Ex Parte CHEN et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 22, 201814157202 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/157,202 01/16/2014 15055 7590 08/24/2018 Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P. Qualcomm 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77046 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR WanshiCHEN 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 131193US 8178 EXAMINER ISLAM, ROWNAK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2474 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/24/2018 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): qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com P AIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WANSHI CHEN, HAO XU, PETER GAAL, and TINGFANG JI 1 Appeal2018-002223 Application 14/157 ,202 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-11, 13-19, and 29. Claims 20-28 and 30 are canceled and claims 5 and 12 are withdrawn (see Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. The present invention relates generally to improving phase continuity in an uplink transmit time interval (TTI) bundle (see Spec., Abstract). 1 Appellants name QUALCOMM Incorporated as the real party in interest (App. Br. 4). Appeal2018-002223 Application 14/157 ,202 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for wireless communications by a user equipment (UE), comprising: identifying a transmit time interval (TTI) bundle comprising a plurality of uplink (UL) subframes for transmitting data to a node; identifying a segment of UL subframes in the TTI bundle; and maintaining transmit power when transmitting data to the node over the segment of UL subframes in the TTI bundle. Appellants appeal the following rejections: RI. Claims 1--4, 6, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kitazoe (US 2010/0067412 Al, Mar. 18, 2010) and Khoryaev (US 2013/0242889 Al, Sept. 19, 2013) (Final Act. 4--12); and R2. Claims 7-11, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kitazoe and Khoryaev in combination with various other prior art (see Final Act. 13-19). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS Rejections under§ 103(a) Claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 17-19, and 29 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Kitazoe and Khoryaev collectively teach or suggest identifying a segment of uplink (UL) subframes 2 Appeal2018-002223 Application 14/157 ,202 and maintaining transmit power when transmitting data to the node over the segment, as set forth in claim 1? In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that Khoryaev teaches "TTI bundle with 20 contiguous TTis is a segment of UL subframes and 50 subframe time interval is the TTI bundle" (Final Act. 5---6 ( citing Khoryaev's Fig. 5 and ,r 42)). Appellants contend, "that while [Khoryaev's] FIG. 5 and paragraph [0042] illustrates and teaches respectively the TTI bundle 220c including 20 TTis, Khoryaev fails to teach or suggest that the 50 subframe time interval discussed in paragraph [0042] is a TTI bundle" (App. Br. 9). We agree with Appellants. The Examiner "interpreted that entire frame of 50 subframe time interval to be a super TTI bundle and the entire frame also includes one or more smaller TTI bundles ... [as] a segment of the super TTI bundle" (Ans. 4 (citing Khoryaev 's Fig. 5 and ,r 42)). However, we find that Khoryaev fails to teach or suggest that the "50 subframe time interval," as illustrated in Khoryaev's Figure 5, is a super TTI bundle, whereas the TTI bundle 220c is a segment thereof. In fact, the Examiner later concedes that Khoryaev "does not explicitly recite 50 subframe interval is a TTI bundle" (Ans. 4), and states "but the 50 subframe time interval is a time interval for transmission in the UL" (id.). In other words, in the Answer the Examiner appears to back off the previous finding that Khoryaev 's "50 subframe interval" is a super TTI bundle, whereas TTI bundle 220c is a segment thereof. We agree that Khoryaev fails to disclose the "50 subframe interval" as a TTI bundle. Instead, Khoryaev merely discloses "[ t ]he TTI bundle with 20 contiguous TTis can be transmitted with a 20 TTI packet air-interface latency 232c, which is within an approximately 50 subframe time interval 3 Appeal2018-002223 Application 14/157 ,202 constraint for VoIP service" (i142). As such, we agree with both Appellants and the Examiner that the "50 subframe time interval" merely represents a time interval for transmission, instead of a super TTI bundle. Because we find that Khoryaev's "50 subframe interval" is not a TTI bundle, TTI bundle 220c cannot be a segment of UL subframes, but the entire bundle itself. In order to show "a segment of UL subframes in the TTI bundle," as required by claim 1, the Examiner now finds that Khoryaev teaches "a bundle[ of] TTI of varying size ranging from 4 to 20 TTI in [the] 50 subframe time interval ... and a segment of 4 TTis out of the single bundle containing 20 TTis is used to transmit HARQ in the uplink. Therefore, Khoryaev definitely teaches identifying a segment of UL subframes in the TTI bundle" (Ans. 4 (citing Khoryaev ,r,r 62---64)). We agree that this different finding in Khoryaev shows 4 TTis contained in the 20 TTI bundle, i.e., a segment of UL subframes. Appellants contend that "while paragraph [0064] of Khoryaev appears to teach transmitting HARQ feedback indicators for at least 4 TTis in the 20 TTI bundle, Khoryaev fails to teach or suggest that the UE maintains transmit power while transmitting data to a node over the 4 TTis" (Reply Br. 4). Appellants further contend that "using a single transmit power to trigger TTI bundling is not the same as using and maintaining transmit power over a segment of UL subframes in a TTI bundle after the triggering" (App. Br. 10). We agree in-part with Appellants. The Examiner reasons that "[ s ]ince[] the bundle is activated with a transmit power, ... the transmit power is necessary to be continual for keeping the activation of the TTI bundle" (Ans. 6). The Examiner also finds that "Khoryaev discloses a trigger for TTI bundling is a maximum transmit 4 Appeal2018-002223 Application 14/157 ,202 power and a power used to transmit TTI bundles is also the maximum transmit power" (id.). Contrary to the Examiner's findings, the cited portions of Khoryaev merely discloses "a trigger for TT! bundling can be the wireless device reporting a transmit power that is getting close to a maximum transmit power value" (i127) ( emphasis added), not maintaining a maximum transmit power when transmitting the segment. Thus, we agree with Appellants that "there is no teaching or suggestion in Khoryaev that ... the wireless device must maintain a transmit power close to the maximum transmit power value" (Reply Br. 5) and "the Examiner's assertion is conclusory with no supporting evidence ... [because] Khoryaev fails to teach or suggest that the UE must maintain the same transmit power that triggered TTI bundling" (id. at 6). At best, Khoryaev teaches some power close to maximum power for triggering bundling, but the cited paragraph (i.e., ,r 27), is silent about any transmission power requirements. Although Paragraph 57 of Khoryaev discloses a maximum power during a low rate service (see ,r 57), like paragraph 27, there is no discussion about transmission power requirements for a segment of a TTI bundle. In the Examiner's forever changing findings, the Examiner now asserts that "'maintaining a transmit power' is a broad term and always a transmit power is applied to send data" (Ans. 7). This finding of the Examiner, we agree with. Claim 1 recites, inter alia, maintaining transmit power when transmitting data to the node over the segment of UL subframes in the TT! bundle (see claim 1 ). However, claim 1 does not specify at what value the power is being maintained, only that the power is maintained, irrespective of the value, during transmission. Although the parties are 5 Appeal2018-002223 Application 14/157 ,202 arguing supra whether Khoryaev discloses a maximum power or maintaining the same power during transmission, the scope of claim 1 only requires maintaining power during transmission, which we find Khoryaev inherently discloses so as to accomplish the transmission process. In other words, Appellants' arguments regarding "maintaining transmit power" are not commensurate with the scope of the claims because the claims merely require maintaining power when transmitting, not maintaining the power at any particular level. Although Appellants' Abstract states "maintaining substantially the same transmit power" (see Abstract), claim 1 fails to specify such a requirement. While we interpret claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, claim I merely requires power being maintained during transmission. As such, we agree with the Examiner that having power during transmission of data is a necessary feature in Khoryaev. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Appellants' arguments regarding the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 29 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 3, 4, 11, and 1 7-19 (see App. Br. 11-14). We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 3, 4, 11, 17-19, and 29. Claim 2 Appellants contend that the cited portion of Khoryaev "fails to ... mention channel estimation, much less coherent estimation over a segment 6 Appeal2018-002223 Application 14/157 ,202 of UL subframes ... [and] Kitazoe fails to remedy this deficiency" (App. Br. 12). We agree with Appellants. Here, the Examiner "broadly interpreted coverage performance [in Khoryaev 's paragraph 39] as channel approximation or expected channel estimation ... [to be] considered as coherent estimation interval" (Ans. 8), without pointing to any evidence to support such an interpretation. Therefore, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2. Claims 6--10 Appellants contend that "Khoryaev fails to teach or suggest that this maximizing time and/or frequency diversity includes maintaining timing and/or frequency over a segment ... [and] Kitazoe fails to remedy this deficiency" (App. Br. 12). Here, the Examiner "broadly interprets maximizing time and/or frequency diversity for UL transmission as reserving/maintaining time or frequency over the segment of UL subframes" (Ans. 9). We agree with the Examiner. For example, Khoryaev discloses that "[t]he TTI bundling mechanism can be modified to maximize the coverage performance for the uplink services (e.g., uplink VoIP services) by an efficient usage of the available resources and maximizing time and/or frequency diversity of the transmissions" (i139). Claim 6 recites, inter alia, maintaining at least one of timing or frequency over the segment (see claim 6). We find that the scope of claim 6 reads on the above cited portions of Khoryaev given that claim 6 7 Appeal2018-002223 Application 14/157 ,202 merely requires "maintaining" time and/or frequency, irrespective of the value. Accordingly, we affirm the rejections of claim 6, and claims 7-10, which are dependent thereon. Claim 13-16 Appellants contend that "Khoryaev fails to teach or suggest that the higher layer signaling activating the TTI bundling includes a signal based on ... maintain[ing] transmit power over a segment ... [and] Kitazoe fails to remedy this deficiency" (App. Br. 13). We agree with Appellants. The Examiner finds that "[ s ]ince[] the higher layer signaling triggers/activates TTI bund[ling] at the maximum transmit power ... maintaining transmit power over the TTI bundle/segment is based on the higher layer signaling received from the node" (Ans. 9-10). However, the Examiner fails to show how a signal that triggers bundling is the same signaling that is used to determine whether to maintain transmit power over the segment. For example, the cited portion of Khoryaev merely discloses that "TTI bundling can be activated with higher layer signaling per wireless device. For example, a trigger for TTI bundling can be the wireless device reporting a transmit power that is getting close to a maximum transmit power value" (i127). While there is indeed a signaling in Khoryaev that triggers bundling, the Examiner has not sufficiently established that Khoryaev illustrates a nexus between this signaling and determining whether to maintain transmit power over the segment, as required by the claims. Nor has the Examiner shown how Kitazoe cures this deficiency. 8 Appeal2018-002223 Application 14/157 ,202 Therefore, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13, and claims 14--16, which are dependent thereon. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections of claims 2 and 13-16. We affirm the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections of claim 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 17-19, and 29. 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-IN-PART 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation