relied upon a combination of references and not solely
upon Shimezawa to reject claims 4 and 9. However, Appellant did not
address the combination of references with any specificity to identify the
alleged error of the combination of references relied upon by the Examiner.
See Appeal Brief 23. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record,
Appeal 2019-005877
Application 15/064,529

9

Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred and therefore we
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 9.

Claims 2 and 7
Appellant contends, “Lee only refers to the number of RBs that can be
used to transmit PDCCH” and “Lee is silent as to how the RBs are
structured/located in a set of the six consecutive RBs as recited in the overall
combination of Claim 2.” Appeal Brief 24 (citing Lee ¶ 282). Appellant
argues, “the proposed combination fails to teach or suggest each and
every element recited in Claim 2” and therefore “Claim 2 is patentable over
the proposed combination of references in its own right as well as by virtue
of its dependency. Similar arguments apply to dependent Claim 7.” Appeal
Brief 25.
The Examiner finds:
As to claim 2 and 7 the combined teachings of Ahn,
Blankenship, Damnjanovic, Shen and Shimezawa discloses the
base station of Claim 1, however neither inventors explicitly
recite where: the first RB and the second RB are a first two RBs
of the six consecutive RBs, and the third RB, the fourth RB, the
fifth RB, and the sixth RB are a last four RBs of the six
consecutive RBs. However in an analogous art Lee remedies this
deficiency.
Final Action 8 (citing Lee ¶282).
The Examiner relied upon a combination of references and not solely
upon Lee to reject claims 2 and 7. However, Appellant did not address the
combination of references with any specificity to identify the alleged error of
the combination of references relied upon by the Examiner. See Appeal
Brief 23−25. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record, Appellant has
Appeal 2019-005877
Application 15/064,529

10

not persuaded us that the Examiner has erred and therefore we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 7.

CONCLUSION
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3−6,
8−10
103 Ahn, Blankenship,
Damnjanovic,
Shen, Shimezawa
1, 3−6, 8−10
2, 7 103 Ahn, Blankenship,
Damnjanovic,
Shen, Shimezawa,
Lee
2, 7
Overall
Outcome
1−10

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED