Chunli Wu et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 20, 2020

2018007371 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 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.
14/233,170 01/16/2014 Chunli Wu 800.1851.U1(US) 1149
10948 7590 05/20/2020
Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC
4 Research Drive, Suite 202
Shelton, CT 06484
EXAMINER
AHMED, ATIQUE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2413
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2020 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):
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
USPTO@hspatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHUNLI WU and BENOIST PIERRE SEBIRE

Appeal 2018-007371
Application 14/233,170
Technology Center 2400

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MICHAEL M. BARRY,
and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 60–70, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this appeal.2 Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

1 We refer to the Specification filed Jan. 16, 2014 (“Spec.”); the Final
Office Action, mailed May 4, 2017 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed
Jan. 2, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed May 9, 2018
(“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed July 9, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-007371
Application 14/233,170

2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter is directed to a
Long Term Evolution (LTE) system and method for using Timing Advance
(TA) values/commands to control the timing of uplink transmissions within
a timeslot thereby compensating for propagation delays, in an environment
where a secondary cell (SCell) has previously been deactivated. Spec. 1:5–
8, 3:8–14.
Figure 1, discussed and reproduced below, are useful for
understanding the claimed invention:

Figure 1 above illustrates the coverage of single macro eNB 2 (of a
cellular E-UTRAN) deploying non-collocated receivers (e.g., remote radio
heads (RRHs) 4 and frequency selective repeaters 6). Id. at 11:21–23.
Appeal 2018-007371
Application 14/233,170

3
Upon receiving from a PCell a macro eNB including configuration
information for a newly reactivated or added SCell, a user equipment (UE)
sends a Random Access Preamble Message, which does not include random
access channel (RACH) parameters or information about the TA Group for
the added SCell as part of the Radio Resources Control (RRC) signaling.3
Because the UE cannot immediately apply information of an existing TA
Group as a default configuration for the Random Access Preamble Message,
it instead applies the PCell TA value for the preamble transmission to the
SCell. Id. at 13:22–14:32, 15:24–16:7.
Claims 60, 65, and 70 are independent. Claim 60, reproduced below
with disputed limitations emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
60. A method comprising:
in response to configuration information in a carrier aggregation
not including timing advance group information for a secondary cell
and not including random access channel parameters for the
secondary cell, applying, prior to sending a random access preamble
message as part of a random access procedure for the secondary cell,
a primary cell timing advance value to the secondary cell; and
sending the random access preamble message.

Appeal Br. 38 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).

3 Deactivating one or more SCells for uplink transmissions from a
communication device until the SCells are required reduces power
consumption and omits associated measurements for the deactivation period.
Further, uplink activity in the deactivated SCells is stopped thereby
preventing the communication device from transmitting any sounding
reference signals (SRS) to the deactivated SCells. Spec. 3:1–7.

Appeal 2018-007371
Application 14/233,170

4
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.
Name Reference Date
3GPP TSG RAN2#74
meeting “3GPP”
ETSI TS 136 300 May 4, 2011
Jang4 US 2012/0257569 A1 Oct. 11, 2012
IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 60–70 as follows:
1. Claims 60, 61, and 64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by 3GPP. Final Act. 2–4.5
2. Claims 62, 63, and 65–70 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of 3GPP and Jang. Final
Act. 4–12.
V. ANALYSIS
1. Anticipation Rejection
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that 3GPP
describes “applying, prior to sending a random access preamble message as
part of a random access procedure for the secondary cell, a primary cell
timing advance value to the secondary cell,” as recited in independent claim
60. Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis added). In particular, Appellant argues that
3GPP discloses a physical hardware deployment wherein a new TA is

4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
5 We note the Examiner’s statement of the rejection indicates that the claims
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the 3GPP.
Final Act. 2. However, because the statutory basis and the discussion of
those claims refer to anticipation, we treat the rejection of those claims as
being premised upon anticipation.
Appeal 2018-007371
Application 14/233,170

5
always assigned as opposed to the claimed action by user equipment
applying the TA of a PCell to an activated SCell in response to received
configuration information. Id. at 11 (citing section 2.1 of 3GPP). More
particularly, Appellant argues that the background section of 3GPP discloses
a single timing advance (TA) so that a SCell always shares the same TA of a
PCell. Id. at 16. Further, Appellant argues that Figure 2 of 3GPP illustrates
a SCell, scheduled from PCell, obtains a new TA. Id. According to
Appellant, although 3GPP discloses the PCell and SCell sharing the same
TA, the initial random access for uplink carrier aggregation (CA) is initiated
from the uplink PCell only such that TA is based on synchronization to the
PCell, the SCell is maintained on the PCell, and the SCell supports no
Random Access (RA) procedure. Id. at 17(citing 3GPP 1).
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
Although 3GPP’s background—which discloses a SCell using the TA
maintained and synchronized at the PCell—teaches applying the timing
advance value of the primary cell to the secondary cell, the SCell does not
support an RA procedure through which a message is sent to the SCell.
Further, while section 2.1 of 3GPP discloses using an RA procedure to
configure a newly added SCell for activation, the disclosed configuration
requires using a new timing advance for the SCell as opposed to using the
TA of the PCell. 3GPP 2. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner’s reliance on section 2.1 of 3GPP for this limitation does not
describe the disputed limitations. Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 3–4.
Because Appellant has shown at least one reversible error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 60, we do not reach Appellant’s
remaining arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
Appeal 2018-007371
Application 14/233,170

6
rejection of claim 60, as well as claims 61 and 64, which also recite the
disputed limitation.
2. Obviousness Rejection
The Examiner relies on 3GPP to teach the disputed limitations of
“applying, prior to sending a random access preamble message as part of a
random access procedure for the secondary cell, a primary cell timing
advance value to the secondary cell,” as recited in independent claims 65
and 70. Final Act. 6–7, 11; Ans. 17 (emphasis added). As discussed above,
we agree with Appellant that section 2.1 of 3GPP does not teach or suggest
the disputed limitations. Further, we agree with Appellant that because
Jang’s disclosure of a user equipment (UE) determining a TAG ID in a
message indicating uplink timing to adjust the uplink transmission timings
of the cell associated therewith does not teach applying the TA of the PCell
to the SCell, it does not cure the noted deficiencies of 3GPP. Appeal Br. 26
(citing Jang ¶¶ 74, 75).
Because Appellant has shown at least one reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 65 and 70, we do
not reach Appellant’s remaining arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 65 and 70, as well as
dependent claims 62, 63, and 65–69, which also recite the disputed
limitation.
VI. CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 60–70.

Appeal 2018-007371
Application 14/233,170

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
60, 61, 64 102(e) 3GPP 60, 61, 64
62, 63, 65–70 103 (a) 3GPP, Jang 62, 63, 65–70
Overall Outcome 60–70

REVERSED