Ex Parte DalsgaardDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 18, 201511799200 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte LARS DALSGAARD ____________ Appeal 2012-007759 Application 11/799,200 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before DENISE M. POTHIER, ERIC B. CHEN, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–37. App. Br. 6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Invention Appellant’s invention relates to transmitting an assignment of an uplink (UL) resource to user equipment (UE) for the purposes of sending a synchronization signal. This technique involves sending a synchronization Appeal 2012-007759 Application 11/799,200 2 burst on an UL resource dedicated to specific UE, which prevents collisions with bursts sent by other UEs, such as when using random access channels. See Spec. ¶¶ 47–48, Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method, comprising: transmitting to a user equipment a physical downlink control channel message indicating a synchronization signal and an assignment of an uplink resource on which to send the uplink synchronization signal; receiving from the user equipment on the assigned uplink resource the uplink synchronization signal; and determining a timing advance for the user equipment based at least in part on the uplink synchronization signal. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Hassan US 5,822,311 Oct. 13, 1998 Baum US 5,867,478 Feb. 2, 1999 Luschi US 2003/0045288 A1 Mar. 6, 2003 Chandra US 2007/0133458 A1 June 14, 2007 (filed Oct. 4, 2006 and claiming priority to Provisional App. No. 60/725,064, filed Oct. 7, 2005) Terry US 2007/0189205 A1 Aug. 16, 2007 (claiming priority to Prov. App. Nos. 60/886,164, filed Jan. 23, 2007, and 60/763,791, filed Jan. 31, 2006) THE REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1–6, 10–15, 18–24, and 27–37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Terry and Chandra. Ans. 5–19. Appeal 2012-007759 Application 11/799,200 3 2. The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Terry, Chandra, and Baum. Ans. 20–21. 3. The Examiner rejected claims 8, 16, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Terry, Chandra, and Hassan. Ans. 21–22. 4. The Examiner rejected claims 9, 17, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Terry, Chandra, and Luschi. Ans. 23–24. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER TERRY AND CHANDRA Claims 1–4 Appellant argues claim 1 and does not argue dependent claims 2–4 separately. App. Br. 6–10, 25–27. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(vii). Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Terry teaches most of the limitations in claim 1, except for using the physical download control channel (PDCCH) for synchronization. Ans. 5, 26–27 (citing Terry ¶¶ 21, 23, 27, 29–31, 34, 35, 41, 45, 491). The Examiner turns to Chandra in combination with Terry to teach or suggest the missing limitation. Ans. 5–6, 27 (citing Chandra ¶¶ 4, 19). Appellant argues that Terry discloses only transmitting the non-contention based ( NCB) channel allocation to wireless transmit/receive units (WTRUs) 230 and does not teach or suggest transmitting a physical downlink control channel message that indicates both “a synchronization signal and an assignment of an uplink resource on which to send the uplink 1 The Examiner also refers to Terry’s provisional application. Ans. 6. Appellant assumes that the referenced provisional application is Provisional No. 60/763,791. App. Br. 6. Appeal 2012-007759 Application 11/799,200 4 synchronization signal” as recited. App. Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 2–4. Also, Appellant asserts that that Chandra fails to teach the physical control channel is used for synchronization. App. Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 4. Appellant further contends that the Examiner equates the timing advance (TA) discussed by Terry to the recited synchronization signal and the synchronization burst in Terry to the recited timing advance. App. Br. 9–10. ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Terry and Chandra collectively would have taught or suggested transmitting to a user equipment a physical downlink control channel message indicating a synchronization signal and an assignment of an uplink resource on which to send the uplink synchronization signal? ANALYSIS Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. We begin by construing the language, “a physical downlink control channel message indicating a synchronization signal and an assignment of an uplink resource on which to send the uplink synchronization signal” in claim 1. Appellant asserts that this recitation requires the recited messages “includes both ‘a synchronization signal’ and ‘an assignment of an uplink resource on which to send the uplink synchronization signal’ . . . .” Reply Br. 3 (bolding and underlining omitted); see also App. Br. 7–8. However, claim 1 is broader in scope. Claim 1 recites a message that “indicat[es] a synchronization signal and an assignment of an uplink resource on which to send the uplink Appeal 2012-007759 Application 11/799,200 5 synchronization signal” (emphasis added) and not that the message includes both a synchronization signal and an assignment. App. Br. 42, Claims App’x. When reviewing the instant disclosure, the Specification shows: (1) transmitting a message that contains an uplink (UL) resource assignment; and (2) transmitting an allocation table (AT) that includes the UL-SCH allocation for synchronization burst. Spec., Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 (step 305). Similarly, the disclosure describes examples of transmitting “an assignment of an uplink resource on which to send an uplink synchronization signal.” Spec. ¶¶ 16–21, 61, 62. In each of these examples, the disclosure fails to describe a synchronization signal being sent with the physical downlink control channel message, only an assignment of an uplink resource on which to send the synchronization signal. In fact, the disclosure states various indications are used to indicate that the assignment is “for the purpose of sending its synchronization signal.” Spec. Abstract. Granted, the disclosure describes an example where the AT includes a preamble and that the preamble is sent “as its synchronization burst (or in conjunction with some other information that serves as the burst).” Spec.¶ 50. However, this is a non-limiting example of what the AT includes. Id. Given the disclosure, we find the that broadest, reasonable construction of the recited phrase, “a physical downlink control channel message indicating a synchronization signal and an assignment of an uplink resource on which to send the uplink synchronization signal,” includes a message with information used to maintain and create a synchronization signal (see Ans. 26), and does not require the message to contain the synchronization signal itself. Accordingly, we find Appellant’s argument that Terry fails to teach a physical downlink (DL) control channel message that includes both a Appeal 2012-007759 Application 11/799,200 6 synchronization signal and an assignment of an uplink resource on which to send the uplink synchronization signal is not commensurate in scope with claim 1. See App. Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 2–4. Terry suggests sending a message to the UE that contains allocation information related to assignment and synchronization. Paragraphs 30, 35 and 49 in Terry, as cited by the Examiner (Ans. 5, 26–27), discuss evolved Node-B (eNB) 110 transmitting UL shared access grant of resource assignment allocations to various UEs (e.g., WTRU1-3) for a specific duration, which suggests an element of timing (e.g., synchronization) for each allocated resource. See Terry ¶¶ 35, 47–49; Fig. 7 (step 720). Additionally, Terry discusses the allocation transmission may be included in the DL common control channel signaling, suggesting that the DL message includes other information within its signal. Terry ¶ 35. Finally, Terry teaches that the resources allocation in accordance with step 720 includes allocated portions 830 and allocated blocks portions 840 that include time and frequency components for each portion and block portion. See Terry ¶¶ 48–49; Fig. 8. The differing time and frequency information contained in the resource allocations for each UE, as taught in Terry, suggests to one skilled in the art that the DL common control channel signaling contains both the assignment of uplink resources and information related to timing of the resources (e.g., how the resources are synchronized based on each resource’s allocated timing and frequency). See id. As such, we agree with the Examiner that Terry suggests the resource allocation message indicates synchronization when allocating timing and the frequency for each UE (see Ans. 26–27) and thus, suggests the recited “transmitting to a user equipment a physical downlink control channel Appeal 2012-007759 Application 11/799,200 7 message indicating a synchronization signal and an assignment of an uplink resource on which to send the uplink synchronization signal” in claim 1. Next, Appellant asserts that that Chandra fails to teach the physical control channel is used for synchronization. App. Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 4. As stated above, Terry suggest the message includes elements of synchronization (e.g., timing and frequency), such that the message is used for synchronization. Also, as noted by the Examiner, Terry teaches the resource allocation can be included in the DL common control channel signal. Terry ¶ 35 (cited in Ans. 27). The Examiner further relies on Chandra in combination with Terry to teach the same feature of using the physical DL common control channel to comply with existing 3GPP standards and thus to use a physical DL control channel message as recited. Ans. 6, 27 (citing Chandra ¶¶ 4, 19). We therefore, are not persuaded by Appellant’s assertions. Appellant further contends that the Examiner equates the timing advance (TA) discussed by Terry to the recited synchronization signal. App. Br. 9–10. We disagree. As discussed above, the Examiner is relying upon the resource allocation and the DL common control channel signaling to teach the recited DL control channel message that indicates the synchronization signal and an assignment as recited. Regarding the disputed uplink synchronization signal, Terry teaches transmitting a synchronization burst from an UE (e.g., WTRU 120) to an eNB over the allocated channel (e.g., receiving from a UE the uplink synchronization signal). Terry ¶ 39; Fig. 5. Terry further discusses separately determining the timing advance using the NCB channel. Id. As such, we disagree that the rejection equates the uplink synchronization signal to the timing advance. Appeal 2012-007759 Application 11/799,200 8 For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2–4 not separately argued with particularity. Claims 11–13, 18–22, 28–33, and 35–37 Although Appellant separately discusses independent claims 11, 19, 28, 32, and 36, the arguments presented are similar to those presented for claim 1. Compare App. Br. 6–10 with App. Br. 11–25. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 11, 19, 28, 32, and 36 and dependent claims 12, 13, 18, 20–22, 29–31, 33, 35, and 37 not separately argued. Claim 5 Claim 5 recites, in relevant part, “transmitting comprises transmitting to the first user equipment and to a second user equipment a first allocation table comprising the assignment of the uplink resource.” Appellant first repeats the arguments presented for claim 1, for which we are not persuaded. App. Br. 28. Next, Appellant argues that Terry fails to teach assigning the uplink resources using an allocation table. App. Br. 28–29. To teach this feature, the Examiner relies upon various passages in Terry. Ans. 7–8, 27 (citing Terry ¶¶ 18, 19, 21–23, 31; Fig. 1, 8–10). We disagree with Appellant that “an allocation table” must be a particular data structure. Reply Br. 4–5 (citing Spec. ¶ 32). Rather, the disclosure describes an example of AT as a data structure but this does not define the term. Spec. ¶ 32. As such and as discussed above, Terry suggests transmitting channel allocation resources that assign the uplink resources for multiple UEs and includes information related to allocated resource portion Appeal 2012-007759 Application 11/799,200 9 830 and allocated resource blocks portion 840. See Terry ¶¶ 35, 47–49; Fig. 8. Figures 9–10 show the resource allocation in even more detail. Given these teachings, Terry suggests to one skilled in the art transmitting the information using various forms, such as an allocation table, to carry the assigned time and frequency components for both a first and second UE’s (e.g., WTRU1-2) channel resource allocation. Furthermore, there are only a finite number of predictable ways of transmitting the information discussed in Terry, including using an allocation table, and one skilled in the art would have a good reason to pursue this known option, such using an AT would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Appellant also argues that Terry clearly does not disclose or suggest the recitation, “sending to the first and second UE the first and second timing advance in a second allocation table.” App. Br. 29. However, Appellant does not provide any further explanation of why Terry fails to teach this feature. See id. Merely pointing out what claim 1 recites and then asserting that the combination fails to teach this limitation is not considered a separate argument for patentability. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In any event to the extent this is considered an argument, we refer to the Examiner’s discussion. Ans. 8 (citing Terry ¶ 31). For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claim 5. Claims 6, 14, and 23 Claim 6 recites “the assignment of the uplink resource is transmitted to the user equipment in an allocation table.” Claim 23 recites similar limitations. We group these claims together and select claim 6 as Appeal 2012-007759 Application 11/799,200 10 representative. Appellant first repeats the arguments presented for claim 1, for which we are not persuaded. App. Br. 29. Appellant also refers to the arguments made for claim 5, for which, as explained above, we also are not persuaded. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 23. In presenting arguments for claim 14, Appellant refers to claim 6. App. Br. 36. We are not persuaded for the above-stated reasons.2 Claims 10 and 27 Claim 10 recites “executed in response to the user equipment becoming established in a cell by a non-synchronized handover.” Claim 27 recites similar limitations. We group these claims together and select claim 10 as representative. Appellant first repeats the arguments presented for claim 1, for which we are not persuaded. App. Br. 34. Also, Appellant argues that Terry teaches “only ‘the NCB channel should be maintained during handovers from one base station to another’. There is no disclosure or suggestion that such a ‘handover’ is specifically a ‘non-synchronized handover’ (or a ‘fast handover’).” App. Br. 35. For this recitation, the Examiner relies on Terry. Ans. 9 (citing Terry ¶¶ 8–9, 19). Paragraphs 8, 9, and 19 in Terry, cited by the Examiner, do not discuss handovers. On the other hand, Appellant admits Terry teaches maintaining a channel resource during handovers from one base station to another target cell. Terry ¶ 71. The Examiner specifically states this portion of Terry teaches the need to synchronize after any handover, which includes a non-synchronized handover. Ans. 29. Also, the Examiner states executing in response to the UE being established in a cell by a non-synchronized 2 Claims 6 and 14 differ in scope. Appellant fails to present any arguments concerning these differences. Appeal 2012-007759 Application 11/799,200 11 handover is “well known in the art and designed into 3GPP specification for which Terry is compliant to.” Id. Appellant do not dispute these findings. Based on the record, we sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 27. Claims 15, 24, and 34 Appellant notes that the Examiner rejected claim 15 on the same basis as claim 7 (Ans. 11), which was rejected over Terry, Chandra, and Baum. App. Br. 37; Ans. 20–21. Appellant is correct that the Examiner rejected claim 7 based on Terry, Chandra, and Baum and not Terry and Chandra alone. In the Response to Argument section, the Examiner appears to be relying on Terry, Chandra, and Baum when discussing claims 15, 24, and 34. Ans. 27 (grouping claims 7, 15, 24, and 34). Thus, for purposes of examination, we assume that the Examiner mistakenly grouped claims 15, 24, and 34 under the heading of the rejection based on Terry and Chandra but intended to reject claims 15, 24, and 34 over Terry, Chandra, and Baum. Although considered harmless, such an error should have been clarified on the record by the Examiner. We will treat these claims according to our assumption. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER TERRY, CHANDRA, AND BAUM Claims 7, 15, 24, and 34 Claim 7 recites in pertinent part, “transmitting to the user equipment the assignment of an uplink resource comprises transmitting a preamble associated with the user equipment[.]” The Examiner relies on Terry to teach the features in claim 7, mapping a user ID to a preamble. See Ans. 21 (citing Terry ¶¶ 23, 25, 27). Appellant argues Terry does not disclose transmitting an assignment that includes transmitting a preamble and Appeal 2012-007759 Application 11/799,200 12 specifically fails to discuss how a “preamble” is provided to the user. App. Br. 31. We agree that paragraphs 23, 25, and 27 of Terry fail to discuss a preamble or a user ID as the Examiner states.3 Also, although the Examiner argues that the rejection does not rely on Terry exclusively (Ans. 27), the rejection only discusses Baum to teach the feature of synchronization based on a cell specific pilot code and not for the preamble. See Ans. 21. Based on the findings presented by the Examiner, we agree with the Appellant that the prior art does not discuss a preamble. Reply Br. 5. Appellant has persuaded us of error in the rejection of claim 7. Also, claims 15, 24, and 34 recite similar limitations to claim 7, and we likewise find error in the rejection of these claims. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER TERRY, CHANDRA, AND HASSAN Claims 8, 16, and 25 Claim 8 recites in pertinent part, “the uplink synchronization signal received from the user equipment comprises a guard time equal to a guard time in a transmission over a non-synchronous random access channel.” Appellant repeats the arguments presented for claim 1, for which we are not persuaded. App. Br. 32. Furthermore, we need not address whether Hassan cures the purported deficiency of claim 1. The Examiner relied on Hassan and what is well known in the art to teach the limitation in claim 8. Ans. 21–22 (citing Hassan 3:35–62). Appellant asserts that Hassan fails to teach that its guard time relates to a 3 We acknowledge that Terry discusses an identifier (ID) can be included in resource allocation. See Terry ¶ 49. However, this passage was not relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims. Appeal 2012-007759 Application 11/799,200 13 transmission over a non-synchronous random access channel, such that the guard time is equal to a guard time in a transmission over a non-synchronous random access channel. App. Br. 32; Reply Br. 5–6. In response, the Examiner finds that the cited passage in Hassan teaches UE’s random access channel (RACH) has a guard time of 68.25 bits and that the slotted, synchronous channel has an equal guard time. Ans. 28. We agree with Appellant that Hassan teaches that the RACH guard time is 68.25 bits, while the slotted RACH requires “a very long guard time,” failing to suggest an equal guard time to the UE’s RACH. See Reply Br. 5–6. The Examiner further contends that using guard times is well known in the art and optimization of guard times is within an ordinarily skilled artisan with expected results. Ans. 21, 28. Even if true, we find an inadequate basis on the record with a rational underpinning for an ordinarily skilled artisan to optimize the guard times such that the uplink synchronization signal received from the UE equals a guard time in a transmission over a non-synchronous random access channel as recited in claim 8. Appellant has persuaded us of error in the rejection of claim 8. Claims 16 and 25 recite similar limitations. We likewise find error in the rejection of claims 16 and 25. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER TERRY, CHANDRA, AND LUSCHI Claims 9, 17, and 26 Claim 9 recites in pertinent part, “the assignment of the uplink resource further comprises an indication that no timing advance value is available.” Claims 17 and 26 recite similar limitations. We select claim 9 as Appeal 2012-007759 Application 11/799,200 14 representative. Appellant repeats the arguments presented for claim 1, for which we are not persuaded. App. Br. 33. Furthermore, we need not address whether Luschi cures the purported deficiency of claim 1. The Examiner finds that Luschi in combination with Terry and Chandra teach the feature of claim 9. Ans. 23 (citing Luschi ¶¶ 47, 63). Citing to paragraph 53, Appellant argues that Luschi does not teach “whether or not ‘timing advance information’ is available.” App. Br. 34. As the Examiner finds, the ACK/NAck acknowledges whether the TA is available, and a sent NAck demonstrates that the TA is not available. Ans. 23, 29. Luschi teaches that that High Speed (HS)-Shared Channel (SCH) transmissions on both the DL and UL side can include control information, such as Ack/Nack and timing advance information. Luschi ¶¶ 47–48, 53, 63. Additionally, Luschi teaches that the timing advance can be sent with higher level signaling. Luschi ¶ 63. As noted by Appellant (App. Br. 34), Ack/NAck signaling indicates a successful transmission on the corresponding HS-SCH. Luschi ¶ 53. One skilled in the art would have recognized further that Luschi suggests that, when a NAck signal is sent, the signal indicates an unsuccessful transmission, including suggesting that the timing advance information transmitted was unsuccessful. As such, given these teachings and employing the creative inferences of an ordinarily skilled artisan, Luschi’s NAck signal, when combined with Terry and Chandra, suggest an unsuccessful transmission carrying the assignment of the uplink resource, which includes control information (e.g., NAck), further indicating an unsuccessful transmission of the timing advance information and thus that no timing advance value is available. Also, a transmission Appeal 2012-007759 Application 11/799,200 15 having an assignment and a separate timing advance information signal (see Luschi ¶ 63) also suggests to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the transmitted assignment has no available timing advance value in the transmitted assignment. Based on the record, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claims 9, 17, and 26. CONCLUSION Under § 103, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–6, 9–14, 17–23, 26–33, and 35–37 but erred in rejecting claims 7, 8, 15, 16, 24, 25, and 34. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–37 is affirmed-in-part. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation