Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2018

13666429 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2018)

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.
13/666,429 11/01/2012 Runhua Chen TI-71695 1586
23494 7590 02/01/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
BAIG, ADNAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2018 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RUNHUA CHEN, ANTHONY EDET EKPENYONG,
VIKRAM CHANDRASEKHAR, and RALF MATTHIAS BENDLIN
Appeal 2017-006062
Application 13/666,429
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC B. CHEN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and MICHAEL M. BARRY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 4—8, 11—18, and 21^41.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the Texas Instruments Inc. (the Applicant for the
Application here on appeal) as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 19, and 20 have been canceled. See App. Br. Claims
App’x 1—3.
Appeal 2017-006062
Application 13/666,429
Introduction
The Specification describes embodiments of the invention as
“relating] to wireless communication systems and, more particularly, to the
mapping of Downlink Control Information (DCI) into an enhanced Physical
Downlink Control Channel (EPDCCH).” Spec. 12. Claim 1 is exemplary,
reproduced here with a disputed limitation in italics'.
1. A method of mapping control information in a
wireless communication system, comprising the steps of:
forming a subframe having a bandwidth and having
plural regions;
determining a transmission mode for a remote user
equipment (UE1);
mapping control information specific to UE1 into a first
enhanced physical downlink control channel (EPDCCH) region
of the subframe;
mapping control information common to UE1 and at
least another user equipment (UE2) into a second enhanced
physical downlink control channel (EPDCCH) region of the
subframe', and
transmitting the subframe to UE1 and UE2.
App. Br. Claims App’x 1.
Rejections
Claims 1, 4—8, 11—18, 21—25, 29-31, 34, 35, and 39-41 stand rejected
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ji (US 2011/
0310829 Al; Dec. 21, 2011), Blankenship (US 2013/0003604 Al; Jan. 3,
2013), and Lunttila (US 2014/0211767 Al; July 31, 2014). Final Act. 5^44.
Claim 26 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ji, Blankenship, Lunttila, and Pajukoski (US 2013/
0343218 Al; Dec. 26, 2013). Final Act. 45.
2
Appeal 2017-006062
Application 13/666,429
Claims 27 and 28 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ji, Blankenship, Lunttila, and Qiang (US 2012/0188974
Al; July 26, 2012). Final Act. 46-47.
Claims 32 and 33 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ji, Blankenship, Lunttila, and Pelletier (US 2012/0113831
Al; May 10, 2012). Final Act. 47^19.
Claims 36—38 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ji, Blankenship, Lunttila, and Marinier (US 2013/0039284
Al; Feb. 14, 2013). Final Act. 49-52.
ISSUES
Appellants separately argue claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 16, 29, and 30. App.
Br. 12—26; see also Reply Br. 2—18. Appellants argue claims 34, 35, 39, 40,
and 41 together as a group. App. Br. 26—30; see also Reply Br. 18—35. We
select claim 40 as representative of the group. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants present no substantive arguments of Examiner error for
dependent claims 5—7, 12—15, 17, 18, 21—28, 31—33, and 36—38 separate
from their parent claims. App. Br. 16—17, 20, 22—24, 26, 32—37. Those
dependent claims stand or fall based on the arguments for their parent
claims. Accordingly, the issues are whether the Examiner errs in the
rejections of claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 16, 29, 30, and 40.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions of reversible error. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions.
Instead, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasons as set forth in the
Final Rejection from which this appeal is taken and as set forth in the
3
Appeal 2017-006062
Application 13/666,429
Answer, as consistent with our discussion below. We highlight the
following for emphasis.
Claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in the rejection of claim 1 because
the cited art fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of “mapping
control information common to UE1 and at least another user equipment
(UE2) into a second enhanced physical downlink control channel
(EPDCCH) region of the subframe.” See App. Br. 12—14; see also id. at 14—
15 (intimating the Examiner engages in impermissible hindsight). The
Examiner responds that, in view Ji, Blankenship teaches the disputed
limitation. Ans. 3^4. Specifically, the Examiner finds Blankenship’s
disclosure of configuring multiple EPDCCH regions in a subframe (1106)
and of expanding the common search space used by multiple UEs “to
include the extended PDCCH regions, so that information common to
multiple UEs can be sent in the extended PDCCH regions” (1107) teaches
the disputed limitation. Id. (emphasis by the Examiner).
Appellants reply that “Blankenship TO 1061 teaches away from
common control information by teaching that ‘different regions may be used
for different purposesReply Br. 3. Appellants further contend:
Blankenship [0107] mentions control information using a
common search space, but it does not teach to “mapping control
information common to UE1 and at least another user
equipment (UE2) into a second enhanced physical downlink
control channel (EPDCCH) region of the subframe”, The key
here is that the claim discloses a singular “second enhanced
physical downlink control channel (EPDCCH) region of the
subframe”, Blankenship teaches that “the common search
space can be expanded to include the extended PDCCH
regions, so that information common to multiple UEs can be
4
Appeal 2017-006062
Application 13/666,429
sent in the extended PDCCH regions”. This defines plural
regions, which would be read by one skilled in the art as one
region per UE. There is also no disclosure of common control
information, only a common search space is taught.
Reply Br. 4.
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive. A teaching away requires a
reference to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed
solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Teaching
that “different [EPDCCH] regions may be used for different purposes” is far
from a criticism, discrediting, or discouragement of the disputed limitation.
Blankenship gives a specific example of allocating common downlink grants
for multiple UEs that use multi-user, multiple-input, multiple-output (“MU-
MIMO”) transmission into a single EPDCCH region. See Blankenship
1107 (explaining that “one region may be used for DL grants for MU-
MIMO” so that “all UEs that are configured for MU-MIMO are allocated
DL grants in the new E-PDCCH region”). Contrary to Appellants’
characterization, we agree with the Examiner that this teaches common
control information for multiple UEs in the same EPDCCH region, as
recited by the disputed limitation. See Ans. 3—5.
Appellants provide no persuasive argument or evidence that the
Examiner’s proposed combination of the teaching from Ji with the teachings
from Blankenship was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary
skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d
1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 419 (2007)); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill
is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Nor have
Appellants provided objective evidence of secondary considerations which
5
Appeal 2017-006062
Application 13/666,429
our reviewing court guides “operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.”
Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352
(Fed. Cir. 2013). The Examiner has sufficiently articulated reasoning with a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550
U.S.at418).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 1,
and of claims 6 and 7, for which Appellants present no arguments separate
from claim 1.
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the step of
mapping control information common to UE1 and at least another user
equipment (UE2) into the second enhanced physical downlink control
channel (EPDCCH) region of the subframe is determined in response to a
type of common control information.” App. Br. Claims App’x 1. The
Examiner reasons that Ji’s teaching of a cell sequence common to each UE
and Blankenship’s teaching of a common control channel render the added
limitation of claim 4 obvious. Final Act. 8 (citing Ji | 51; Blankenship
H 111)-
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because “[i]n no case does Ji
[0051] teach ‘the step of mapping control information common to UE1 and
at least another user equipment (UE2) into the second region of the subframe
is determined in response to a type of control information,”’ because Ji
neither teaches nor suggests “mapping control information” nor doing so “in
response to a type of common control information.” App. Br. 16 (further
arguing that because the cited portion of Blankenship “has nothing to do
6
Appeal 2017-006062
Application 13/666,429
with common control information,” the Examiner appears to misunderstand
Blankenship).
The Examiner answers by finding Blankenship alone teaches the
requirements of claim 4. Ans. 7 (citing Blankenship 1107). Similar to the
findings discussed above for claim 1, the Examiner explains “Blankenship
specifies a type of common control information such as DL grants for users
configured with MU-MIMO” and, because only one DCI format is used, the
step of mapping is in response to a type of common control information. Id.
We agree with the Examiner. Appellants’ reply that “[t]he key here is
that the claim discloses a singular ‘second enhanced physical downlink
control channel (EPDCCH) region of the subframe'''’'’ and the cited
discussion of Blankenship “defines plural regions, which would be read by
one skilled in the art as one region per UE” (Reply Br. 6—7) are unpersuasive
for the same reasons as for claim 1 discussed supra.
Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner errs in finding an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood the disclosure in
Blankenship that “one region may be used for DL grants” (1107) teaches
multiple DL grants in one region. Thus, Appellants do not persuade us the
Examiner errs in finding Blankenship’s disclosure of using one EPDCCH
region and a single DCI format for multiple downlink grants to multiple UEs
that use MU-MIMO fails to teach or suggest that claim 1 ’s step of mapping
control information (| 107) “is determined in response to a type of common
control information,” as recited in claim 4.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 4,
and of claim 5, for which Appellants present no argument separate from
claim 4.
7
Appeal 2017-006062
Application 13/666,429
Claim 8
Analogous to the disputed limitation of claim 1, independent claim 8
recites “blind decoding a second enhanced physical downlink control
channel EPDCCH region of the subframe to receive control information
common to the UE1 and at least another user equipment (UE2).” App. Br.
Claims App’x 2.3 Vis-a-vis the aspects of this limitation that correspond to
claim 1 ’s disputed limitation, the Examiner makes essentially the same
findings for the rejection of claim 8 as for the rejection of claim 1. See Final
Act. 10-12; Ans. 9-12 (citing, inter alia, Blankenship || 103, 106-07).4
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in the rejection of claim 8 for essentially
the same reasons as for claim 1. Compare App. Br. 17—18, and Reply Br. 7—
9, with App. Br. 12—15, and Reply Br. 2—6. For the same reasons discussed
supra for claim 1, these arguments are unpersuasive. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 8, and of claims 13—15, for
which Appellants present no arguments separate from claim 8.
Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 8 and, analogously to claim 4, recites
“wherein the step of mapping control information common to UE1 and at
3 Whereas claim 1 recites “[a] method of mapping control information” that
includes, inter alia, a step of “transmitting the subframe to UE1 and UE2,”
claim 8 recites “[a] method of receiving control information by a user
equipment” that includes, inter alia, a step of “receiving a configuration of a
subframe having plural regions from [a remote base station].”
4 In the rejection of claim 8, the Examiner relies on disclosure from Ji and
Blankenship not cited in the rejection of claim 1 for claim 8’s limitation of
“blind decoding.” Final Act. 10-12; Ans. 9—12. Appellants only dispute the
findings as they relate to the format and content of information that is blind
decoded in claim 8, without disputing the Examiner’s findings related the
limitation of “blind decoding.” App. Br. 17—18.
8
Appeal 2017-006062
Application 13/666,429
least another user equipment (UE2) into a second region of the subframe is
determined in response to a type of common control information.” App. Br.
Claims App’x 2. As with claim 4, the Examiner finds “the specific DCI
format in Blankenship specifies a type of common control information such
as DL grants for users configured with MU-MIMO,” and, thus, Blankenship
teaches the added limitations of claim 11. Ans. 12; see also id. at 13.
Appellants reply with effectively the same arguments presented for claim 4.
Compare Reply Br. 10—11, with Reply Br. 6—7. For the same reasons
discussed supra for claim 4, we find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 11, and
also of claim 12, for which Appellants offer no argument separate from
claim 11.
Claim 16
Analogous to the disputed limitation of claim 1, independent claim 16
recites “generating a second Downlink Control Indicator (DCI) comprising
control information common to UE1 and at least a second user equipment
(UE2)” and “mapping the second DCI into the second region of the
subframe, wherein the second region is configured for an Enhanced Physical
Downlink Control Channel (EPDCCH).” App. Br. Claims App’x 3.5 Vis-a-
vis the aspects of claim 16’s limitations that correspond to claim 1 ’s
disputed limitation, in addition to substantially the same findings for the
rejection of claim 16 as for the rejection of claim 1, see Final Act. 15—17, the
Examiner finds Blankenship teaches “each of the multiple E-PDCCH
5 Whereas claim 1 recites “[a] method of mapping control information,”
claim 16 recites “[a] method of communication between a base station and a
plurality of user equipments (UE).”
9
Appeal 2017-006062
Application 13/666,429
regions may use a specific DCI format which will include mapping a first
DCI and a second DCI into the multiple EPDCCH regions configured in the
subframe.” Ans. 15 (citing Blankenship || 94, 97, 105-06).
Appellants reply by “travers[ing the] Examiner’s conclusions” (Reply
Br. 12), contending the “Examiner never directly addresses each claim
limitation individually’'’ {id. at 13), and arguing the Examiner errs because
the example for DL grants for MU-MIMO in Blankenship uses on a single
DCI format {id. at 13—14). “Conspicuous by its absence is any teaching
regarding a DCI associated with a UE mapped to a unique UE-specific
search space, let alone a second DCI associated with a first and a second UE
mapped to a second UE-specific search space, as required by Claim 16.” Id.
(discussing Blankenship 1107).
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner
that Blankenship teaches use of multiple DCIs by, for example, disclosing
“the E-PDCCH may be used for a specific DCI or a reduced subset of DCIs
in order to reduce the number of blind decodings performed by the UE.”
Blankenship 194 (cited at Ans. 15 (also citing || 97, 105—06)); see also
Final Act. 17 (citing Blankenship || 77—78, 97, 103, 105—06, 111). In other
words, Blankenship teaches using either a single DCI or multiple DCIs.
Similar to arguments presented for claim 1, Appellants also argue the
Examiner errs in the rejection of claim 16 because in Blankenship “[t]here is
also no disclosure of common control information” and “Blankenship
[0106] teaches away from common control information.” Reply Br. 14. For
the same reasons discussed supra for claim 1, these arguments are
unpersuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
10
Appeal 2017-006062
Application 13/666,429
claim 16, and of claims 17, 18, and 21—28, for which Appellants present no
arguments separate from claim 16.
Claim 29
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Blankenship teaches or
suggests “determining which control information common to UE1 and at
least another user equipment (UE2) is to be transmitted by a physical
downlink control channel (PDCCH) and which is to be transmitted by an
enhanced physical downlink control channel (EPDCCH)” and “mapping
common control information to be transmitted by the enhanced physical
downlink control channel (EPDCCH) to an enhanced physical downlink
control channel (EPDCCH) region of the subframe,” as recited by claim 29.
App. Br. 24—25. In particular, Appellants contend “Blankenship [0106]
teaches away from common control information by teaching that ‘different
regions may be used for different purposes.’” App. Br. 25; see also Reply
Br. 16—17. This argument is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above
for the similar arguments presented by Appellants for claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 29,
and of claims 32 and 33, for which Appellants present no arguments
substantively separate from claim 29.
Claim 30
Claim 30 depends from claim 29 and recites “wherein the step of
mapping control information common to UE1 and at least another user
equipment (UE2) into the physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) and
the enhanced physical downlink control channel (EDPCCH) regions of the
subframe is determined in response to a type of common control
information.” App. Br. Claims App’x 5—6. The Examiner finds
11
Appeal 2017-006062
Application 13/666,429
Blankenship teaches this added requirement. Final Act. 15 (citing
Blankenship || 97, 106-07, 110). Appellants argue the Examiner errs
because the cited disclosure of Blankenship “does not address mapping
control information common to a UE1 and UE2 into PDCCH and EPDCCH
regions.” App. Br. 26. We agree—the cited disclosure teaches only
mapping into EPDCCH regions.
The Examiner answers, however, by finding Blankenship’s disclosure
of “common control channels in the legacy control region” (| 39), along
with use of a common search space corresponding to PDCCH channels as
illustrated in Table 3, teaches mapping common control information into
PDCCH as well as EPDCCH regions. Ans. 23 (also citing Blankenship
Tflf40, 107). Appellants reply that “[t]he key here is that the claim discloses
a singular ‘second enhanced physical downlink control channel (EPDCCH)
resion of the subframe’.” Reply Br. 17; see also id. at 18 (arguing
Blankenship 1107 “defines plural regions,” has “no disclosure of common
control information, only a common search space is taught,” and that the
“Examiner again confuses PDCCH with EPDCCH”).
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner
that Blankenship H 39-40 teach or suggest mapping common control
information into PDCCH regions and that H 106—07 teach mapping it into
an EPDCCH region, as recited. The remainder of Appellants’ arguments are
unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above for claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 30,
and also of claim 31, which depends from claim 30 and for which
Appellants present no argument separate from claim 30.
12
Appeal 2017-006062
Application 13/666,429
Claim 40
Independent claim 40 recites a method of mapping control
information that requires “mapping control information specific to UE1 into
an enhanced physical downlink control channel (EPDCCH) region of the
subframe” and “mapping control information common to UE1 and at least
another user equipment (UE2) into the enhanced physical downlink control
channel (EPDCCH) region of the subframe.” App. Br. Claims App’x 8. We
note the only difference between claims 1 and 40 is that while both of the
mapping steps of claim 40 map the information into the same EPDCCH
region, claim 1 requires the analogous mapping steps to map the information
into first and second EPDCCH regions.
Appellants’ arguments of Examiner error for the rejection of claim 40
do not substantively differ from the arguments for claim 1. Compare App.
Br. 28—32, with id. at 12—16. For example, Appellants argue “Blankenship
teaches away [0106] from common control information.” Id. at 29. These
arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed supra for claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 40,
and of claims 34, 35, 39, and 41, which Appellants argue together with claim
40, and also of claims 36—38, for which Appellants present no arguments
substantively separate from claim 35.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 4—8, 11—
18, and 21—41 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
13
Appeal 2017-006062
Application 13/666,429
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
14