Yang, Tao et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 4, 2020

14345866 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2020)

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.
14/345,866 03/19/2014 Tao Yang LUTZ 201796US01 7531
48116 7590 02/04/2020
FAY SHARPE/NOKIA
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
EXAMINER
PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2020 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):
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
docketing@faysharpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte TAO YANG and SEAU SIAN LIM
__________________

Appeal 2019-004866
Application 14/345,866
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 8, 10, 11, 17, and 19. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Alcatel Lucent as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 1) and as
being a wholly owned subsidiary of Nokia Oy (Reply Br. 2).
Appeal 2019-004866
Application 14/345,866

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s claimed invention “relates to carrier aggregation-based
wireless communication and particularly to a method of configuring a timing
advance group and/or a value of a time alignment timer.” Spec. 1:5–7.
8. A base station, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code;
the at least one memory and the computer program code
configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the base
station at least to perform:
transmitting the value of the time alignment timer toward
a user equipment via a radio resource control message;
determining whether a secondary cell is a first secondary
cell for which the base station configures a timing advance
group or the secondary cell is added to an existing timing
advance group;
if the secondary cell is determined to be the first
secondary cell for which the base station configures the timing
advance group, configuring the value of the time alignment
timer for the secondary cell; and
if the secondary cell is determined to be added to an
existing timing advance group, reconfiguring an existing time
alignment timer value of a secondary cell belonging to the
timing advance group with a time alignment timer value already
configured for the timing advance group.

REJECTIONS
Claims 8, 10, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jiang (US 2012/0282969 A1, pub. Nov. 8, 2012) and Jang
(US 2012/0257570 A1, pub. Oct. 11, 2012).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Park (US 2010/0284376 A1, pub. Nov. 11, 2010) and Boström (US 2012/
0281680 A1, pub. Nov. 8, 2012).
Appeal 2019-004866
Application 14/345,866

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 8, 10, 11, and 19 Rejected Over Jiang and Jang
Claims 8, 11, and 19
Appellant argues claims 8, 11, and 19 as a group. Appeal Br. 5–9.
We select claim 8 as representative and address Appellant’s arguments for
dependent claim 10 separately. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). For claim 8, the
Examiner cites Jiang to teach a base station (eNodeB 12, Fig. 12) used to
determine whether a secondary cell is a first secondary cell for which the
base station configures a timing advance group (TAG), or the secondary cell
is added to an existing TAG. Final Act. 5 (citing, e.g., Jiang ¶ 84, Fig. 6).
The Examiner finds that Jiang configures an identifier for the secondary cell
if it is the first secondary cell for which the base station configures a TAG,
or the base station reconfigures existing parameters of a secondary cell with
parameters for the existing TAG if the secondary cell is added to an existing
TAG, e.g., because it matches the timing advance of that TAG. Id. at 5–6.
The Examiner cites Jang to teach a processor, memory, and computer
program code used in a base station to transmit a time alignment time (TAT)
value and TAG configuration to user equipment via a radio resource control
message if its secondary cell is added as a new TAG, and to reconfigure an
existing TAT value of a UE’s secondary cell with the TAT value of an
existing TAG if the secondary cell is added to the existing TAG. Id. at 6–7.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan to modify Jiang to manage and operate time alignment timers (TATs)
of its timing advance groups (TAGs) to manage uplink timings efficiently
and comply with industry standard LTE, as Jang teaches, including the RRC
protocols as Jiang teaches. Id. at 7 (citing Jiang ¶ 5 and Jang ¶ 3).
Appeal 2019-004866
Application 14/345,866

4
Appellant argues that Jiang does not teach the following limitation:
if the secondary cell is determined to be added to an existing
timing advance group, reconfiguring an existing time alignment
timer value of a secondary cell belonging to the timing advance
group with a time alignment timer value already configured for
the timing advance group.

Appeal Br. 52; Reply Br. 2–3. This argument is not persuasive because the
Examiner combines the teachings of Jiang and Jang to establish obviousness.
See In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.”).
Jiang teaches a base station that determines if a secondary cell should
be configured as a new TAG or reconfigured and added to an existing TAG
of a base station. Final Act. 2, 5–6. Jang teaches how a timing alignment
timer is configured/reconfigured in both of Jiang’s two scenarios. Id. at 6–7.
Appellant also argues that Jang does not cure Jiang’s alleged defect.
Appeal Br. 5. In particular, Appellant argues that Jang’s teachings to set a
time alignment timer (TAT) of the respective TAGs to the same or different
values does not teach the claimed reconfiguration of an existing TAT value
with a TAT value already configured for the TAG. Id. at 6; Reply Br. 3–4.
Appellant acknowledges that Jiang reconfigures a secondary cell of
user equipment (UE), i.e., component carrier (CC), when it adds a CC to an
existing TA group by sending a TA group identifier (TAG ID) to the UE as
an attribute parameter in an RRC reconfiguration message. Reply Br. 2–3
(citing Jiang ¶ 60); see Final Act. 6 (citing Jiang ¶ 60). The Examiner finds
that Jiang does not address how the TAT value is reconfigured. Final Act. 6.

2 Appellant cites a similar limitation in claim 19. See Appeal Br. 5.
Appeal 2019-004866
Application 14/345,866

5
The Examiner cites Jang to teach this feature. Jang teaches that a base
station transmits a TAT value to a particular UE based on the TAG of that
certain UE in an RCC message, and the UE receives the TAT value for that
respective TAG from the base station (eNB). Jang ¶¶ 92, 125; Final Act. 6–
7 (citing id.). “[T]he UE receives an RRC message carrying the carrier
configuration for aggregation, TAG configuration, and TAT values of the
respective TAGs from the eNB at step 703.” Jang ¶ 92 (emphasis added).
Because Jang teaches that the base station (eNB) configures carrier
aggregation for the UE with TAG information of secondary cells (SCells) to
be aggregated and the TAT value for each TAG through RRC layer message
603, the Examiner reasons correctly that a skilled artisan would understand
that a base station assigns a TAT value to a UE that is added to an existing
TAG with the TAG configuration. Jang ¶¶ 46–53, 92; see Ans. 6–7. Jang
thus configures all UEs in a TAG with the same TAT value.
Jiang teaches that base stations add new UEs to an existing TA group
(TAG) by configuring the newly-added UE with the TAG ID of the existing
TA group via an RRC message. Jiang ¶¶ 39, 60, 85. Jang adds a UE to an
existing TA group by configuring the UE with the TAG configuration, which
includes the TAG ID and timing advance (TA) of that TAG as Jiang teaches,
and Jang also teaches to include the TAT value of that TAG for the newly-
added UE. The eNB sends this data. Jang ¶¶ 58, 59, 92; Final Act. 7.
Skilled artisans would understand these teachings to mean that adding
UEs to TAGs would reconfigure/replace their current TAT value, e.g., from
a previous TAG, with the TAT value of the TAG to which they are added as
recited in claim 8. See Spec. 10 (when a UE is added to a TAG, its existing
TAT value is replaced with the TAT value of the TAG to which it is added).
Appeal 2019-004866
Application 14/345,866

6
Finite options exist for configuring the TAG ID and TAT value of a
UE that is added to a TAG by a base station. If the UE previously belonged
to another TAG, then its TAG ID and TAT value from the previous TAG are
reconfigured with a TAG ID and TAT value of the TAG to which it is added
by a base station. Jiang ¶¶ 34–39, 45, 46, 59, 60, Fig. 2; Jang ¶¶ 92, 93.
The teachings of Jiang and Jang are clear on this point. LTE protocol
assigns TAG IDs and TAT values to a UE when it is added to a TAG. When
the eNB transmits TA information in TAC MAC CE or RAR messages for a
UE’s initial access, the UE starts a TAT when TA information is received to
verify the validity of the TA (timing advance). Jang ¶¶ 47, 48, 54, 97.
If a UE does not match up with an existing TAG, then Jiang and Jang
make clear that the UE is given its own TAG ID and TAT value instead of a
TAG ID and TAT value of an existing TAG. Jiang ¶¶ 39 (“otherwise, a new
TA group identifier is allocated for the added CC” if a UE carrier CC does
not belong to a CC band already configured by ENodeB); 59 (if TAs of CCs
fall outside the range of TAs of existing TA Groups, “it is considered that
these CCs do not belong to a TA group”), 128 (dNodeB “reallocates a new
TA group”); Jang ¶ 125 (carrier aggregation processor 1211 configures the
carrier aggregation and TAT value per the TAG of a certain UE).
A UE starts a TAT when TA information is received to verify the TA
information’s validity. Jang ¶¶ 48, 54. Thus, configuring a UE with a TAG
ID requires its TAT value to be reconfigured for the TA information that is
received, whether the UE receives an existing TAG ID or a new TAG ID.
The Examiner correctly finds that the Specification does not define
“reconfiguring” an existing TAT value and reasons that “reconfiguring” can
include any change in a configuration value, e.g., a TAT value. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2019-004866
Application 14/345,866

7
The Specification describes that “another issue is how to reconfigure a
TAT value of the TA group.” Spec. 10 (emphasis added). The Specification
continues that “a TAT shall be started or restarted when a user equipment
receives a TA or a TAC.” Id. Jang teaches such a reconfiguration of a TAT
value as “[i]f the TA information is received, the UE starts a time alignment
timer (timeAlignmentTimer or TAT).” Jang ¶ 48 (“The TAT is a timer for
verifying the validity of the TA.”). Jang’s description of the TAT operation
also corresponds to the Specification’s description that “a TAT value shall
be preconfigured before the user equipment obtains the TA.” Spec. 10.
Jang thus “reconfigur[es] an existing time alignment timer value” as
claimed by changing TAT values of UEs moving among TAGs. Jang ¶¶ 49
(TAT restarts), 54 (start a TAT for the TAG), 58 (TAT value per TAG), 59
(TATs of respective TAG set to same or different values). Because UE’s
receive new TAT values as they move among TA groups, reconfigured TAT
values are suggested as well, e.g., the TAT value of a UE moving from one
TAG to another TAG is reconfigured by eNB. Id. ¶¶ 92, 113, 125; Ans. 6.
Jiang and Jang also determine whether a UE is a first secondary cell
for which the base station configures a TA group, or is added to an existing
TA group (as discussed in detail above). See Appeal Br. 6–7. Jiang makes
clear that adding an uplink carrier CC for a UE to a base station eNodeB
results in allocation of a new TA group ID for the added CC if the added CC
does not belong to the same band as a CC that is currently configured by
eNodeB. Jiang ¶¶ 39, 59, 128. Jang starts a second TAT if TA information
of a second group, different than a primary cell, is received. Jang ¶¶ 9, 10,
92, 113. A controller starts a first TAT for a first group and a first cell, and a
second TAT for a second group when TA information is received. Id. ¶ 113.
Appeal 2019-004866
Application 14/345,866

8
These interrelated teachings of Jiang and Jang regarding adding a new
UE (CC) and secondary cell that do not match an existing TAG as a new TA
group with a new TAT value provide motivation for the combination. See
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
The Examiner also explains where Jang teaches a carrier aggregation
processor 1211 and controller 1209 that configure carrier aggregation, TAG,
and TAT value for a certain UE. Final Act. 6. Appellant’s arguments that
Jiang and Jang do not teach a processor and memory with computer code
configured to perform the functions recited in claim 8 (Appeal Br. 6–8) do
not address the Examiner’s findings in the Office Action as discussed above.
We thus are unpersuaded of Examiner error. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(the Appeal Brief “shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of
rejection contested by appellant”); In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (noting the Board’s long-standing practice under its rules “to
require an applicant to identify the alleged error in an examiner’s rejections”
and holding “[m]oreover, even assuming that the examiner had failed to
make a prima facie case, the Board would not have erred in framing the
issue as one of ‘reversible error.’”). We agree that Jang teaches the claimed
base station components. Jang ¶¶ 124–26, Fig. 12; see Final Act. 6.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 8 and claims 11 and 19, which
fall therewith.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites that the base station determines whether all of the
secondary cells in the timing advance group of the secondary cell are
released and releases a configuration of the time alignment timer if all of the
secondary cells are released. Appeal Br. 12–13 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-004866
Application 14/345,866

9
The Examiner correctly finds that Jang deactivates SCells belonging
to a corresponding TAG when the TAT for a UE expires. Jang ¶ 126 (citing
Fig. 8 embodiment); Final Act. 8 (citing id.). Jang teaches that “[i]f the TAT
[of a group] expires, it is regarded that the TA information is no longer valid
such that the UE cannot transmit data on the corresponding carriers before
receiving new TA information from the eNB.” Jang ¶ 54.
The Examiner reasons that the expiration of a TAT of a TAG results
in the release of that TAT, as claimed, because:
In the same sentence, Jang describes the TAT expiring. Here,
the TAT expires because it is no longer the correct TAT (not
simply that the timer has hit zero, but that the timer needs a new
starting value). One of ordinary skill in the art would
appreciate that a TAT expiring means that it is released.

Ans. 9; In re Berg, 320 F.3d 1310, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“As persons
of scientific competence in the fields in which they work, examiners
and administrative patent judges are responsible for making findings,
informed by their scientific knowledge, as to the meaning of prior art
references to persons of ordinary skill in the art and the motivation
those references would provide to such persons. Absent legal error or
contrary factual evidence, those findings can establish a prima facie
case of obviousness.”).
In response, Appellant argues that “just because a time expires does
not necessarily mean that it is released. More importantly, Jang paragraph
0126 does not suggest releasing a configuration of a time alignment timer
specifically in response to a determination that all secondary cells are
released.” Reply Br. 9–10 (“nothing . . . [in] Appellant’s own specification
suggests that a timer expiring is another term for releasing a timer.”).
Appeal 2019-004866
Application 14/345,866

10
The Examiner has the better position. Appellant does not dispute that
Jang’s deactivation of the SCells belong to the corresponding TAG results in
all secondary cells in the timing advance group of the secondary cell being
released as recited in claim 10. See Reply Br. 9 (arguing that even if Jang’s
deactivation of the SCells corresponds to the claimed determination that all
secondary cells in the timing advance group are released, Jang, para. 126
still does not suggest releasing a configuration of the time alignment timer);
see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365.
In Jang, when a TAT expires in a TAG, the UE stops uplink data
transmission in all cells in the TAG and “delivers the PUCCH/SRS resource
release indication to the RRC layer at steps 811.” Jang ¶ 98 (emphasis
added). “If the TAT expires, it is regarded that the TA information is no
longer valid such that the UE cannot transmit data on the corresponding
carriers before receiving new TA information from the eNB.” Id. ¶ 54.
As discussed above, with new TA information comes a new TAT value
for a UE or carrier cell. See id. ¶¶ 58, 97, 104–06. In addition, Jang teaches:
[107] When the STAG TAT expiration is notified to the eNB
as shown in the embodiment 2-2 of FIG. 8, the eNB receives
the RRC message informing of the STAG TAT expiration from
the UE at step 1011.
[108] The eNB may perform the procedure for deactivating the
corresponding SCell or releases the resource allocated to the
SCell by transmitting an RRC message at step 1013.

Id. ¶¶ 107, 108. Therefore, SCells belonging to a TAG are deactivated and
released if a TAT for the TAG expires. If the TAT for a TAG expires and
all of the SCells in that TAG are released, the TAT, whose raison d’etre is
to ensure validity of TA information for the cells in that TAG, is released
along with the other resources allocated to those SCells and that TAG.
Appeal 2019-004866
Application 14/345,866

11
These teachings of Jang also correspond to the description of this
claimed subject matter in Appellant’s Specification. The Specification
discloses “the following principles shall be observed as to when to provide
or release a TAT value to a TA group including only Scells.” Spec. 10.
Under a third principle, both the user equipment and base
station release a TAT configuration via either explicit or
implicit signaling if a last Scell in a group is released, where the
signaling means that the base station transmits the signaling and
then the user equipment releases the TAT configuration in
response to the received signaling from the base station; and the
implicit signaling means an automatic release by the user
equipment.

Id. As discussed above, Jang delivers a resource release indication to the
RRC layer “when all of the TATs expire” and the resources provided in an
RRC message to a UE include carrier configuration for the aggregation,
TAG configuration, and TAT values of the respective TAGs from the eNB.
Id. ¶ 97, Fig. 8. If a TAT expires, SCell resources are released. Id. ¶ 108.
New TA information must be sent before a UE can transmit. Id. ¶ 54. The
uplink of a UE to the eNB must be reset after a TAT expires, and Jang resets
the link by transmitting new TA information for the SCells with a new TAT
value. Id. ¶¶ 49, 54, 59, 60, 63–73, 97–111, Figs. 8–10.3 Thus, an expired
TAT is “released” and a new TAT value is received with TA information.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 10.

3 Boström, which is discussed below in the next rejection, provides evidence
that it is known for a UE to maintain one TAT per serving cell or at least one
timer (TAT) per group of serving cells that are expected to share a common
TA value. Boström ¶ 53. SCells are assumed to be unsynchronized when
the TAT expires, and an eNB may decide not to keep de-activated SCells in
a synchronized state. See Id. ¶¶ 49, 54, 59.
Appeal 2019-004866
Application 14/345,866

12
Claim 17 Rejected Over Park and Boström
Independent claim 17 recites steps of transmitting a TAT value in a
media access control (MAC) layer signal and using a logic channel identifier
to identify the MAC layer control element that identifies the TAT value and
the corresponding TAG. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). Furthermore, in
response to determining that the secondary cell is added to an existing TAG,
the existing TAT value of a secondary cell is reconfigured with a TAT value
already configured for the TAG. Id.
The Examiner finds that Park teaches the first set of limitations and
Boström teaches the reconfiguration of the secondary cell with a TAT value
of the TAG. Final Act. 11–13. Appellant’s arguments that Boström does
not teach identification of a TAG by a MAC layer control element identified
using a logical channel identifier (Appeal Br. 10) are not persuasive because
the Examiner has relied on Park to teach these features. Final Act. 11–12.
Appellant’s argument that Park does not teach a MAC control element
that identifies a TAG also is not persuasive because it does not address the
findings of the Examiner in this regard. Appeal Br. 10 (citing Park ¶ 39).
The Examiner correctly finds that Park teaches a base station (eNB)
that transmits a timing advance command (TAC) to a UE to maintain uplink
timing alignment and the UE applies the TAC and starts a TAT when the
TAC is received. Park ¶ 39 (cited in Final Act. 11). Park also transmits a
timer value (TAT value) from a base station (eNB) to a terminal (UE) via a
MAC signal with a logic channel ID in the MAC control element, and the
timer value corresponds to the claimed TAT. Id. (cited in Final Act. 12).
Appellant’s arguments do not address these teachings of Park or the findings
of the Examiner and thus do not identify error. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-004866
Application 14/345,866

13
Park teaches that a terminal (UE) receives a timing advance command
(TAC), which corresponds to the claimed Timing Advance Group to which
the UE is added, and a TAT value for a particular cell that is granted access
to the network by the base station through system information, and starts the
TAT. Park ¶ 14. The time advance command (TAC) refers to the adjustable
time alignment (TA) value discussed above that is given to a TA group. Id.
¶ 13. The TAC from the base station is only valid for a certain time duration
that is set by the TAT. Id. The received TAT is started when a UE receives
the TAC from the base station. Id. ¶ 14. The TA value and TAT value are
transmitted from the base station to the UE via a MAC signal and control
element and logical channel ID included in the MAC header as the Examiner
correctly finds. Id. ¶ 39 (cited in Final Act. 12). Appellant’s argument that
Boström does not teach a TAG identified by a MAC layer control element
using a logical channel identifier (Reply Br. 10) does not address Park’s
teachings cited by the Examiner and thus does not apprise us of error.
Park updates individual UEs to receive a TAC based on their distance
from the center of the cell. Park ¶¶ 12, 13, 39. Boström teaches UEs in “a
grouping concept [so that] a TA command might only contain one value per
group, while for an individual TA update, the TA command might include
one value per activated serving cell” (Boström ¶ 52 (emphasis added), and a
UE has one TAT per serving cell or one timer per group of serving cells that
share a common TA value (id. ¶ 53). Jiang and Jang provide background
evidence that a skilled artisan would understand the teachings of Park and
Boström to mean that UEs can be configured as single serving cells or added
to TAGs that share the same TA value as discussed above for the previous
rejection. See Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Appeal 2019-004866
Application 14/345,866

14
The Examiner correctly relies on Park to teach TAT values in a MAC
layer signal with logical channel identifier and Boström to teach one timer
(TAT) per TAG (group that shares a TA value) as claimed. Ans. 9–10; Final
Act. 11. Merely reciting a claim limitation and arguing that the prior art
does not teach that particular limitation, without any further analysis, does
not apprise us of Examiner error. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Jung, 637
F.3d at 1365; see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(holding that the Board reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(predecessor to § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)) to require “more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”).
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 17.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference/Basis Affirmed Reversed
8, 10, 11, 19 103(a) Jiang, Jang 8, 10, 11, 19
17 103(a) Park, Boström 17
Overall
Outcome
8, 10, 11, 17,
19

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)(iv).
AFFIRMED