Yoshihiko Ogawa et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 28, 2020

15356236 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 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.
15/356,236 11/18/2016 Yoshihiko Ogawa 733456.404C7 5817
96896 7590 02/28/2020
Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panasonic
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
Seattle, WA 98104
EXAMINER
FOTAKIS, ARISTOCRATIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2633
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2020 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):
USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com
pairlinkdktg@seedip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOSHIHIKO OGAWA, DAICHI IMAMURA,
SADAKI FUTAGI, and TOMOFUMI TAKATA
Appeal 2018-002285
Application 15/356,236
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–22, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Panasonic
Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-002285
Application 15/356,236

2
BACKGROUND
The Claimed Invention
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to mobile communications, and
specifically, to a “sequence assignment method” for an uplink reference
signal in mobile communications. Spec. 1. As the Specification describes,
the maximum transmission power of a mobile station is “limited in uplink,
and therefore, when the cell radius is long, [in order to] obtain the accuracy
of desired channel estimation, it is necessary to transmit a reference signal
and data in narrowband.” Id. 3 (emphasis added). The claimed invention
facilitates determining “a sequence group assigned to a cell from a large
number of sequence groups,” such as in cases where reference signals are
transmitted in narrow bands,” and “reduce[s] interference between different
cells.” Id. 4. The invention does so, according to the Specification, by
grouping Zadoff-Chu sequences “into a plurality of sequence groups
according to transmission bandwidth for reference signals, so that it is
possible to increase the number of sequence groups by reducing the number
of sequences included in a sequence group[].” Id. (emphasis added).
Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows (with
disputed limitation emphasized):
1. A device, comprising:
a receiver, which, in operation, receives control
information related to a sequence, the sequence being within
one of a first group and a second group, the first group being
divided into first subgroups each including a first number of
one or more of first sequences, the second group being divided
into second subgroups each including a second number of one
or more of second sequences, the first sequences and the second
Appeal 2018-002285
Application 15/356,236

3
sequences having different lengths, and the first number being
different from the second number; and
a transmitter, which, in operation, transmits a reference
signal using the sequence based on the control information.
Appeal Br. 35 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
References
The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
3GPP TSG RAN WG1
LTE Ad Hoc R1-061676
(“NPL ’676,” )
Multiplexing Method
for Orthogonal
Reference Signals for
E-UTRA Uplink
Pub. June 30, 2006
3GPP TSG RAN WG1
LTE Ad Hoc R1-061678
(“NPL ’678”)
Pilot Sequence
Allocation Method in
E-UTRA Uplink
Pub. June 30, 2006
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 4 and 15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. ¶ 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Final Act. 2–3.
Claims 1–22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over NPL ’676 and NPL ’678. Final Act. 4–9.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have
made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). On the record before us, Appellant has not persuaded us
of error regarding the Examiner’s written description rejection. As to that
rejection, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
Appeal 2018-002285
Application 15/356,236

4
rejection from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer, and
we provide the following discussion for highlighting and emphasis. As to
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, however, Appellant has persuaded us
of error for the reasons set forth below.
Rejection Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding that the limitation
“length of the first sequences is greater than or equal to a threshold value
[and] length of the second sequences is less than the threshold value,” as
recited in dependent claims 4 and 15, fails to satisfy the written description
requirement. Specifically, Appellant argues that the following passages in
the Specification adequately describe the disputed limitation:
For example, in cases where transmission bandwidths for
reference signals are narrower than a threshold value,
5 the table in FIG. 3 may be used, and, meanwhile, in cases
where transmission bandwidths for reference signals are wider
than a threshold value, the number of virtual sequences
included in one virtual sequence group may increase.
. . . Further, generally, the sequence length is longer when
transmission bandwidths are wider, and therefore, setting the
number of virtual sequences included in a virtual sequence
group according to the transmission bandwidths for reference
signals equals setting the number of virtual sequences included
in a virtual sequence group according to the sequence length of
a reference signal.
Spec. 7, 17; Appeal Br. 32.
Appellant’s argument, however, is not persuasive because, as the
Examiner finds, the foregoing passages in the Specification describe
comparing transmission bandwidth to a threshold value, not comparing
sequence length to a threshold value, as claims 4 and 15 recite. Ans. 8–9. In
the Final Action, the Examiner finds that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art
Appeal 2018-002285
Application 15/356,236

5
would know that a sequence length is not the same as a transmission
bandwidth.” Final Act. 9. Although the Specification implies a relationship
between bandwidth and sequence length, the Examiner finds that the
Specification’s use of these two separate terms means that they do not
represent the same thing. Id. In our view, these findings are supported by
the record. Spec. 4, 7, 17. Appellant has not presented any evidence or
persuasive argument to rebut them.
Appellant argues that bandwidth and sequence length are
interchangeable terms, because the Specification describes that “setting
. . . virtual sequence group according to transmission bandwidths
. . . equals setting . . . virtual sequences . . . according to the sequence
length.” Spec. 17 (emphasis added); Appeal Br. 13. The statement
Appellant quotes, however, is not the same as the disputed limitation, which
requires comparing sequence lengths to a threshold value. Without any
additional evidence presented by Appellant, we conclude the Examiner did
not err in finding one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand
Appellant to be in possession of the claimed subject matter of claims 4 and
15.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 15
as failing to satisfy the written description requirement.

Rejection Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests a sequence within a “first group” or “second group,” each being
divided into “subgroups” of sequences having “different lengths,” as recited
in claim 1. Appeal Br. 28–30; Reply Br. 3–6. Specifically, Appellant
Appeal 2018-002285
Application 15/356,236

6
argues that NPL ’676, the only reference the Examiner relies on for the
disputed limitation, does not teach anything about “subgroups.” Id. 29.
Rather, according to Appellant, NPL ’676 only describes the multiplexing of
channels, which necessarily decreases the number of sequences. Id. 30. For
the reasons set forth below, we agree with Appellant’s argument that, on this
record, the Examiner has not sufficiently identified or explained how NPL
’676 teaches or suggests the recited “subgroups” with different sequence
“lengths” in claim 1.
The Examiner relies exclusively on Figure 2 of NPL ’676 (and its
corresponding description) as teaching the disputed limitation. Final Act. 4–
5; Ans. 3–5. Figure 2 is reproduced below.

Figure 2 illustrates “distributed FDM [frequency division multiplexing]
. . . used for uplink pilot multiplexing,” and includes an “example of the
number of CAZAC [constant amplitude zero auto-correlation] sequences as
a function of the number of orthogonal pilot channels, L.” NPL ’676 at 2.
According to the table of Figure 2, for example, one orthogonal pilot
channel (L=1) results in 150 CAZAC sequences, but when eight orthogonal
pilot channels (L=8) are multiplexed using distributed FDM, the number of
CAZAC sequences decreases to 8. Id.
Appeal 2018-002285
Application 15/356,236

7
The Examiner finds:
Figure 2 shows a list of CAZAC lengths and a number of
CAZAC sequences for L orthogonal pilot channels. In Page 2,
R1-061676 discloses that the number of CAZAC sequences
decreases according to the increase in the number of orthogonal
pilots. The length of the CAZAC sequence becomes NSB / L
and this short sequence is repeated L times in the time domain.
Therefore, when L=2, the CAZAC sequence becomes NSB / L =
150/2 = 72 and this short sequence is repeated L times (L=2) in
the time domain, having 2 short sequences of 72 (2 subgroups).
Therefore, the list shows of 6 groups, each group containing a
number of subgroups depending on L.

Ans. 3–4 (citing NPL ’676 at 2). The Examiner further explains that “for the
third group shown in Fig. 2, when L=4, the CAZAC sequence becomes NSB /
L = 150/4 = 36 and this short sequence is repeated L times in the time
domain, having 4 short sequences of 36 (4 subgroups).” Id. 4.
As Appellant argues, however, the Examiner’s mapping of “groups”
and “subgroups” from Figure 2 to claim 1 appears to be redundant or
circular, at least as described on this record. For instance, regarding the
foregoing example when L = 4 (i.e., four orthogonal pilot channels), the
Examiner appears to find that these four channels correspond both to the
claimed “group” and the claimed “subgroup.” See supra. In other words,
the Examiner refers to L = 4 as the “third group,” but also finds that it means
there are “4 short sequences of 36 (4 subgroups).” Ans. 4 (emphases
added); see supra.
Appellant further argues, and we agree on this record, that there “is no
indication that the 36 sequences when L = 4 [in Figure 2] are divided into
subgroups.” Reply Br. 5. For example, Figure 2 does not indicate that the
36 sequences when L =4 are divided into subgroups of 6 sequences, or 9
Appeal 2018-002285
Application 15/356,236

8
sequences, or similarly that there are subgroups of sequences for any other
number of orthogonal pilot channels. Id.
To the extent the Examiner is relying on some other manner of
mapping Figure 2 to the elements of claim 1, we simply cannot discern it
from the findings and explanation on the record before us.2 Accordingly, on
this record, we are compelled to conclude that Appellant has persuaded us of
error regarding the obviousness rejection.
We, therefore, cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1.
For the same reasons, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of
independent claim 12, which recites the same disputed limitation as claim 1,
nor can we sustain the rejection of the remaining claims, all of which depend
(directly or indirectly) from claim 1 or claim 12.
SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–22 103 NPL ’676, NPL
’678
1–22
4, 15 112, ¶1 4, 15
Overall
Outcome
4, 15 1–3, 5–14,
16–22

2 In the event of further prosecution, we also note that the record cursorily
states that the reason for combining the references was “effective pilot
sequence allocation.” Final Act. 5. We direct Appellant’s and the
Examiner’s attention to KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.”).
Appeal 2018-002285
Application 15/356,236

9

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4 and 15.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 5–14, and
16–22.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART