Azarian Yazdi, Kambiz et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 10, 202014738598 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/738,598 06/12/2015 Kambiz Azarian Yazdi QCOM-2737US (150221) 5045 112246 7590 01/10/2020 Loza & Loza, LLP/Qualcomm 305 N. Second Ave., #127 Upland, CA 91786 EXAMINER BEDNASH, JOSEPH A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2461 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/10/2020 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): ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com qualcomm-pto@lozaip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte KAMBIZ AZARIAN YAZDI, TINGFANG JI, JING JIANG, and JOSEPH BINAMIRA SORIAGA ________________ Appeal 2019-001104 Application 14/738,598 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before JASON V. MORGAN, JAMES B. ARPIN, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Qualcomm Incorporated. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-001104 Application 14/738,598 2 Summary of the Disclosure Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to providing “for the reliable transmission of control information” through use of multi-link diversity, “wherein control information is jointly encoded and transmitted across a plurality of physical links.” Abstract. Representative claims (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A method for wireless communication between a scheduling entity and a plurality of subordinate entities, comprising: jointly encoding control information across a plurality of physical links at the scheduling entity, said control information comprising one or more of scheduling information, a scheduling request, a packet acknowledgment or non- acknowledgment, or channel quality information; creating a multi-link control channel providing multi-link diversity by allocating a portion of the encoded control information to each of the plurality of physical links; transmitting data information on a data channel utilizing a first transmission time interval (TTI); and transmitting the encoded control information on each of the plurality of physical links from the scheduling entity to the plurality of subordinate entities utilizing a second TTI shorter in duration than the first TTI and overlapping with a portion of the first TTI, via broadcast channel multiplexing. 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of physical links correspond to a plurality of multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) configurations. Appeal 2019-001104 Application 14/738,598 3 The Examiner’s rejections and cited references The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5–13, 15–20, 22, and 24–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated2 by Lee et al. (US 2013/0194931 A1; published Aug. 1, 2013) (“Lee”). Non-Final Act. 2–8. The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Lee and Periyalwar et al. (WO 2013/016798 A1; published Feb. 7, 2013) (“Periyalwar”). Non-Final Act. 8– 9. The Examiner rejects claims 21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Lee and Bourlas et al. (US 2009/0070650 A1; published Mar. 12, 2009) (“Bourlas”). Non-Final Act. 9–10. ADOPTION OF EXAMINER’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings as set forth in the Answer and in the Non-Final Action from which this appeal was taken, and we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. We have considered 2 The Examiner further cites to Lunttila et al. (US 2013/0163527 A1; published June 27, 2013) (“Lunttila”) in the rejection of claims 1 and 7, apparently as supporting the finding of inherency with respect to the cited reference, Lee. Non-Final Act. 3, 7. The Examiner, however, omits Lunttila from the statement of the rejection. Id. at 2. Furthermore, the Examiner states that Lunttila is pertinent, but not relied on. Id. at 12. As Appellant does not challenge this aspect of the rejection, we will not consider the cited disclosure of Lunttila. In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to clarify to what extent Lunttila is being relied on in rejecting the claimed invention, and whether Lunttila should be included in the rejection statement. See MPEP 2131.01 (“a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection over multiple references has been held to be proper when the extra references are cited to . . . [s]how that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent”). Appeal 2019-001104 Application 14/738,598 4 Appellant’s arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for emphasis. CLAIMS 1–5, 7–15, AND 17–28 In rejecting claim 1 as anticipated, the Examiner finds that Lee’s transmission of Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) data as part of a subframe with a transmission time interval of 1ms discloses “transmitting data information on a data channel utilizing a first transmission time interval (TTI).” See Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Lee Fig. 18). The Examiner finds Lee’s transmission of enhanced Physical Downlink Control Channel (ePDCCH) data during a smaller time interval discloses “transmitting the encoded control information . . . utilizing a second TTI shorter in duration than the first TTI and overlapping with a portion of the first TTI.” See id. (citing Lee Figs. 13, 18, ¶¶ 147, 183). The Examiner points to the Specification’s disclosure that “TTIs may correspond to frames, sub-frames, data blocks, time slots, or other suitable groupings of bits for transmission” (Ans. 4 (quoting Spec. ¶ 49)) to show that a reasonably broad interpretation of “time transmission interval” encompasses the two different spans of time Lee uses to transmit PDSCH and ePDCCH data. Appellant contends the Examiner’s erroneously construed the claim by “improperly import[ing] unclaimed limitations into the claims” (Appeal Br. 11), and, thus, the Examiner erred in relying on Lee’s “aggregation or multiplexing of control channel elements (CCEs) across different carriers in a shared data channel (PDSCH) region of the same 1ms subframe or TTI” (id. at 8) to disclose the transmitting encoded control information utilizing a second TTI shorter in duration than a first TTI and overlapping with a portion of the first TTI. Appellant contends, in particular, that “Lee teaches Appeal 2019-001104 Application 14/738,598 5 that its ePDCCH occupies specific resource elements (REs) within a given subframe/TTL” (id. at 9)—that “Lee’s ePDCCH, PDSCH, and PDCCH . . . are all contained and multiplexed within the same TTI, and the ePDCCH is subsumed by Lee’s TTI/subframe[] rather than being a separate TTI . . . that overlaps with the TTI” (id. at 10). Appellant contends Lee’s time allotted for ePDCCH transmission is patentably distinct from the claimed second TTI because the Specification “explicitly defines that ‘a TTI may correspond to a minimum duration for a unit of information that can independently be decoded.’” Id. at 9 (quoting Spec. ¶ 45). Appellant further contends the Examiner’s interpretation of a first TTI and a second TTI is inconsistent with their “ordinary and customary meaning in light of the specification.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive because the broadest reasonable interpretation is one “that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is ‘consistent with the specification.’” In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Even a term’s ordinary or customary meaning gives way to inventor lexicography when the Specification reveals a special definition. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Nonetheless, the Specification “is not a substitute for, nor can it be used to rewrite, the chosen claim language.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, “a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Id. (citing Electro Med. Sys. S.A. v. Cooper Life Sci., Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Appeal 2019-001104 Application 14/738,598 6 Moreover, “giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation does not include giving claims a legally incorrect interpretation divorced from the specification and the record evidence.” Smith, 871 F.3d at 1382 (citations, internal quotations, and alterations omitted). But there is nothing improper in relying on disclosures in the Specification that reveal a broad interpretation for a disputed term. Here, the Specification reveals that the claimed transmission time interval can have one of several meanings. A transmission time interval “may correspond to a minimum duration for a unit of information that can independently be decoded.” Spec. ¶ 45 (emphasis added) (cited in Appeal Br. 9). Alternatively, transmission time intervals “may correspond to frames, sub-frames, data blocks, time slots, or other suitable groupings of bits for transmission.” Spec. ¶ 49 (emphasis added) (cited in Ans. 4). The claimed transmission time intervals are not limited to any of these embodiments. See SuperGuide, 358 F.3d at 875. The broadest reasonable interpretation of transmission time intervals, however, encompasses each of these embodiments because interpreting transmission time intervals to encompass any of these embodiments is consistent with the Specification. Smith, 871 F.3d at 1383. The Examiner’s findings show that Lee’s ePDCCH transmission, which occurs during a portion of the PDSCH transmission, represents a transmission that uses a second transmission time interval that—by corresponding to frames, sub-frames, data blocks, time slots, or other suitable groupings of bits for transmission shorter than that used for the PDSCH transmission—represents “a second TTI shorter in duration than the Appeal 2019-001104 Application 14/738,598 7 first TTI and overlapping with a portion of the first TTI,” as claimed. See Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 4–6. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), and the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1), 103 of claims 2–5, 7–15, and 17–28, which Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 11, 13. CLAIMS 6 AND 16 In rejecting claim 6, the Examiner finds Lee’s multiple-input multiple- output teachings disclose “wherein the plurality of physical links correspond to a plurality of multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) configurations.” See Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Lee ¶¶ 91–92); Ans. 6–7. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “Lee does not appear to disclose . . . that control information may be jointly encoded across, and allocated to each of a plurality of different physical links or channels that have different MIMO configurations.” Appeal Br. 12. That is, Appellant contends “Lee fails to contemplate the use of two or more of these different MIMO configurations for the joint transmission of control information as recited in the claims.” Id. Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive in light of the Examiner’s findings, which, as noted, we adopt as our own. See Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 6–7. We further note that Lee specifically discloses “collaborative and/or multiple antenna transmissions . . . in a communication system (e.g., a[n] LGE/LTE-Advanced system),” where “collaborative transmissions may be provided and/or used such that a PDSCH transmission for [wireless transmit/receive unit] or [user equipment] . . . may be dynamically changed between transmission points.” Lee ¶ 90. That is, Lee discloses collaborative Appeal 2019-001104 Application 14/738,598 8 LGE/LTE-Advanced transmissions having different multiple-input multiple- output configurations. Id. Table 1; see also Ans. 6–7. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), and claim 16, which Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 12. CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5–13, 15–20, 22, 24–28 102(a)(1) Lee 1–3, 5–13, 15–20, 22, 24–28 4, 14 103 Lee, Periyalwar 4, 14 21, 23 103 Lee, Bourlas 21, 23 Overall Outcome 1–28 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation