Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 15, 2022

2022000089 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2022)

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. 16/023,798 06/29/2018 Sang Soo JEONG 0203-0488-4 7662 68103 7590 02/15/2022 Jefferson IP Law, LLP 1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420 Washington, DC 20036 EXAMINER HU, RUI MENG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2643 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/15/2022 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): usdocketing@jeffersonip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SANG SOO JEONG and SOENG HUN KIM ________________ Appeal 2022-000089 Application 16/023,798 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 7, 13, 19, 31-34, 36-39, 41-44, and 46-49, which are all the claims pending in this application.1 Claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-18, 20-30, 35, 40, 45, and 50-54 are canceled. Appeal Br. 11-15 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sansung Electronics Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2022-000089 Application 16/023,798 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to a mobile terminal that reports maximum transmission power to a base station to assist in making scheduling decisions. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 illustrates the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A method performed by a terminal in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from a base station, control information for configuring a power headroom (PH) report (PHR) format including a PH field and a maximum transmit power, PCMAX, field; selecting a PCMAX, the PCMAX being equal to or greater than a lowest PCMAX and equal to or less than a highest PCMAX; identifying a PH associated with a transmit power for a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) based on the selected PCMAX; and transmitting, to the base station, a PHR associated with the PHR format based on the control information, the PHR including the PH and the PCMAX. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 7, 13, 19, 32-34, 37-39, 42-44, and 47-49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 2011/0038271 A1; Feb. 17, 2011) and Furuskar (US 2011/0281525 A1; Nov. 17, 2011). Final Act. 4-7. Claims 31, 36, 41, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shin, Furuskar, and Ho (US 2011/0292874 A1; Dec. 1, 2011). Final Act. 7-8. Appeal 2022-000089 Application 16/023,798 3 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds the combination of Shin and Furuskar teaches or suggests “transmitting, to the base station, a PHR associated with the PHR format based on the control information, the PHR including the PH and the PCMAX,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4-5; Ans. 3-10. In particular, the Examiner finds Shin teaches a mobile terminal selects PCMAX based on different transmission conditions. Ans. 5 (citing Shin ¶¶ 122, 126). The mobile terminal then identifies a PH based on the selected PCMAX. Id. (citing Shin ¶¶ 146, 147, 154, 146). Next, the mobile terminal transmits a PHR to the base station, where the PHR includes the PH, but not the PCMAX. Id. (citing Shin ¶¶ 146-148). The Examiner further finds Furuskar teaches a mobile terminal sends PMAX to a base station, and the base station calculates an estimated PH based on PMAX. Ans. 6 (citing Furuskar ¶¶ 87-90). The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan for a mobile terminal to report maximum transmit power, PMAX or PCMAX, to the base station because of the teachings of Furuskar, and because Shin teaches selecting PCMAX, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have reported PCMAX for better accuracy. Id. at 6. Appellant argues the Examiner errs because neither Shin nor Furuskar teaches transmitting a PHR that includes the PH and the PCMAX. See Appeal Br. 4-9; Reply Br. 2-14. In particular, Appellant argues Shin teaches selecting PCMAX, but does not include PCMAX in the transmitted PHR. Appeal Br. 4-5. Appellant argues Furuskar teaches a mobile terminal sends PMAX to the base station, but the transmission is sent when communication is established between the mobile terminal and the base station, not as part of a Appeal 2022-000089 Application 16/023,798 4 PHR. Id. at 6 (citing Furuskar ¶ 88). Appellant also argues Furuskar’s PMAX is different than the claimed PCMAX because PCMAX is a value selected by the mobile terminal between a minimum and maximum value, while PMAX is a fixed value defined based on the type of mobile terminal. Id. at 5-6 (citing Furuskar ¶¶ 3, 35, 88). Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan for a mobile terminal to report maximum transmit power, in particular PCMAX. Ans. 6. The Examiner finds that such transmission would occur during a PHR. Id. But neither reference teaches a mobile terminal sending maximum transmit power to the base station as part of a PHR. To the contrary, Shin teaches the PHR includes PH, which is identified using PCMAX, but Shin does not include PCMAX in the PHR. Shin ¶¶ 146-148. Furuskar does not teach transmitting PCMAX or PMAX as part of a PHR. Furuskar ¶ 88. Instead, Furuskar teaches transmitting PMAX when communication is established between the mobile terminal and base station. Id. Accordingly, the Examiner’s findings rely on speculation that is not supported by the combined teachings of the references. On the record before us, and for these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 7, 13, and 19, which recite commensurate subject matter, for the same reasons. We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 32-34, 37-39, 42-44, and 47-49 for the same reasons. Claims 31, 36, 41, and 46 stand rejected as unpatentable over Shin, Furuskar, and Ho. Final Act. 7-8. The Examiner does not find that Ho cures Appeal 2022-000089 Application 16/023,798 5 the above-identified deficiency. See id. Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 31, 36, 41, and 46 for the same reasons. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 7, 13, 19, 32-34, 37- 39, 42-44, 47-49 103 Shin, Furuskar 1, 7, 13, 19, 32-34, 37- 39, 42-44, 47-49 31, 36, 41, 46 103 Shin, Furuskar, Ho 31, 36, 41, 46 Overall Outcome 1, 7, 13, 19, 31-34, 36- 39, 41-44, 46-49 REVERSED