Alcatel Lucent

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 23, 2021

2020005413 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 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.
15/513,310 03/22/2017 Shin Horng Wong LUTZ 202221US01 5781
48116 7590 11/23/2021
FAY SHARPE/NOKIA
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
EXAMINER
MAK, PETER K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2413
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2021 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):
docketing@faysharpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHIN HORNG WONG, SEAU SIAN LIM,
YU CHEN, and MATTHEW BAKER

Appeal 2020-005413
Application 15/513,310
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject the claims. 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
Alcatel Lucent. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-005413
Application 15/513,310

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner rejected claims 1–20 in the Final Action as follows:
Claims 7, 11–13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by
Nguyen et al. (US 2015/0230249 A1, published Aug. 13, 2015) (“Nguyen”).
Final Act. 6.
Claims 1–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Nguyen and
Papasakellariou et al. (US 2014/0328260 A1, published Nov. 6, 2014)
(“Papasakellariou”). Final Act. 13.
Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Nguyen,
Papasakellariou, and Seo et al. (US 2015/0092690 A1, published Apr. 2,
2015) (“Seo”). Final Act. 18.
Claims 8–10, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Nguyen and Yi et al. (US 2016/0309470 A1, published Oct. 20, 2016)
(“Yi”). Final Act. 20.
Claims 16–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Nguyen,
Papasakellariou, and Yi. Final Act. 25.
Independent claims 7 and 1 are reproduced below (annotated with
bracketed numbers for reference to the recited limitations):
7. A method for data transmission in a base station, the base
station being for transmitting data to a plurality of machine type
communication device terminals, comprising:
[1] performing the following when the base station
transmits a first portion of a data transmission in a cell common
message to the plurality of machine type communication device
terminals:
[1a] transmitting first indication information from
the base station to the plurality of machine type communication
device terminals via an EPDCCH on a first resource block,
wherein the first indication information indicates a second
resource block for transmitting the first portion of the data
Appeal 2020-005413
Application 15/513,310

3
transmission in the cell common message from the base station
via a PDSCH; and
[1b] transmitting the first portion of the data
transmission in the cell common message from the base station
to the plurality of machine type communication device terminals
via the PDSCH on the second resource block; and
[2] performing the following when the base station
transmits a second portion of the data transmission in downlink
data to at least a portion of the plurality of machine type
communication device terminals, the portion of the plurality of
machine type communication device terminals to which the
downlink data in the second portion of the data transmission is
transmitted needing to obtain the second portion of the data
transmission in the downlink data:
[2a] assigning a downlink resource block for each
machine type communication device terminal of the portion of
machine type communication device terminals that need to
obtain the second portion of the data transmission in the
downlink data from the base station;
[2b] transmitting second indication information
from the base station to the portion of machine type
communication device terminals that need to obtain the second
portion of the data transmission in the downlink data via the
EPDCCH on a third resource block,
the second indication information including DCI
information for the machine type communication device
terminals of the portion of machine type communication device
terminals that need to obtain the second portion of the data
transmission in the downlink data from the base station,
respective DCI information indicating the downlink resource
block assigned by the base station to the respective machine type
communication device terminal for receiving the second portion
of the data transmission in the downlink data from the base
station via the PDSCH; and
[2c] transmitting the second portion of the data
transmission in the downlink data from the base station to the
portion of machine type communication device terminals that
need to obtain the second portion of the data transmission in the
Appeal 2020-005413
Application 15/513,310

4
downlink data via the PDSCH on the downlink resource block,
respectively.

1. A method for receiving data transmission in a machine type
communication device terminal, comprising:
[1] performing the following when the machine type
communication device terminal receives a first portion of a data
transmission in a cell common message from a base station:
[1a] receiving first indication information at the
machine type communication device terminal from the base
station via an EPDCCH on [1ai] a first resource block, wherein
the first indication information [1aii] indicates a second resource
block for receiving the first portion of the data transmission in
the cell common message from the base station via a PDSCH;
and
[1b] receiving the first portion of the data
transmission in the cell common message at the machine type
communication device terminal from the base station via the
PDSCH on the second resource block; and
[2] performing the following when the machine type
communication device terminal receives a second portion of the
data transmission in downlink data from the base station:
[2a] receiving second indication information at the
machine type communication device terminal from the base
station via the EPDCCH on [2ai] a third resource block;
[2b] detecting whether DCI information exists in
the second indication information and, if the DCI information
exists, [2bi] decoding identifying information of a fourth
resource block in the detected DCI information for receiving the
second portion of the data transmission in the downlink data from
the base station via the PDSCH; and
[2c] receiving the second portion of the data
transmission in the downlink data at the machine type
communication device terminal from the base station via the
PDSCH on the fourth resource block.

Appeal 2020-005413
Application 15/513,310

5
ANTICIPATION
Claim 7 is directed to a method for transmitting data from a base
station to a plurality of machine type communication device terminals. A
“Machine Type Communication (MTC) device is a user equipment [(UE)]
that is used by a machine for specific application. An example of such an
MTC device is smart meter.” Spec. ¶ 2.
The claim has two main steps, step [1] of transmitting a first portion
of data in a “cell common message” and step [2] of transmitting a second
portion of the data transmission in downlink data.
Step [1] accomplishes the data transmission of the first data portion in
two steps.
The first step [1a] is transmitting a first indication via EPDCCH on a
first block. The first indication indicates a second resource block for
transmitting the first portion on the data transmission. An EPDCCH is an
enhanced physical downlink control channel. Nguyen ¶ 30. The EPDCCH is
mapped to physical resource blocks (PRBs) in the data region of the physical
layer. Spec. ¶ 5; Nguyen ¶ 30.
The second step [1b] is transmitting the first portion of the data
transmission via PDSCH on the second resource block (of the physical
layer) indicated in step [1a]. PDSCH is a physical downlink shared channel.
Step [2] accomplishes the data transmission of the second data portion
in three steps.
The first step [2a] is assigning a downlink resource for each MTC
device terminal block.
The second step [2b] is the base station transmitting a second
indication, via the EPDCCH on a third resource block, to the MTC. The
Appeal 2020-005413
Application 15/513,310

6
second indication includes DCI (downlink control information) indicating
the downlink resource block for receiving the second portion of the data
transmission.
The third step [2c] is the base station transmitting the second portion
of the data transmission in the downlink data via the PDSCH on the
downlink resource block indicated in the step [2b].
To summarize the main limitations of claim 7 for the purpose of this
appeal:
The first step [1] comprises transmitting a first indication that
comprises an indication of the second resource block on which the first
portion of the data transmission is received. The second step comprises
transmitting a second indication that comprises an indication of the
downlink resource block on which the second portion of the data
transmission is received.
Rejection
The Examiner cited Nguyen as anticipating the claim. Final Act. 6.
The Examiner cited various disclosures in Nguyen as disclosing the steps of
the claim, specifically referencing paragraphs 222–226 of Nguyen as
describing steps [1] and [2] of claim 7 as summarized above. Id. ¶¶ 6, 7, 9–
10. Paragraphs 222–226 of Nguyen describe a process shown in the
flowchart depicted in Figure 9a. Figure 9a of Nguyen is reproduced below:

Appeal 2020-005413
Application 15/513,310

7

Figure 9a, reproduced above, is a flowchart of a process conducted by
a wireless base (eNB) station in Nguyen. The process comprises steps 902 to
910. The Examiner summarized the mapping of the claim limitations to the
process in Figure 9a as follows:
As explained in Oct Action, Nguyen [0222-0226] Fig. 9a
clearly describe a method embodying the invention as conducted
by a wireless base station (i.e. eNB). For example, at step 904
and 908, the eNB transmits a control message (i.e. first DCI) (i.e.,
first indication information) within an ePDCCH (i.e., first
resource block) which comprises location information indicating
the location of a data region of subframe within a PDSCH (i.e.,
a second resource block) specially for the MTC US's reception
and demodulation of a MTC-SIB (i.e., cell-common messages)
(i.e., first portion of a data transmission), which is transmitted by
the eNB at step 910). Furthermore, [Para. 0189] as illustrated in
FIG. 5, a ‘common search’ on the ePDCCH 422-a, carrying
control information (DCI) indicating the location within the data
region subframe of PDSCH, 433-a, which carrying MTC-SIB to
enable the MTC device for reception, demodulation and
Appeal 2020-005413
Application 15/513,310

8
decoding of the MTC-SIB. [Para, 0092] the SIB comprising cell
access information and cell selection information, located within
a Broadcast Control Channel (BCCH) of the data region of a
PDSCH (i.e., SIB message comprising cell common message).
Thus, the eNB transmits the first indication information
(i.e., DCI message) within a first resource block (i.e., ePDCCH)
which indicate location information for the transmitting the
MTC-SIB (i.e., first portion of a data transmission in a cell
common message) being broadcasted via the data region of the
PDSCH (i.e., second resource block) to all low-lost MTC devices
under the cell coverage 250 as shown in Fig. 1.
Ans. 8.
The Examiner refers to 904 and 908 of Figure 9a as the “first
indication.” Ans. 8. This finding is somewhat unclear because step [1a] of
the claim recites only one step in which a first indication is transmitted, not
two as indicated by the Examiner. We address each of these steps separately
to determine whether they meet the claim limitation.
Claim 7 recites that the first indication is on a first resource block and
is required by the claim to indicate a “second resource block” for receiving
the first portion of the data transmission. To meet this limitation, the
Examiner identifies the DCI as the “first indication” and the “second
resource block” as the “location information indicating the location of a data
region of subframe within a PDSCH (i.e., second resource block).” Ans. 8.
Step 904, however, is described differently by Nguyen:
At step 904, in order to provide support for a DL-2 option,
the first control message (i.e. first DCI) is duplicated, by a
transmission within a reduced bandwidth of the data region. In
particular, in embodiments of the invention the duplicated DCI
is transmitted within an ePDCCH configured for blind detection
by an MTC UE.
Nguyen ¶ 224.
Appeal 2020-005413
Application 15/513,310

9
The duplicated message is for “blind detection,” which is described by
Nguyen as being done to “eliminate[] signal processing on the full carrier
DL bandwidth for the control channel” and to “streamline[] the signal
processing for MTC within a reduced bandwidth for both control and data
channels.” Nguyen ¶ 210. The Examiner did not explain the relevance of
message duplication and blind detection to the recited “first indication.”
The Examiner’s statement in the Answer about location information
indicating the location of a data region appears in the description of step 902
of Figure 9a of Nguyen. Specifically, Nguyen discloses:
At step 902 the eNB transmits a first control message within the
control region of a subframe, i.e. a first DCI, which identifies a
location of a second control message within the data region of
the subframe, i.e. the SIB 1.
Nguyen ¶ 223.
The mapping by the Examiner to step 904 of the “first indication” is
therefore inconsistent because the description cited by the Examiner for step
904 is actually in step 902 of Figure 9a. Consequently, we shall take step
902 into consideration because that appears to be what the Examiner is
referencing.
In step 902 (“Transmit 1st control message (DCI)”), Nguyen discloses
that the DCI identifies location for a control message “SIB 1” in the data
region of the subframe of the physical layer. Nguyen ¶ 223. The claim
requires that [1b] “the first indication information indicates a second
resource block for transmitting the first portion of the data transmission.”
The Examiner did not provide evidence that the “SIB 1” is a resource block
nor that it is subsequently utilized to transmit the first portion of the data
transmission as required by step [1b] of the claim. An SIB is a system
Appeal 2020-005413
Application 15/513,310

10
information block, which is described by Nguyen paragraphs 25–28 as
having one or more of the following attributes:
[0025] downlink reduced bandwidth information;
[0026] uplink carrier frequency and bandwidth information;
[0027] random access parameters information; and
[0028] frame and subframe configuration information.
The Examiner, in fact, acknowledges that SIB is a message and finds
that it is the first portion of the data transmission. Ans. 7.
For these reasons, we conclude that the Examiner’s finding that step
904, or step 902, is a “first indication” is not supported by a preponderance
of the evidence. See Reply Br. 4–5.
Transmission of a DCI is also described in step 908 (“Transmit 2nd
DCI in ePDCCH”) of Figure 9a of Nguyen, which is also cited by the
Examiner as a “first indication.” Ans. 8. Nguyen discloses:
At step 908, the eNB transmits the second DCI for the
reception of the third control message within a reduced bandwidth
of the data region. In particular, in embodiments of the invention
the second DCI is transmitted within an ePDCCH configured for
blind detection by an MTC UE. The second DCI comprises
location information and control information for the reception and
demodulation of a third control message, i.e. the MTC-SIB, within
a PDSCH of the data region of the subframe, which is transmitted
by the eNB at step 910.
Nguyen ¶ 226.
In Nguyen paragraph 226, step 908 transmits a second DCI, which
“comprises location information and control information for the reception
and demodulation of a third control message, i.e. the MTC-SIB.” The
Examiner did not adequately explain how the information in the second DCI
comprises the resource block for transmitting a first portion of the data
Appeal 2020-005413
Application 15/513,310

11
transmission in step [1b], the latter which the Examiner found to be met by
step 910 of Nguyen.
Even if we find that the DCI of step 908 contains an indication of a
resource allocation, such as a resource block to receive the first portion of
the data transmission (“MTC-SIB”),2 Figure 9a is deficient because the
claim requires both a first and second indication comprising an indication of
a resource block, and only one indication would be met by step 908.
The Examiner also cited Nguyen, paragraph 189, which discloses a
search on ePDSCH carrying an “MTC-SIB” to further bolster the finding
that Figure 9a discloses the claimed “first indication.” Ans. 8. The Examiner
cited Nguyen, paragraph 92, as evidence that the MTC-SIB is cell common
message of step [1] of the claim 7. Ans. 8.
The Examiner found that the “location information for the
transmitting the MTC-SIB (i.e., first portion of a data transmission in a cell
common message)” in the DCI of paragraph 189 contains the resource block
of step [1a] because it is “broadcasted via the data region of the PDSCH.”
Ans. 8. Nguyen, paragraph 190, discloses that information is mapped to
resource blocks (which is how wireless data is transmitted), but there is no
explicit disclosure that the DCI message comprises an indication of the
resource block on which the first portion of data is transmitted. The
Examiner did not provide sufficient evidence that the claim limitation [1] is
met by the disclosures at Nguyen paragraphs 92 and 189 as found in the
Answer at page 8. Thus, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s
explanation is deficient. Reply Br. 5–6.

2 See Nguyen ¶ 63; Yi ¶¶ 53, 83 (a DCI can comprise resource allocation
information).
Appeal 2020-005413
Application 15/513,310

12
For the second step [2], and the second resource block, the Examiner,
in addition to citing step 908 of Figure 9a, further relies on Nguyen,
paragraphs 191 and 216. Ans. 10. We agree with Appellant that these
sections do not explicitly describe “second indication information including
DCI information . . . indicating the downlink resource block assigned by the
base station . . . for receiving the second portion of the data transmission in
the downlink data” as in step [2b] of the claim. See Reply Br. 13.
First, Nguyen, paragraph 191, is an explanation of paragraph 189,
which the Examiner also cited for the first indication. Thus, it is not clear
how this same disclosure can describe both the first and second indications
required by the claim.
Second, Nguyen, paragraph 216, describes generally how a LTE
based MTC device operates, but the Examiner did not explain how this
disclosure relates to the second indication of step [2b].
In general, we are unable to discern from the Examiner’s explanation
where both a first and second indication are described in Nguyen
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Examiner did not
meet the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that
claim 7 is anticipated by Nguyen. The rejection of claim 7 is therefore
reversed. Claims 11–13 and 20 depend from claim 7 and are reversed for the
same reason.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Claim 1 is directed to a method which comprises receiving [1a] first
and [2a] second indications, which comprise resource block information for
[1aii] first and [2bi] data second portions, respectively. The Examiner
rejected claim 1 as obvious in view of Nguyen and Papasakellariou. Final
Appeal 2020-005413
Application 15/513,310

13
Act. 13. The Examiner cited Nguyen for the first and second indications (id.
at 13–15) and Papasakellariou for “if the DCI information exists, [2bi]
decoding identifying information of a fourth resource block in the detected
DCI information for receiving the second portion of [the] data transmission
in the downlink data from the base station via the PDSCH” (id. at 16 (citing
claim 1))
The Examiner cited similar disclosure in Nguyen for the first and
second indications as for claim 7 (Final Act. 13–15), which we have already
discussed and found to be deficient.
The Examiner additionally refers to Figures 9B and 9C of Nguyen.
Final Act. 14. Nguyen, in paragraphs 227–233, describes Figures 9B and 9C,
which disclose DCI messages comprising location information, but no
explicit description of resource blocks contained in the message for
receiving the first and second data portions. To the extent the Examiner
believes the resource blocks are inherent to the messages, the Examiner has
the burden of providing evidence that such DCI messages meet the
corresponding first and second indications recited in the claim. This burden
was not met.
The Examiner also cited Nguyen paragraphs 57–66, 72–78, 202, and
203. Final Act. 14. The Examiner cites these disclosures as disclosing the
first indication indicating a second resource block for receiving the first
portion of data. Id. The Examiner does not explain how these disclosures
meet the recited limitation in the claim. For example, paragraphs 61–63
disclose three different control messages, but the Examiner did not make a
fact-based finding that such messages comprise an indication of a resource
block for receiving a data transmission. The findings are deficient.
Appeal 2020-005413
Application 15/513,310

14
The additionally cited references, Papasakellariou, Seo, and Yi, are
not described by the Examiner as making up for the deficiencies in Nguyen.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Examiner did not
meet the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that
claim 1 is obvious in view of Nguyen and Papasakellariou. The rejection of
claim 1 is therefore reversed. Claims 2–6 depend from claim 1 and are
reversed for the same reasons.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
7, 11–13, 20 102(a)(2) Nguyen 7, 11–13, 20
1–5 103 Nguyen,
Papasakellariou
1–5
6 103 Nguyen,
Papasakellariou,
Seo
6
8–10, 14, 15 103 Nguyen, Yi 8–10, 14, 15
16–19 103 Nguyen,
Papasakellariou, Yi
16–19
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED