Ex Parte Frenne et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 23, 2019

13882632 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/882,632 05/07/2014 Mattias Frenne
152435 7590 05/28/2019
Sage Patent Group/Zacco
PO BOX 30789
RALEIGH, NC 27622-0789
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.
1009-0529 I P36153 US2 3297
EXAMINER
OVEISSI, MANSOUR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2415
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/28/2019 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):
zaccoinstructions@sagepat.com
outsourcing@zacco.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTIAS FRENNE, JUNG-FU CHENG,
GEORGE JONGREN, HA VISH KOORAPATY, and
DANIEL LARSSON1
Appeal2018-005040
Application 13/882,632
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget
LM Ericsson (publ). See App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-005040
Application 13/882,632
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 46-57, 65-86, and 89-91.2 App. Br. 2. Of those rejected, claims 46,
65, 77, and 91 are independent. Id. Claims 39-45 and 58-64 are allowed.
Id., Final Act. 11. Claims 1-38, 87 and 88 are canceled. Final Act. 2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse. 3
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to an initializing reference signal generation in
wireless networks. Spec., Title. Claim 46, reproduced below with bracketed
reference letters added and formatting altered, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
46. A method, implemented by a wireless device, for
demodulating an enhanced control channel, the method
compnsmg:
selecting from a first reference signal sequence generated
from a first initialization value and a second reference signal
sequence generated from a second initialization value, based on
one or more of
[(a)] whether the enhanced control channel is targeted to a
common search space or a DE-specific search space,
[ (b)] whether the enhanced control channel is for receiving
a random access response or a paging message or a
broadcast control message, and
[ ( c)] whether the enhanced control channel is a frequency-
localized or frequency-distributed transmission;
2 The Examiner mistakenly includes claims 58-64 among those indicated to
be rejected. Final Act. 5.
3 We refer to the Specification, filed April 30, 2013 ("Spec."); Final Office
Action, mailed March 22, 2017 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief, filed October
23, 2017 ("App. Br."); Examiner's Answer, mailed February 12, 2018
("Ans.") and Reply Brief, filed April 12, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2018-005040
Application 13/882,632
performing channel estimation for a received signal, using
reference symbols taken from the selected reference signal
sequence; and
demodulating the enhanced control channel using the
channel estimation results.
REFERENCES
The following prior art is relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Davydov et al.
Yoon
us 61/439,9874
US 2013/0114536 Al
REJECTIONS
Feb. 7,2011
May 9, 2013
The Examiner rejects claims 46-57, 65-86, and 89-91 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Yoon and Davydov. Final Act. 5-11; Ans. 2-17.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants' conclusions
as to the rejection of the claims.
Appellants contend the prior art fails to teach or suggest selecting first
and second reference signal sequences based on any of the three recited
selection criteria of limitations (a) through (c), i.e.: whether the enhanced
control channel is
4 The following patents claim priority to this provisional application: US
9,300,509 issued March 29, 2016; US 9,166,849 issued October 20, 2015;
US 9,559,814 issued January 31, 2017, and US 8,842,646 issued September
23, 2014. For purposes of this appeal, Appellants treat the rejection as based
on US 2013/0286997 Al that issued as US 9,300,509. See App. Br. 10, fn.
2. In view of our decision on the merits, we do not address this issue further.
3
Appeal2018-005040
Application 13/882,632
(a) targeted to a common search space or a user equipment
(UE)-specific search space,
(b) for receiving a random access response or a paging
message or a broadcast control message, or
( c) a frequency-localized or frequency-distributed transmission.
App. Br. 11-12. According to Appellants, "[t]he Final Office
Action's formal analysis of claim 46, as found at pages 6-8, doesn't address
this 'based on' limitation directly." Id. at 12. Appellants argue:
[U]nlike the system of the present invention, in Yoon' s system,
the base station sends, to the mobile station, an explicit indication
of which reference signal has been selected. Yoon refers to this
indication as "selection instruction information." The pending
claims, on the other hand, relate to a system in which such an
explicit indication is not needed because, as specified by the
claims, the selection depends on one or more of three possible
selection criteria, such that the mobile station can apply the
correct reference symbols without an explicit indication.
Id. at 13 ( citation omitted). In connection with limitation (a), Appellants
argue, even if Yoon teaches common and UE specific search spaces, it is
nonetheless deficient as failing to disclose using the criteria as a basis for
selecting reference signal sequences. Id. Appellants argue Davydov fails to
cure this deficiency. Id. at 19. In connection with limitation (b ), Appellants
argue Yoon is again deficient because it "never suggests that the 'selection
instruction information' has anything to do with Yoon's 'control field for
instructing a Random Access (RA)' or 'control field for paging."' Id. at 15.
In connection with limitation ( c ), Appellants argue, although Davydov
discloses localized and frequency domain distributed ePDCCH, the
reference fails to use the localized/distributed aspect as a criteria for
selection of a reference signal sequence. Id. at 16.
4
Appeal2018-005040
Application 13/882,632
The Examiner responds, finding Yoon's DCI provides instruction
information for selecting first or second initialization values based on an
environment of the UE thereby generating a reference sequence. Ans. 7-8.
According to the Examiner, the selection is based on DCI fields thereby
teaching the selection criteria of limitation (b ). Id. at 10. In connection with
limitation (a), the Examiner finds Yoon and Davydov teach DCI formats for
initiating a random access procedure via PDCCH used for common and UE
specific search spaces thereby teaching or suggesting the argued selection
criteria. Ans. 12-13. In connection with limitation (c), the Examiner finds
"Davydov teaches that enhanced control channel ( ePDCCH) can be used for
localized or distributed in frequency domain" such that:
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at art to
combine the teachings of Davydov with Yoon to configure a DCI
format to instruct a UE via an ePDCCH that selecting a first
reference signal sequence generated from a first initialization
value and a second reference signal sequence generated from a
second initialization value, based on ( c) whether the enhanced
control channel is a frequency-localized or frequency-distributed
transmission.
Id. at 13.
Appellants reply, arguing because "Yoon's base station explicitly tells
the UE which value is being used, ... the UE has no need to make a
selection based on which type of search space is used, or whether frequency
or localized distribution is used, etc." Reply Br. 7.
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims for
failure to provide sufficient evidence or explanation addressing the recited
criteria being used as a basis for selection of a reference signal sequence.
Although the Examiner finds the prior art discloses the various conditions, it
5
Appeal2018-005040
Application 13/882,632
is not apparent the conditions are used as criteria for selecting between first
and second reference signal sequences. Therefore, on the record before us,
we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 46, 65, 77, and 91 or
of their dependent claims which stand with their respective base claims.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 46-57, 65-86,
and 89-91 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
6