BLACKBERRY LIMITED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 4, 2020

2019002865 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 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.
13/957,620 08/02/2013 Yufei Wu Blankenship 47585-US-PAT
(RIM.0049US)
8196
11710 7590 08/04/2020
Trop, Pruner & Hu, P.C.
PO Box 41790
Houston, TX 77241
EXAMINER
DUFFY, JAMES P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2020 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):
tphpto@tphm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUFEI WU BLANKENSHIP, SHIWEI GAO, and HUA XU

Appeal 2019-002865
Application 13/957,620
Technology Center 2400

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JAMES W. DEJMEK,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 8–20, 23, and 28–36, which are all
the claims pending. 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) (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
BlackBerry Limited. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002865
Application 13/957,620

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
INTRODUCTION
The claimed subject matter generally relates to (1) user equipment
(UE) and methods that, when the UE is connected to multiple nodes
simultaneously, adjust power of uplink transmissions in response to
determining that the required aggregate uplink transmit power for the UE
exceeds a threshold and (2) wireless access network nodes (e.g., enhanced
Node Bs (eNBs)) and methods that determine particular uplink (UL)
transmissions were dropped or power-adjusted by the transmitting UE in
accordance with power control prioritization rules. Spec. ¶¶ 24–27, 29–30.
Claims 1, 23, and 28 are independent claims. Claims 1 and 23 are
reproduced below:
1. A method of a user equipment (UE), the method
comprising:
detecting that an aggregate of calculated uplink transmit
power of a plurality of frequency-division multiplexing (FDM)-
based uplink transmissions of the UE over corresponding
wireless connections with respective wireless access network
nodes exceeds a threshold; and
in response to the detecting, adjusting a power of multiple
uplink transmissions of the plurality of FDM-based uplink
transmissions of the UE over the corresponding wireless
connections with the respective wireless access network nodes,
the adjusting being according to at least one prioritization rule
specifying that an uplink transmission containing
acknowledgment information has a higher priority than an uplink
transmission without acknowledgment information, wherein
adjusting the power of the multiple uplink transmissions
comprises:
determining that a given uplink transmission of the
plurality of FDM-based uplink transmissions includes
acknowledgment information and the multiple uplink
Appeal 2019-002865
Application 13/957,620

3
transmissions do not include acknowledgment
information, and
based on the prioritization rule and the determining,
reducing a power of each of the multiple uplink
transmissions that are transmitted to corresponding
multiple wireless access network nodes without reducing
a power of the given uplink transmission that is
transmitted to a given wireless access network node
different from the multiple wireless access network nodes,
wherein the reducing of the power of each of the multiple
uplink transmissions comprises setting non-zero values of
respective scaling factors for the multiple uplink
transmissions, the non-zero values greater than zero and
less than one.

23. A method comprising:
communicating, by a wireless access network node,
wirelessly with a user equipment (UE);
using, by the wireless access network node, information
relating to uplink power sharing control at the UE to process an
uplink transmission from the UE, wherein the uplink
transmission is one of a plurality of frequency-division
multiplexing (FDM)-based uplink transmissions by the UE over
corresponding wireless connections with respective wireless
access network nodes, wherein the information relating to the
uplink power sharing control includes a prioritization rule
specifying:
a higher priority of the one of the plurality of FDM-
based uplink transmissions over a specified signal that is
part of the plurality of FDM-based uplink transmissions,
a first uplink transmission including
acknowledgment information sent to a first wireless access
network node has a higher priority than a second uplink
transmission without acknowledgment information sent to
a different second wireless access network node, the first
and second uplink transmissions being part of the plurality
of FDM-based uplink transmissions; and
determining, by the wireless access network node, that
transmission of the specified signal was dropped by the UE as a
Appeal 2019-002865
Application 13/957,620

4
result of applying, by the UE, the uplink power sharing control
according to the prioritization rule, the determining using, by the
wireless access network node, the prioritization rule known to
the wireless access network node.
THE PENDING REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10–18, 23, 28, and 31–36 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Zeng (US 2015/0230236 A1;
Aug. 13, 2015), Kim (US 8,593,979 B2; Nov. 26, 2013), and Dinan (US
2013/0188580 A1; July 25, 2013). Final Act. 10–34.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Zeng, Kim, Dinan, and Horn (US 2014/0010207 A1; Jan. 9, 2014). Final
Act. 34–35.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Zeng, Kim, Dinan, and Khoshnevis (US 2012/0120817 A1; May 17, 2012).
Final Act. 35–36.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Zeng, Kim, Dinan, and Das (US 2004/0203980 A1; Oct. 14, 2004). Final
Act. 36–37.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Zeng, Kim, Dinan, and Liu (US 2012/0287853 A1; Nov. 15, 2012). Final
Act. 37.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Zeng, Kim, Dinan, and Wu (US 2012/0269072 A1; Oct. 25, 2012). Final
Act. 38–39.
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Zeng, Kim, Dinan, and Lohr (US 2012/0057547 A1; Mar. 8, 2012). Final
Act. 39–40.
Appeal 2019-002865
Application 13/957,620

5
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1, 3, 10, 11, 13, 16, 19, 20, AND 29–31
Of particular relevance to Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 1,
the Examiner finds Zeng teaches a UE establishing a first connection to a
macro cell and a second connection to a micro cell, the UE determining
whether total UL transmission power exceeds a threshold before performing
concurrent UL transmissions on aggregated carriers, and the UE reducing
the power of one of the signals based on a priority algorithm when the power
exceeds the threshold. Final Act. 11–12 (citing Zeng ¶¶ 3–5, 52, 53, 93, 96);
see Ans. 36. The Examiner finds Zeng “present[s] power allocation as a
binary choice per channel” (i.e., either transmit the channel or do not
transmit the channel) and Zeng, therefore, fails to teach or suggest “setting
non-zero values of respective scaling factors for the multiple uplink
transmissions, the non-zero values greater than zero and less than one.”
Final Act. 12 (“Zeng does not explicitly disclose . . . reducing comprises
setting non-zero values of respective scaling factors for the multiple uplink
transmissions”); Ans. 35–36.
However, the Examiner finds Dinan’s scaling factors between zero
and one, which provide an alternative power scaling to Zeng’s binary
transmission choice, teach “the reducing of the power of each of the multiple
uplink transmissions comprises setting non-zero values of respective scaling
factors for the multiple uplink transmissions, the non-zero values greater
than zero and less than one.” Final Act. 14 (citing Dinan ¶¶ 144–145);
Ans. 35–36. The Examiner concludes the claims are obvious in view of the
combination of Zeng, Kim, and Dinan, explaining that “Dinan presents a
teaching that would have suggested, to one having ordinary skill in the art, a
Appeal 2019-002865
Application 13/957,620

6
method to improve upon Kim in view of Zeng so as to avoid dropping an
uplink transmission.” Ans. 35 (emphasis added); see Final Act. 14–15.
Appellant argues claim 1 is not obvious in view of Zeng, Kim, and
Dinan. Appeal Br. 15–18; Reply Br. 7–10. Appellant asserts Zeng does not
teach the “reducing a power of each of the multiple uplink transmissions”
limitation because Zeng teaches dropping a channel, not scaling the power
of the channel using a scaling factor between zero and one. Appeal Br. 16–
17. Appellant then argues Dinan does not reduce power of multiple uplink
transmissions “to corresponding multiple wireless access network nodes,” as
recited in claim 1, because Dinan teaches only scaling transmission power of
parallel transmissions to a single base station. Appeal Br. 17 (citing Dinan
¶¶ 141–145); Reply Br. 9. Appellant asserts Dinan, therefore, fails to cure
Zeng’s deficiency. Appeal Br. 16–18.
Appellant’s arguments regarding Zeng’s and Dinan’s individual
teachings are not persuasive because they are not responsive to the rejection
as articulated by the Examiner. Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where, as here, the ground of
unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test for
obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole,
would have suggested the patentee’s invention to a person having ordinary
skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As discussed above, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of
Zeng, Kim, and Dinan. See Final Act. 11–15; Ans. 35–39. As also
discussed above and as set forth in the Final Office Action, the Examiner
finds Zeng teaches, among other things, a UE dropping a transmission based
Appeal 2019-002865
Application 13/957,620

7
on a priority algorithm when the total UL transmission power to multiple
nodes exceeds a threshold. Final Act. 11–12 (citing Zeng ¶¶ 3–5, 52, 53, 93,
96); see Ans. 36. The Examiner finds Dinan teaches an algorithm for
scaling at least one channel’s power using a non-zero scaling factor when
the total UL transmission power exceeds a threshold. Final Act. 14 (citing
Dinan ¶¶ 144–145); Ans. 35–36. Accordingly, Appellant’s assertions that
Zeng fails to teach a non-zero scaling factor and Dinan fails to teach a UE
communicating with multiple nodes is unpersuasive of error because the
arguments do not address the Examiner’s actual findings and, accordingly,
fail to consider or address the proposed combined teachings.
Appellant also contends the proposed combination would not have
taught or suggested the claimed subject matter (i.e., a UE scaling the power
of multiple UL transmissions communicated to multiple nodes using a non-
zero scaling factor). Appeal Br. 18; Reply Br. 9–10. Rather, Appellant
asserts the proposed combination would have suggested only that a UE
adjusts the power of multiple UL transmissions by dropping a signal.
Appeal Br. 18; Reply Br. 9–10.
We disagree with Appellant’s assertion that the combination would
have only suggested a UE dropping a signal when adjusting the power of
multiple UL transmissions communicated to multiple nodes. That is not
what the proposed combination would have taught or suggested to an
ordinarily skilled artisan, but rather merely what Zeng alone teaches. As the
Examiner explained, Dinan presents an alternative method for controlling a
UE’s total UL transmission power involving scaling the power for at least
one channel. Final Act. 14–15 (explaining that modifying Zeng with Dinan
“is merely the application of a known power scaling method to fulfill the
Appeal 2019-002865
Application 13/957,620

8
need for power scaling ‘based on a certain algorithm’ as disclosed in
paragraph 96 of Zeng”), 7 (explaining that Dinan “teaches substantially the
same method of uplink power control of Zeng,” except Dinan teaches using
priority rules “to reduce or scale linear transmission power of one or more
parallel transmissions through the use of [non-zero] scaling factors” instead
of “simply dropping an uplink transmission,” as Zeng teaches). Thus, the
Examiner’s proposed combination involves modifying Zeng’s power control
algorithm that, in response to determining the total power of all UL
transmissions being communicated to multiple nodes exceeds a threshold,
drops a channel so that the UE scales channel power instead of dropping a
channel, as taught by Dinan.
For the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
as obvious in view of Zeng, Kim, and Dinan. Appellant argues claims 3, 10,
11, 13, 16, and 31 (each of which depends directly from independent claim
1) are patentable for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1.
Appeal Br. 15, 18 (“Appellant respectfully submits that claim 1 and its
dependent claims are nonobvious over Zeng, Kim, and Dinan.”). We note
Appellant mistakenly groups claim 4, which depends directly from
independent claim 23, with independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 15. We
address claim 4 below after addressing independent claim 23. Appellant
also argues claims 19, 20, 29, and 30 are patentable because the additionally
cited references (i.e., Das, Liu, Wu, and Lohr) do not cure the alleged
deficiency identified with respect to claim 1, from which each of these
claims directly depends. Appeal Br. 21–22. Because Appellant does not
present separate arguments for dependent claims 3, 10, 11, 13, 16, 19, 20,
and 29–31, we also sustain the rejections of these claims.
Appeal 2019-002865
Application 13/957,620

9
CLAIM 2
Claim 2 depends directly from claim 1 and further recites that “at least
two of the wireless access nodes have respective separate schedulers.”
Appeal Br. i (Claims Appendix). Appellant argues claim 2 is patentable for
the same reasons asserted with respect to independent claim 1. Appeal
Br. 20. We discussed above the reasons we do not find Appellant’s
arguments regarding claim 1 persuasive. Appellant further argues claim 2 is
not obvious in view of Zeng, Kim, Dinan, and Horn for the additional reason
that Horn does not teach or suggest that two wireless access network nodes
have respective separate schedulers. Appeal Br. 20.
The Examiner finds Horn teaches this additional limitation. Final
Act. 34–35 (citing Horn ¶¶ 55, 56, 143); Ans. 40–41 (citing Horn ¶¶ 55, 56,
143, 144, Figs. 1, 2, 20). More specifically, the Examiner explains that Horn
discloses a system configured to have a single UE communicate with
multiple nodes. Ans. 40 (citing Horn ¶¶ 55, 56, Fig. 2); see Ans. 41 (“Figure
1 shows eNB 130 and eNB 132 concurrently serving a single UE.”). The
Examiner further finds Horn explicitly discloses that a first node includes a
scheduler for scheduling UE uplink and downlink transmissions. Ans. 40–
41 (citing Horn ¶ 143, Figs. 1, 20); see also Ans. 41 (“Figure 20 teaches that
an eNB is comprised of a Scheduler 2044.”). Finally, the Examiner finds
Horn explicitly discloses that the second node (i.e., eNB 132) is
“implemented in a similar manner” to the first node (i.e., eNB 130). Ans. 41
(quoting Horn ¶¶ 144).
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings regarding Horn’s
teachings. In particular, Horn explicitly discloses a UE communicating with
multiple nodes. Horn ¶ 56 (“UE 110 may communicate with multiple eNBs
Appeal 2019-002865
Application 13/957,620

10
130 and 132 for carrier aggregation.”). Horn explicitly discloses that node
130 includes a scheduler. Horn ¶ 143 (“A scheduler 2044 may schedule UE
110 and other UEs for data transmission on the downlink and uplink and
may assign resources to the scheduled UEs.”), Fig. 20. Horn also teaches
that node 132 has a scheduler, disclosing that NODE 132 “may be
implemented in a similar manner as” node 130. Horn ¶ 144. We note
Appellant’s Reply Brief provides no response to the Examiner’s additional
explanation in the Answer regarding Horn’s teachings. For the above
reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 2 as obvious in view of Zeng, Kim,
Dinan, and Horn.
CLAIM 12
Claim 12 depends directly from claim 1 and further recites that
the plurality of FDM-based uplink transmissions further
comprise a sounding reference signal transmission, wherein the
uplink transmission without acknowledgement information
comprises one or both of an uplink control transmission and
uplink traffic channel transmission, and wherein the adjusting
further comprises avoiding performing the given uplink
transmission at a portion of a carrier that coincides with the
sounding reference signal transmission.
Appeal Br. iii (Claims Appendix). The Examiner finds Dinan teaches this
additional limitation. Final Act. 18–20 (citing Dinan ¶¶ 161, 162, 164).
Appellant argues claim 12 is patentable for the same reasons asserted
with respect to independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 19. We already discussed
the reasons we do not find Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 1
persuasive.
Appellant further argues claim 12 is not obvious in view of Zeng,
Kim, and Dinan because Dinan does not teach this additional limitation.
Appeal 2019-002865
Application 13/957,620

11
Appeal Br. 19; Reply Br. 10–12. In particular, Appellant argues Dinan’s
cited portions merely refer to dropping a sounding reference signal (SRS)
having a lower priority than other signals. Appeal Br. 19 (citing Dinan
¶¶ 162, 164). Appellant argues claim 12, in contrast, requires transmitting
the SRS, but merely adjusts the scheduled transmissions to avoid performing
a particular UL transmission (i.e., the recited “given uplink transmission
including acknowledgment information”) “at the portion of the carrier that
coincides with the” SRS. Appeal Br. 19; Reply Br. 11–12. More
specifically, Appellant asserts the recited “plurality of uplink transmissions
are actually being transmitted” because claim 1 recites “reducing of the
power of each of the multiple uplink transmissions comprises setting non-
zero values of respective scaling factors for the multiple uplink
transmissions.” Reply Br. 11–12. Appellant argues dropping an SRS, as
disclosed by Dinan, would not have suggested the claimed subject matter.
Appeal Br. 19.
The Examiner finds Dinan teaches this additional limitation because
Dinan teaches dropping the SRS transmission. Final Act. 18–20 (citing
Dinan ¶¶ 161, 162, 164); Ans. 39–40. The Examiner explains that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the additional limitation recited in
claim 12 encompasses not transmitting the SRS. Ans. 39–40.
We agree with and the Examiner. Notably, claim 1, in relevant part,
recites:
adjusting a power of multiple uplink transmissions of the
plurality of FDM-based uplink transmissions . . . wherein
adjusting the power of the multiple uplink transmissions
comprises . . . reducing a power of each of the multiple uplink
transmissions . . . wherein the reducing of the power of each of
the multiple uplink transmissions comprises setting non-zero
Appeal 2019-002865
Application 13/957,620

12
values of respective scaling factors for the multiple uplink
transmissions.
Appeal Br. i (Claims Appendix) (emphases added). As noted above, claim
12 depends directly from claim 1 and further recites, in relevant part, “the
plurality of FDM-based uplink transmissions further comprise a sounding
reference signal transmission.” Appeal Br. iii (Claims Appendix) (emphasis
added).
The recited SRS transmission and the recited “given uplink
transmission” are each one of the “plurality of FDM-based uplink
transmissions,” but neither the SRS nor the “given uplink transmission” need
to be one of the “multiple uplink transmissions of the plurality of FDM-
based uplink transmissions” whose power is scaled by a non-zero factor.
Claim 12 limits the recited adjusting to include “avoiding performing the
given uplink transmission at a portion of a carrier that coincides with the”
SRS transmission, but claim 12 does not limit adjusting the SRS
transmission to a non-zero value.
Dropping the SRS transmission would result in the SRS transmission
not being transmitted at any portion of a carrier and, therefore, claim 12
encompasses dropping the SRS transmission. Accordingly, the proposed
combinations avoids “performing the given transmission at a portion of a
carrier that coincides with the sounding reference signal” because there is no
portion of a carrier that coincides with the sounding reference signal
transmission when the SRS transmission is dropped.
For the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 12 as obvious
in view of Zeng, Kim, and Dinan.
Appeal 2019-002865
Application 13/957,620

13
CLAIMS 4, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 23, 28 AND 32–36
Appellant argues independent claim 23, independent claim 28, and
dependent claims 4, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 32, and 33–36 (which depend
directly from one of independent claims 23 and 28) as a group. See Appeal
Br. 15 (arguing the claims that depend from claim 28 (i.e., claims 33–35) are
patentable for the same reasons asserted with respect to independent claim
28), 15 (arguing independent claim 23 and dependent claims 8, 14, 15, 17,
18, 32, and 36, which depend directly from claim 23, are patentable for the
same reasons asserted with respect to independent claim 28), 20–21 (arguing
the additionally cited references (i.e., Khoshnevis) does not cure the
identified deficiencies with respect to independent claim 23 and, therefore,
dependent claim 9 is patentable for the same reasons asserted with respect to
independent claim 23, from which it depends). Appeal Br. 15, 20–21. As
noted above, Appellant mistakenly identifies claim 4 as depending from
independent claim 1, but claim 4 depends directly from claim 23, so we
group claim 4 with claim 23. We select independent claim 23 as illustrative
of claims 4, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 23, 28 and 32–36. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
The Examiner finds Zeng teaches a node wirelessly communicating
with a UE and processes UL transmissions from the UE using information
relating to the UE’s uplink power sharing control. Final Act. 24–25 (citing
Zeng ¶¶ 3–5, 52, 53, 93, 96, Fig. 2). Of particular relevance, the Examiner
finds Kim teaches the recited prioritization rules and the node determining
that transmission of a particular signal was dropped by the UE as a result of
applying those rules. Final Act. 25–27 (citing Kim 8:28–30, 15:44–55,
18:55–57, claim 1).
Appeal 2019-002865
Application 13/957,620

14
Appellant argues Kim, alone or in combination with Zeng and Dinan,
fails to teach or suggest “determining, by the wireless access network node,
that transmission of the specified signal was dropped by the UE as a result of
applying, by the UE, the uplink power sharing control according to the
prioritization rule,” as recited in illustrative claim 23 and commensurately
recited in claim 28. Appellant agrees with the Examiner’s findings that Kim
discloses (1) the UE may apply a prioritization rule to adjust the total UL
transmission power and (2) both the UE and the base station may be aware
of the priority levels used by the UE to drop channels. Appeal Br. 10–15;
Reply Br. 4–7. However, Appellant contends that using a prioritization rule
at the UE to adjust UL transmission power, even if the base station is aware
of the rules, does not teach or suggest that the base station uses the rule to
determine that a specified signal was dropped. Appeal Br. 10–15; Reply Br.
4–7.
Appellant argues Kim explicitly discloses that the UE notifies the
base station that certain transmission channels were not transmitted, which is
different than, and does not teach or suggest, the base station using the
prioritization rule to determine that the specified signal was dropped.
Appeal Br. 8–9; see Appeal Br. 9–15; Reply Br. 1–7; see also Appeal Br. 8
(noting the Examiner cites Kim’s disclosure that a UE notifies the base
station (i.e., the recited node) “that the remaining transmission channels Ck+1
to CN are not transmitted by additional information.” (quoting Kim 18:55–
57)). Appellant further argues Kim’s base station has no need or reason to
determine that the UE dropped a specified channel because Kim’s UE
explicitly notifies the base station that the remaining transmission channels
were dropped. Appeal Br. 10–15; Reply Br. 4–7. Appellant also argues
Appeal 2019-002865
Application 13/957,620

15
that, “[w]ithout the explicit notification from the UE, there is no evidence in
Kim that its [base station] would be able to determine a particular channel
was dropped.” Appeal Br. 13.
The Examiner finds the claims are broad and do not “explicitly claim
how this [prioritization] rule is made ‘known to the wireless access network
node’.” Ans. 32–33. Thus, the Examiner construes the claim to encompass
the node either being preprogrammed with the rule or being “informed of
these rules in some manner.” Ans. 33. This construction, however, does not
address Appellant’s arguments. Appellant does not dispute that Kim’s base
station may be fully aware of the prioritization rules. Rather, Appellant
contends the cited art does not teach that the node uses the rule to determine
a specified channel was dropped by the UE that applied the rule. See Appeal
Br. 8–15; Reply Br. 1–7
We agree with Appellant. Kim’s disclosure that the UE applies
prioritization rules, by itself, does not teach or suggest the base station
determines that a specified channel was dropped by the UE. Similarly,
Kim’s disclosure that the node may be aware of the rules used by the UE
does not teach or suggest that Kim’s node determines that a specified
channel was dropped by the UE using those rules. Appellant correctly notes
that Kim explicitly discloses that the UE notifies the base station regarding
which channels were dropped. See Kim 15:55–57. We also agree with
Appellant that, because Kim’s UE notifies the base station which channels
were dropped, Kim’s node (i.e., base station) has no need to make the recited
determination. Accordingly, we disagree with the Examiner that Kim’s
cited portions teach or suggest the base station making the recited
determination.
Appeal 2019-002865
Application 13/957,620

16
For the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 23 as obvious in view of Zeng, Kim, and Dinan. For the
same reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of independent claim 28,
which recites a commensurate limitation or claims 4, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 23,
28 and 32–36, which included these limitations via their dependency from
one of claims 23 and 28.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 8,
10–18, 23,
28, 31–36
103 Zeng, Kim, Dinan 1, 3, 10–13, 16, 31
4, 8, 14, 15,
17, 18, 23,
28, 32–36
2 103 Zeng, Kim, Dinan, Horn 2
9 103 Zeng, Kim, Dinan, Khoshnevis 9
19 103 Zeng, Kim, Dinan, Das 19
20 103 Zeng, Kim, Dinan, Liu 20
29 103 Zeng, Kim, Dinan, Wu 29
30 103 Zeng, Kim, Dinan, Lohr 30
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 10–13,
16, 19, 20,
29–31
4, 8, 9, 14,
15, 17, 18,
23, 28, 32–36
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).
Appeal 2019-002865
Application 13/957,620

17
AFFIRMED IN PART