Comcast Cable Communications, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 14, 20212020005388 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2021) 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. 15/091,289 04/05/2016 Esmael Hejazi Dinan 007412.04010 8269 71867 7590 10/14/2021 BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT NUMBER 007412 1100 13th STREET, N.W. SUITE 1200 WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051 EXAMINER LAM, YEE F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2465 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/14/2021 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): PTO-71867@bannerwitcoff.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ESMAEL HEJAZI DINAN Appeal 2020-005388 Application 15/091,289 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. EVANS, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10 and 21–40. Claims 11–20 are canceled. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-005388 Application 15/091,289 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE INTRODUCTION The invention relates generally to “transmission and reception of control [information] and/or data in a multi-carrier wireless network.” Spec. ¶ 19. The Specification describes that, in an LTE network, an eNB (base station) may transmit to a wireless device (UE) one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages comprising configuration parameters of cells. Spec. ¶ 99. The cells may be grouped, for example, into one or more physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) groups, and a cell may be configured with one or more channel state information (CSI) processes. Spec. ¶ 99. The UE may measure a cell’s CSI, and CSI reports corresponding thereto may be transmitted on a PUCCH cell of a corresponding PUCCH group from the UE to the base station. See Spec. ¶¶ 99, 101. PUCCH resources of a PUCCH cell may be divided in one or more of time, frequency (Resource Blocks), and code. Spec. ¶¶ 100, 102. Figure 14 is reproduced below. Figure 14 depicts PUCCH configurations and CSI transmissions according to some example embodiments. Spec. ¶¶ 16, 104. As shown in Figure 14, Appeal 2020-005388 Application 15/091,289 3 PUCCH1 resources of a first cell and PUCCH2 resources of a second cell each comprise one or more resource blocks (RBs), and more than one CSI report for one or more cells may be transmitted in a given subframe. Spec. ¶¶ 104, 106. Also shown in Figure 14, PUCCH2 resources of a second cell comprise multiple sets of one or more RB(s). Spec. ¶ 105. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: receiving, by a wireless device, at least one message comprising configuration parameters of a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) of a cell, wherein the PUCCH comprises a first set of PUCCH resource blocks in a subframe and a second set of PUCCH resource blocks overlapping in time in the subframe with the first set of PUCCH resource blocks; determining, by the wireless device and based on first signals received via a first plurality of cells, a plurality of channel state information (CSI) reports for transmission via the subframe; selecting at least one first CSI report, of the plurality of CSI reports, for transmission via the first set of PUCCH resource blocks; selecting at least one second CSI report, of the plurality of CSI reports, for transmission via the second set of PUCCH resource blocks; transmitting, via the first set of PUCCH resource blocks, the at least one first CSI report; and transmitting, via the second set of PUCCH resource blocks and overlapping in time with the transmission of the at least one first CSI report, the at least one second CSI report. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). THE PENDING REJECTION Claims 1–10 and 21–40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hwang et al. (US 2015/0110029 A1; published Apr. 23, 2015) Appeal 2020-005388 Application 15/091,289 4 (“Hwang”) and Ekpenyong et al. (US 2016/0192388 A1; published June 30, 2016) (“Ekpenyong”). Final Act. 2–6. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s § 103 rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have considered all evidence presented and all arguments Appellant made. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make in the Briefs, are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant argues the rejection of independent claims 1, 21, and 31 together. Appeal Br. 5–10; Reply Br. 2–9. Appellant argues the rejection of dependent claims 2, 4–10, 22, 24–30, 32, and 34–40 on the basis of its arguments for independent claims 1, 21, and 31. Appeal Br. 10. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative for the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–10, 21, 22, 24–32, and 34–40. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018). We address the rejection of dependent claims 3, 23, and 33 separately below. CLAIMS 1, 2, 4–10, 21, 22, 24–32, AND 34–40 Of particular relevance to this Appeal, the Examiner finds Hwang’s description of a UE that uses a UL subframe structure with PUCCHs for transmitting CSI during slots of a subframe teaches or suggests “transmitting, via the second set of PUCCH resource blocks and overlapping in time with the transmission of the at least one first CSI report, the at least one second CSI report,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3 (citing Hwang Fig. 7, ¶¶ 112–113). Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the proposed combination of Hwang and Ekpenyong fails to disclose or suggest the Appeal 2020-005388 Application 15/091,289 5 quoted claim language. Appeal Br. 5–10; Reply Br. 2–9. For the reasons discussed below, Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. Hwang relates to transmitting uplink control information in an LTE network. Hwang ¶¶ 2, 8, 38. Figure 2 of Hwang is reproduced below. Figure 2 of Hwang depicts a structure of a UL subframe in 3GPP LTE. Hwang ¶ 57. As shown in Figure 2, the UL subframe has been divided into a data region and two control regions, to which a PUCCH has been allocated. Hwang ¶ 58. A PUCCH for one UE is allocated to a resource block (RB) pair in the subframe, such that the RBs belonging to the pair of RBs occupy different subcarriers in first and second slots, respectively. Hwang ¶ 59. The RB pair allocated to the PUCCH is frequency-hopped on the slot boundary, and the UE transmits the uplink Appeal 2020-005388 Application 15/091,289 6 control information through different subcarriers with time to acquire a frequency diversity gain. Hwang ¶ 59. Figure 7 of Hwang is reproduced below. Figure 7 of Hwang depicts a PUCCH and a PUSCH on an uplink subframe. Hwang ¶ 98. Hwang describes that Uplink control information (UCI) may be transmitted to the PUCCH according to one of a plurality of formats, including channel status information (CSI) representing a downlink channel status. Hwang ¶ 100. For example, PUCCH format 2 transmits a channel quality indicator (CQI) modulated by the QPSK scheme, and PUCCH formats 2a and 2b transport the CQI and the ACK/NACK. Hwang ¶¶ 101–102, Table 1. Each PUCCH format may be mapped in the PUCCH to be transmitted: for example, PUCCH formats 2/2a/2b may be mapped in the resource block (m=0, 1 in FIG. 7) of a band edge allocated to the UE to be transmitted. Hwang ¶ 103. In addition, a mixed PUCCH resource block (RB) may be mapped in a resource block (for example, m=2) adjacent to the resource block to which the PUCCH formats 2/2a/2b are allocated in a central direction of the band to be transmitted. Hwang ¶ 103. The number Appeal 2020-005388 Application 15/091,289 7 N(2)RB of resource blocks, which may be used in PUCCH formats 2/2a/2b to which the CQI is transmitted, may be indicated to the UE through a broadcasted signal. Hwang ¶ 103. In the Answer, the Examiner maintains that Hwang teaches “transmitting, via the second set of PUCCH resource blocks and overlapping in time with the transmission of the at least one first CSI report, the at least one second CSI report.” Ans. 3–8 (citing, e.g., Hwang Figs. 2, 7, ¶¶ 102 (Table 1), 103, 125–133, 136, 139–142, 151, 153). The Examiner explains that the cited portions of Hwang show that “a combination of RB pairs such as ‘m=0 and m=1 or 2’ (i.e. overlapping in time) in the same subframe may be used for the multiple periodic CSI reports.” Ans. 6. In response, Appellant argues that Figure 7 of Hwang and its accompanying description fail to teach or suggest the “transmitting” limitation because they do not show a particular UE PUCCH occupying two pairs of RBs for sending CSI reports. Reply Br. 4–8. Appellant acknowledges that “if a UE PUCCH were to occupy both the m=0 and m=l RB pairs (4 RBs total), then the CSI information transmitted in those RB pairs would indeed overlap in time.” Reply Br. 5–6. Appellant argues that Hwang’s description of “PUCCH formats 2/2a/2b . . . mapped in the resource block (m=0,1 in Fig. 7),” however, “is not saying that a particular UE is going to have its PUCCH in both RB pairs m=0 and m=l, or that both of those pairs are assigned to a single UE.” Reply Br. 6 (emphases omitted) (citing Hwang ¶ 103). Instead, according to Appellant, “that phrase only says that the formats are mapped in those RBs.” Reply Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). Appellant explains that “the subframe is shared by many UEs communicating with a particular base station, and this mapping applies to Appeal 2020-005388 Application 15/091,289 8 the entire subframe as used by all of the UEs – not just one UE’s use of it,” and “[t]he mapping refers to how the various UEs will coordinate their usage of the subframe when communicating with a particular base station.” Reply Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). In Appellant’s view, “the mere fact that RB pair m=0 and RB pair m=l are both mapped for format 2/2a/2b data does not mean that a single UE will use both of those RB pairs for sending the data in that format,” but “[t]o the contrary, and as would be consistent with the rest of Hwang, that merely means that different UEs may be assigned those RB pairs for sending that format.” Reply Br. 6. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As Appellant acknowledges, see Reply Br. 5–6, Figure 7 of Hwang depicts first and second sets of PUCCH resource blocks overlapping in time, each set transmitting channel status information. Hwang, Fig. 7, ¶¶ 98–103. As shown in Figure 7 of Hwang, each row represents a resource block in a PUCCH format, for transmission during one of two time slots (left-hand column or right-hand column) in an uplink subframe. Hwang, Fig. 7; see Hwang Fig. 2, ¶¶ 59, 98–103. For example, the top three rows under the left-hand column correspond to a first set of PUCCH RBs, with the first resource block (m=1) having PUCCH format 2/2a/2b, which transmits CSI. Hwang, Fig. 7, ¶¶ 98–103. Similarly, the bottom three rows under the left- hand column correspond to a second set of PUCCH RBs, with the second and third resource blocks (m=2, m=0) having PUCCH formats (1/1a/1b + 2/2a/2b, 2/2a/2b) that also transmit CSI. Hwang, Fig. 7, ¶¶ 98–103. In other words, Figure 7 of Hwang teaches or at least suggests transmitting a first CSI report via a first set of PUCCH resources blocks in the same time slot Appeal 2020-005388 Application 15/091,289 9 (“overlapping in time”) in which a second CSI report is transmitted via a second set of PUCCH resource blocks. Hwang also describes the transmission of RBs for one UE, without specifying a need for multiple UEs. For example, Hwang describes that “a PUCCH for one UE is allocated to a resource block (RB) pair in the subframe,” and “[t]he UE transmits the uplink control information through different subcarriers with time to acquire a frequency diversity gain.” Hwang ¶ 59 (emphasis added). Hwang similarly describes that “PUCCH formats 2/2a/2b are mapped in the resource block (m=0, 1 in FIG. 7) of a band edge allocated to the UE to be transmitted,” and “[t]he number N(2)RB of resource blocks which may be used in the PUCCH formats 2/2a/2b to which the CQI is transmitted may be indicated to the UE through a broadcasted signal.” Hwang ¶ 103 (emphasis added). We find that these descriptions at least suggest one UE transmitting CSI using multiple sets of PUCCH RB pairs. Appellant asserts that Hwang’s subframe is used by a plurality of UEs, not just one UE (see Reply Br. 4–6), but Appellant does not present any persuasive evidence to support this assertion. For example, the mere fact that Hwang’s PUCCH RB pairs may be frequency-hopped on a subframe’s slot boundary does not mean that each set of PUCCH RBs belongs to a different UE. See Hwang ¶ 59, Fig. 7. Moreover, Appellant does not identify any persuasive evidence—either in the prior art or the knowledge of a skilled artisan—that the sets of PUCCH RBs shown in a slot of Hwang’s UL subframe are not transmitted by one UE. Appellant also asserts that Hwang’s “number N(2)RB of resource blocks” indicates “which RBs may be used,” not “how many RBs may be used.” Reply Br. 6–7 Appeal 2020-005388 Application 15/091,289 10 (citing Hwang ¶ 103); see Ans. 5–6. But this assertion, even if true, does not demonstrate that Hwang does not assign multiple PUCCH RB pairs to a single UE. Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Hwang teaches or suggests “transmitting, via the second set of PUCCH resource blocks and overlapping in time with the transmission of the at least one first CSI report, the at least one second CSI report,” as recited in representative claim 1. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4–10, 21, 22, 24–32, and 34–40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hwang and Ekpenyong. Claims 3, 23, 33 Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites “wherein the at least one CSI report is selected according to at least one CSI report priority that is based, at least in part, on: a report type of the at least one first CSI report; and a first cell index of a first cell associated with the at least one CSI report.” Appeal Br. 13–14 (Claims App.). Claims 23 and 33 recite similar limitations. Appeal Br. 16, 19 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds the proposed combination of Hwang and Ekpenypong teaches claim 3. Final Act. 4 (citing Hwang ¶¶ 115–127); Ans. 9–10 (additionally citing Hwang ¶¶ 40–41, 157; Ekpenypong ¶ 76; Spec. ¶¶ 173–174). The Examiner explains that “‘a first cell index of a first cell associated with the at least one first CSI report’ is used for selecting CSI reports” because “Hwang . . . discloses a known standard using cell indexes to identify cells (Ekpenyong discloses the same . . .),” and that a “CSI report is selected according to a CSI report type and a priority of the cells,” whereby “CSI having a high priority may be transmitted or otherwise Appeal 2020-005388 Application 15/091,289 11 dropped due to collision.” Ans. 10 (citing Hwang ¶¶ 40, 41, 115, 127; Ekpenyong ¶ 76). Appellant argues that, even though Hwang describes a CSI report selected according to a priority of cells and the cells are identified by a cell index, Hwang does not teach or suggest that the priority is “based . . . on . . . a first cell index” as claimed. Reply Br. 9–10; see Appeal Br. 10– 11. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the cited descriptions of Hwang at least suggest that a CSI report is selected based on first cell index because, in Hwang, “any one CSI report is selected according to a CSI report type and a priority of the cells,” and a cell’s priority may be correlated with its cell index. Hwang ¶¶ 41, 127. For example, Hwang describes that “[a] lowest [cell index (CI), 0,] may be designated as the CI of the primary cell. . . . and CIs of the secondary cell are sequentially allocated from 1.” Hwang ¶ 41. Ekpenyong similarly describes prioritizing PUCCH transmissions on PCells, which are assigned a serving cell index 0, whereas SCells are assigned indexes from 1 to N–1. Ekpenyong ¶¶ 76, 89. It is also worth noting here that, consistent with the Examiner’s findings and explanations, the Provisional Applications to which Hwang claims priority explicitly disclose that a CSI report’s priority is based on a first cell index. U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/637,827, filed on Apr. 24, 2012, 16:7–9 (“For a given subframe, in case of collision between CSI reports of different serving cells with CSI Type of the same priority the CSI of the serving cell with lowest ServCellIndex is reported, and CSI of all other serving cells are dropped.”); accord U.S. Provisional Application No. Appeal 2020-005388 Application 15/091,289 12 61/644,437, filed on May 9, 2012, 22:9–11; U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/678,632, filed on Aug. 2, 2012, 16:7–9. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3, 23, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Hwang and Ekpenyong. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10 and 21–40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1–10, 21–40 103(a) Hwang, Ekpenyong 1–10, 21–40 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). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation