Ex Parte Chen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 201714163874 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2017) 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. 14/163,874 01/24/2014 Wanshi Chen PQ040.01 (81679.0167) 8338 109682 7590 11/30/2017 Holland & Hart LLP/Qualcomm P.O. Box 11583 Salt Lake City, UT 84147 EXAMINER BHATTI, HASHIM S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2472 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2017 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 patentdocket @ hollandhart. com qualcomm @ hollandhart. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WANSHI CHEN, TAO LUO, PETER GAAL, and ALEKSANDAR DAMNJANOVIC Appeal 2017-006320 Application 14/163,874! Technology Center 2400 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1—3, 5—7, 9-11, 13—15, 17—19, 21—26, and 28—30. Claims 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 27 include allowable subject matter and are only objected to (see Final Act. 6). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.1 2 1 Appellants identify Qualcomm Incorporated as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.) 2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Jan. 24, 2014 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed Feb. 10, 2016 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed July 22, 2016 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed Dec. 1, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Jan. 30, 2017 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2017-006320 Application 14/163,874 CLAIMED INVENTION The claims are directed to methods, systems, and devices for multi subframe scheduling that allows for reduced overhead for scheduling uplink or downlink transmissions. (Spec., Title; Abstract.) Appellants’ multi- subframe scheduling system determines differences in characteristics for subframes associated with a multi-subframe scheduling information transmission, and adjusts one or more properties for communication during the one or more subframes based on the differences in characteristics for subframes. (Id.) Claims 1,9, 17, and 24 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving, in a first subframe, multi-subframe scheduling information for a set of subframes; determining differences in characteristics for one or more subframes of the set of subframes based on the multi-subframe scheduling information; and adjusting one or more properties for communication during the one or more subframes responsive to the determination. (App. Br. 11 (Claims App.).) REJECTIONS & REFERENCES (1) Claims 1—3, 6, 7, 9-11, 14, 15, 17—19, 22—26, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) based on Bo Li et al. (EP 2538734 Al, published Dec. 26, 2012, “Bo”). (Final Act. 2-A.) 2 Appeal 2017-006320 Application 14/163,874 (2) Claims 5, 13,21, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bo and Love et al. (US 2012/0263047 Al, published Oct. 18, 2012, “Love”). (Final Act. 4.) ANALYSIS § 102(a) Rejection based on Bo The Examiner finds Bo’s Figure 6 discloses the subject matter recited in independent claims 1,9, 17, and 24. (Final Act. 2 (citing Bo H 63—64, Fig. 6).) For example, Bo’s Figure 6 is reproduced below with annotations to indicate certain features. PDCCH {PHYSICAL DOWNLINK CONTROL CHANNEL} OF DOWNLINK TRANSMISSION SENT BY BASE STATION TO UE (USER EQUIPMENT) ■PDCCH FOR ACTIVATING SEMI-PERSISTENT SCHEDULING is sent IN SUBFRAME #0 PDCCH Y\ m 1 Subframe numbering 0 1 T 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 HARQ process number 0 nmD 2 TnjDD 0 LXnz ACK/NAK 0 npf] 3 m Fig. 6 Bo’s Figure 6 shows a multi-subframe scheduling method. Bo 11 14, 63-64. Bo’s Figure 6 shows activation of uplink and downlink semi- persistent scheduling performed using a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) by which a base station notifies a user equipment (UE) of a semi- persistent subframe scheduling interval “n” and/or a semi-persistent 3 Appeal 2017-006320 Application 14/163,874 scheduling transmission length “m” of semi-persistent scheduling that needs to be started. (See Bo 1 63.) Bo’s Figure 6 also illustrates multi-subframe scheduling with m=3 and n=2, where n=2 indicates one subframe needs to be spaced after a prior subframe transmits. (See Bo Tflf 63—64.) The semi- persistent scheduling schedules a resource, such as a HARQ (Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request) process, for transmission to the UE terminal “m” times, from a starting position of the semi-persistent scheduling process (i.e., from subframe #0, as shown in Figure 6). (See Bo 1 63.) A HARQ process number field indicates a process number corresponding to a data packet scheduled by a current subframe. (See Bo 1 57.) For example, in multi subframe scheduling with parameter n=2, as shown in Figure 6, the PDCCH for activating semi-persistent scheduling is sent in subframe #0, and the HARQ process number thereof is “0.” (See Bo | 64.) Therefore, a newly- transmitted data packet corresponding to HARQ process #0 is transmitted in subframe #0. (See Bo 1 64.) Since one subframe needs to be spaced when the semi-persistent scheduling interval n=2, data corresponding to the next HARQ process #1 is transmitted in subframe #2 of the next transmission, and similarly, the newly-transmitted data packet corresponding to the next HARQ process #2 is transmitted in subframe #4. (See Bo | 64.) After transmission is finished m=3 times, this semi-persistent scheduled PDCCH is invalidated. (See Bo 1 64.) With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Bo’s semi-persistent subframe scheduling information—including the semi-persistent subframe scheduling interval “n” sent to the UE—teaches the claimed “multi- subframe scheduling information” for a set of subframes (subframes numbered #0 to #4 in Bo’s Figure 6). (Final Act. 2 (citing Bo’s Fig. 6, 4 Appeal 2017-006320 Application 14/163,874 H 63—64); Ans. 4.) This multi-subframe scheduling information is received in the first subframe (subframe #0 in Bo’s Figure 6). (See Bo 63—64; Final Act. 2.) The Examiner further finds Bo’s subframe scheduling interval “n” enables the UE to determine differences in characteristics for each subframe of the subframe set #0 to #4, i.e., data is transmitted every other subframe (i.e., in subframes #0, #2, and #4 in Bo’s Figure 6) and is not transmitted in the remaining subframes (i.e., subframes #1 and #3). (Ans. 4—5.) Appellants argue Bo fails to disclose ‘“determining differences in characteristics for one or more subframes of the set of subframes based on the multi-subframe scheduling information’” recited in claim 1. Specifically, Appellants argue “simply sending HARQ processing data in some subframes [in Bo] but not others based on the SPS scheduling value ‘n’ does not disclose any so-called determination of ‘differences in characteristics’.” (App. Br. 6.) We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument, which is not supported by corresponding language in claim 1. Claim 1 does not specify what “determining differences in characteristics” entails. Thus, the claimed “determining differences in characteristics for one or more subframes” does not exclude Bo’s determining differences between the subframes’ transmission status.3 Thus, we agree with the Examiner that 3 Additionally, Appellants’ Specification does not exclude a subframe’s transmission status from the claimed “characteristics.” For example, Appellants’ Specification provides that “[t]he differences in characteristics of one or more subframes may include, for example ... a subframe type different from a subframe type of the first subframe,” the “type of subframe comprising at least one of a multicast broadcast single frequency network (MBSFN) downlink subframe, a non-MBSFN subframe, a special subframe, or an almost blank subframe.'’'’ (Spec. 1 6 (emphasis added).) The 5 Appeal 2017-006320 Application 14/163,874 “one subframe having [HARQ] data and the other being empty [in Bo] is clearly a difference in characteristic” as claimed because “in one frame data is being transmitted and the next frame is empty,” and “[t]his difference in characteristic is determined by the received value of n, which could be n=2, n=3 etc.” (Ans. 5.) In the Reply, Appellants argue that Bo does not “describe any change in a transmission skipping pattern” because Bo does not disclose “a single n value other than n=2; for example, Bo does not disclose the n=3.” (Reply Br. 3—4.) We disagree because Bo teaches “[t]he semi-persistent subframe scheduling interval may be set to different values, for example, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or the like.” (Bo 1 64 (emphasis added).) Appellants also argue Bo does not determine the differences based on the multi-subframe scheduling information, as claimed; specifically, “[bjecause Bo describes ‘n’ as the PDCCH information, the Office Action reversibly errs by relying on ‘n’ as disclosing characteristics determined based on that PDCCH information” (App. Br. 5). This argument is not persuasive because it does not address the Examiner’s rejection. As discussed supra, the Examiner finds a subframe’s transmission status—that is, a subframe transmitting data versus a subframe being skipped/empty—is the characteristic determined based on the PDCCH information “n.” (Ans. 6.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Bo teaches “determining differences in characteristics for one or more subframes of the set of Specification further provides that “determining the differences in characteristics may include determining that at least one subframe of the set of subframes has ... a subframe type that is different from a subframe type of the first subframe.” (Spec. 118 (emphasis added).) 6 Appeal 2017-006320 Application 14/163,874 subframes based on the multi-subframe scheduling information,” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner further finds, upon receipt of the subframe scheduling interval n=2, Bo’s UE adjusts data transmission in subframes according to the value of “n.” (Ans. 5—6.) Particularly, the Examiner finds Bo’s UE “adjust[s] the property for communication by transmitting data in one sub- frame and not sending data in the next sub-frame or skipping the next frame, see fig.6, sub-frames 1 and 3 are skipped.” (Ans. 6 (citing Bo Fig. 6).) Appellants argue Bo fails to disclose “adjusting one or more properties for communication during the one or more subframes responsive to the determination,” as recited in claim 1. Specifically, Appellants argue “mere transmittal of data cannot correctly be equated with ‘adjusting one or more properties’—nor is any such ‘adjusting’ inherent in simple data transmission. . . . Rather, in order for a transmission subframe skipping pattern to be adjusted, the n value itself would have to be adjusted/changed.” (Reply Br. 3.) However, Appellants’ argument is not supported by corresponding language in claim 1 that would distinguish over Bo. For example, claim 1 does not specify what “properties for communication during the one or more subframes” are adjusted, and claim 1 does not require the “one or more properties” to be a scheduling interval value (e.g., value of “n”). Claim 1 merely recites “adjusting one or more properties for communication,” which does not exclude adjusting transmission during the subframes, as taught by Bo. Appellants further argue “Bo’s static ‘n’ is neither adjusted nor provides even any basis for ‘adjusting one or more properties’.” (App. Br. 7 Appeal 2017-006320 Application 14/163,874 6.) This argument is not persuasive because it does not address the Examiner’s rejection. As discussed supra, “[i]t is the transmission which is being adjusted by transmitting and not transmitting in different sub-frames” of Bo’s set of subframes numbered 0 to 4. (Ans. 6 (citing Bo Fig. 6).) Bo’s transmission is adjusted responsive to the determination of each subframe’s transmission status, as dictated by n=2. (Ans. 6.) Thus, Bo teaches adjusting as recited in claim 1. Appellants group together independent claims 1,9, 17, and 24 and submit the same arguments for these claims. (App. Br. 4, 7; Reply Br. 2, 6.) Accordingly, for the stated reasons, we sustain the rejections of claims 1, 9, 17, and 24, as well as claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, and 30, for which no separate arguments are presented. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). § 103(a) Rejection based on Bo and Love Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites that: the determining comprises determining that a number of available resource blocks (RBs) for a second subframe is different from a number of available RBs for the first subframe; and wherein the adjusting comprises adjusting a resource allocation associated with the second subframe. Claim 13, depending from claim 9, claim 21, depending from claim 17, and claim 28, depending from claim 24, recite similar limitations. The Examiner finds Fove discloses adjusting a number of resource blocks that are scheduled, assigned, or configured for a control or data region of a second subframe, thereby teaching the determining and adjusting steps of claim 5. (Final Act. 4 (citing Fove 177).) 8 Appeal 2017-006320 Application 14/163,874 Appellants contend Love does not teach determining that a number of available RBs for a second subframe is different from a number of available RBs for the first subframe, as recited in claim 5. Specifically, Appellants argue: Although [Love’s paragraph 74] notes that [prior] subframe 426 carries an indicator relevant to adjusting RBs for [subsequent] subframe 424, no cited portion of Love discusses determining the number of RBs of that subframe 426—much less comparing the number of RBs of subframe 426 with the number of RBs of subframe 424. . . . [M]erely adjusting the number of resource blocks in particular regions of the same single subframe does not necessarily teach or suggest “determining that a number of available resource blocks (RBs) for a second subframe is different from a number of available RBs for the first subframe.” (Reply Br. 9-10 (citing Love ^fl[ 74, 77, and Fig. 5).) Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive as they do not address the Examiner’s specific findings that Love’s “indicator” includes information for adjusting the bandwidth of available RBs in a subsequent subframe (second subframe 424) with respect to the bandwidth of available RBs in a prior subframe (first subframe 426). (Ans. 7 (citing Love Fig. 5).) Particularly, paragraph 74 describing step 506 of Love’s Figure 5, provides that: [T]he indicator . . . can be used for scheduling the transmission bandwidth of a subsequent subframe’s 424 transmission bandwidth configuration. . . . Subframe 426, which includes the indicator to adjust the transmission bandwidth, is communicated 506 between the network equipment 110 and the user equipment 102. Upon receipt of the indicator by the user equipment 102, the transmission bandwidth configuration 424, which may be modified or adjusted relative to the transmission bandwidth configuration used for subframe 426, of the subsequent subframe can be determined 508 to determine possible subcarrier 9 Appeal 2017-006320 Application 14/163,874 allocations in those subframes. . . . [T]he indicator is decoded such that the user equipment is informed of the transmission bandwidth configuration, which determines possible subcarrier allocations, of the subsequent subframe 424. Love 174 (emphasis added). Thus, Love’s “indicator” in prior subframe 426 is for “mut[ing] one or more resource elements (subcarriers) or a set of resource element groups in the subsequent subframe.” (Love 124.) We consider the skilled artisan, viewing these teachings, would recognize that determining Love’s “indicator” includes determining that a number of available RBs for the second subframe (subframe 424) is different from a number of available RBs for the first subframe (subframe 426). (See Love ]Hf 24, 74, and 76.) For example, Love discloses the “indicator” reduces the number of allocable RBs from a 10MHz total transmission bandwidth in subframe 426, to a 5MHz total transmission bandwidth in subframe 424. (See Love ]Hf 57, 67, and 80.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Love determines that a number of available RBs for a second subframe is different from a number of available RBs for the first subframe, as recited in claim 5. Appellants also argue Love does not teach “adjusting a resource allocation associated with the second subframe,” as claimed. (Reply Br. 10- 11; App. Br. 8—9.) Particularly, Appellants argue: [T]he Office Action does not show that [Love’s] adjusting RBs in different regions of a subframe results in a different number of total available RBs, or that the number of those total available RBs are different than for any other particular subframe. . . . [T]he Office Action does not show that any adjusting indicated by the indicator is based on anything other than solely the “known desensing and interference patterns” predicted for that single subsequent subframe 424. Love, 1 [0077]. The cited 10 Appeal 2017-006320 Application 14/163,874 portions do not teach or suggest, however, any “adjusting” “responsive to the [relied on] determination,” as recited in claim 1, from which claim 5 depends. (Reply Br. 10—11.) Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive because Love expressly teaches that adjusting RBs in the subsequent subframe (second subframe 424) results in fewer available RBs in that subsequent subframe than in the prior subframe (first subframe 426). (See Love ]Hf 57, 65, 67, and 76 (“the set of resource element groups that are to be muted or are not allocated in the transmission bandwidth configuration are determined from the uplink resource allocation in the subframe n-4 426for subframe n 424'" (emphasis added).) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Love adjusts a resource allocation associated with the second subframe as claimed, by muting a set of RBs in the second subframe 424 responsive to a determination that subframe 424’s transmission bandwidth should be reduced with respect to subframe 426’s transmission bandwidth, to avoid interference and desensing that would otherwise occur in subframe 424. (Ans. 7; see also Love H 70- 71.) In light of the above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 and claims 13,21, and 28, for which Appellants provide substantially the same arguments. (App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 8—11.) 11 Appeal 2017-006320 Application 14/163,874 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—3, 5—7, 9-11, 13—15, 17-19, 21-26, and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation