Ayako Horiuchi et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 26, 2019

13146608 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2019)

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.
13/146,608 07/27/2011 Ayako Horiuchi 009289-11143 5621
52989 7590 08/26/2019
James Edward Ledbetter
Dickinson Wright PLLC
1825 Eye Street NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
LINDENBAUM, ALAN LOUIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2019 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):
dwpatents@dickinsonwright.com
jledbetter@dickinsonwright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AYAKO HORIUCHI, SEIGO NAKAO,
YASUAKI YUDA, DAICHI IMAMURA, and AKIHIKO NISHIO
____________

Appeal 2018-002094
Application 13/146,608
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JENNIFER S. BISK, JOYCE CRAIG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection
of claims 7–11, 13, 15, and 17–25, i.e., all pending claims. Claims 1–6, 12,
14, and 16 have been canceled. Because the pending claims have been twice
rejected, we have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a). See
Ex parte Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d 1420, 1423 (BPAI 1994) (precedential).
Appellants’ counsel presented arguments at an oral hearing on August 13,
2019.
We affirm.

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Sun Patent Trust.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-002094
Application 13/146,608

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the “invention relates to a base station
apparatus and a transmission method for transmitting a control signal to a
relay station apparatus in time-division relay.” Spec. ¶ 1.2 The Specification
explains that “D is the maximum number of OFDM symbols” inside a
subframe “in which control signals for mobile station apparatuses are
mapped” and that a “base station apparatus maps the control signal for relay
station apparatuses in the (D+l)th OFDM symbol.” Id. at 36 (Abstract); see
id. ¶¶ 25–26.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 7 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as
follows (with formatting added for clarity):
7. A base station apparatus comprising:
mapping circuitry, which, in operation, maps a physical
downlink control channel (PDCCH) for a relay station from a
base station, to a (D+1)-th symbol from a beginning of a
subframe, wherein one or more symbols, which are within D
symbols from the beginning of the subframe and which include
at least a first symbol from the beginning of the subframe, are
used for transmission of a PDCCH for a mobile station from the
base station; and
a transmitter, which, in operation, transmits, to the relay
station, the mapped-PDCCH,

2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed July 27, 2011; “Non-Final Act.” for the Non-Final Office
Action, mailed June 27, 2016; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed
March 14, 2017; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed November 2,
2017; and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed December 19, 2017.
Appeal 2018-002094
Application 13/146,608

3
wherein:
when the number of symbols used for the PDCCH for the
mobile station from the base station is D, the PDCCH for the
relay station from the base station is mapped to the (D+1)th
symbol from the beginning of the subframe;
when the number of symbols used for the PDCCH for the
mobile station from the base station is less than D, the PDCCH
for the relay station from the base station is mapped to the
(D+1)th symbol from the beginning of the subframe; and
the subframe is comprised of a first slot and a second
slot, which are both used for a downlink from the base station
apparatus,
data that is transmitted from the base station
apparatus to the relay station is mapped to only one of the
first slot and the second slot, and
the one or more symbols used for transmission of
the PDCCH for the mobile station from the base station
and the (D+1)-th symbol, to which the PDCCH for the
relay station from the base station is mapped, are
included in the first slot.
App. Br. 15 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Oh et al. (“Oh”) US 2008/0175215 A1 July 24, 2008
Bhattad et al. (“Bhattad”) US 2010/0008282 A1 Jan. 14, 2010
3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #55bis R1-090222, Consideration on
Resource Allocation for Relay Backhaul Link, LG Electronics (Jan. 2009)
(“R1-090222”)
Appeal 2018-002094
Application 13/146,608

4
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Oh and R1-090222. Non-Final Act. 5–12.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Oh, R1-090222, and Bhattad. Non-Final Act. 13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the § 103(a) rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we
concur with the Examiner’s conclusions concerning unpatentability under
§ 103(a). We adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning for the § 103(a)
rejections in the Non-Final Office Action and Answer. See Non-Final
Act. 5–13; Ans. 3–5. We add the following to address and emphasize
specific findings and arguments.
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17–25
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 7 AND 21
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 7 and 21 because the “claim features relating to the D symbols and
the (D+l)-th symbol are highly specific” and “the Examiner makes a
conclusory assertion that they are obvious in view of certain sections of the
applied prior art which are cited generally and without discussion.” Reply
Br. 6. Further, Appellants assert that “both Oh and R1-090222 are silent as
to anything which even hints at the mapping of a [physical downlink control
channel] PDCCH or any other control channel at a position at a (D+1)-th
symbol from the beginning of a subframe.” Id. Appellants similarly assert
that “there is nothing in the cited portions of Oh or R1-090222 that even
hints at, much less discloses or suggests, a mapping arrangement in which a
Appeal 2018-002094
Application 13/146,608

5
PDCCH symbol for the relay station from the base station is mapped at a
(D+1)-th symbol from a beginning of a subframe.” Id. at 7 (emphasis
omitted).
In addition, Appellants contend that the Examiner “treats this subject
matter as inherently disclosed subject matter.” Id. at 6. Appellants then
argue that “the rejection should be deemed as deficient because the
Examiner has failed to provide a rationale or evidence tending to show
inherency.” Id.
We disagree that the Examiner treats the claimed PDCCH mapping
arrangement as inherently disclosed subject matter. See Non-Final Act. 5–7,
9–11. Instead, the Examiner relies on the combined disclosures in Oh and
R1-090222 to teach or suggest the claimed subject matter. Id. at 5–7, 9–11.
In particular, the Examiner relies on Oh to teach or suggest the claimed
arrangement of slots in a subframe and control information in slots. Id.
at 5–7, 9–11. In addition, the Examiner relies on R1-090222 to teach or
suggest control information corresponding to a PDCCH and the PDCCH
located in the first symbols of the subframe. Id. at 7, 11.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that (1) Oh’s downlink subframe
comprises sections 301, 303, and 309; (2) sections 301 and 303 together
correspond to the claimed “first slot”; and (3) section 309 corresponds to the
claimed “second slot.” Id. at 6–7, 10–11, 14; Ans. 4. Section 301 includes
information for a base station to communicate with a mobile station. Oh
¶¶ 42–43, 47. Section 303 includes information for a base station to
communicate with a relay station. Id. ¶¶ 42–43, 47. Section 309 includes
information for an upper relay station to communicate with a lower relay
station and for a base station to communicate with a mobile station. Id. ¶ 47.
Appeal 2018-002094
Application 13/146,608

6
In addition, sections 301, 303, and 309 may include control information,
“such as a MAP [media-access protocol] for indicating resource allocation
information.” Id. ¶¶ 53–54; see id. ¶¶ 24, 88–89.
Further, the Examiner finds that “R1-090222 discloses that the control
channel is a PDCCH” with the PDCCH located in the first symbols of the
subframe. Non-Final Act. 7, 11; see R1-090222, Fig. 1. Specifically,
R1-090222 Figure 1 depicts the PDCCH located in the first three symbols of
a downlink subframe from a base station. R1-090222, Fig. 1; see Non-Final
Act. 7, 11.
For Oh, “the Examiner interprets section 301 to be the symbol offset
indicated as [the] starting point for section 303,” i.e., that section 301
contains D symbols and section 303 starts at the D+1 symbol. Non-Final
Act. 6, 10; see Oh ¶¶ 42–43, 47, Fig. 3. Because control information
arriving earlier permits earlier processing, e.g., “the PDCCH located in the
first symbols of the subframe,” the Examiner reasons that “[i]t would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill” that (1) “a PDCCH of three
symbols could be used for control information for a mobile station”
beginning at a subframe’s first symbol as shown in R1-090222 Figure 1 and
(2) “the transmission for a relay station from a base station could begin in
the 4th symbol of the subframe.” Non-Final Act. 7, 11. Thus, the Examiner
provides “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006).
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7 and 21
because nothing in the references teaches or suggests the PDCCH for the
mobile station in up to D symbols and the PDCCH for the relay station in
Appeal 2018-002094
Application 13/146,608

7
the D+1 symbol “included in the first slot,” i.e., each PDCCH in “the same
first slot,” as required by claims 7 and 21. Reply Br. 7–8. Appellants urge
that “[t]his same first slot would correspond to one of” sections 301 and 303
in Oh. Id. at 7–8.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
they rest on the incorrect premise that only one section—either 301 or 303—
corresponds to the claimed “first slot.” As discussed above, the Examiner
finds that sections 301 and 303 together correspond to the claimed “first
slot.” Non-Final Act. 6–7, 10–11, 14; Ans. 4. Appellants do not explain
why sections 301 and 303 cannot together correspond to the claimed “first
slot.” See App. Br. 10–14; Reply Br. 4–8. Nor do Appellants direct us to
any evidence indicating that sections 301 and 303 cannot together
correspond to the claimed “first slot.”
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7 and 21 under
§ 103(a) as obvious over Oh and R1-090222. Thus, we sustain the § 103(a)
rejection of claims 7 and 21.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17–20, AND 22–25
Claims 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17–20, 22, and 24 depend from claim 7, and
claims 23 and 25 depend from claim 21. Appellants do not argue
patentability separately for these dependent claims. App. Br. 10–14; Reply
Br. 4–8. Thus, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of these dependent claims
for the same reasons as claims 7 and 21. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claim 9
Claim 9 depends from claim 7. Appellants do not argue patentability
separately for claim 9. App. Br. 10–14; Reply Br. 4–8. Thus, we sustain the
Appeal 2018-002094
Application 13/146,608

8
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 9 for the same reasons as claim 7. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 7–11, 13, 15, and
17–25.
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