Ex Parte Kalhan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 9, 2016

12782479 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121782,479 05/18/2010
32968 7590 09/13/2016
KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
8611 Balboa Ave
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
AMITKALHAN
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.
TUTL 00184 4753
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, ANH NGOC M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2016 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):
KII-USPatents@kyocera.com
Kathleen.Connell@kyocera.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMIT KALHAN
Appeal2014-009266
Application 12/782,479
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-21, which
are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Kyocera Corp. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-009266
Application 12/782,479
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed invention generally relates to control data transmission
over a data channel by a controlling base station. Spec. Title. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A controlling base station comprising:
a transmitter configured to transmit control data to a
wireless communication device communicating, in accordance
with a communication specification, with a communication base
station, the control data:
transmitted to allow reception by the wireless
communication device of the control data within a data
channel having a frequency and time allocated by the
communication specification for the wireless
communication device to receive data transmissions from
the communication base station; and
representing control information related to
communication between the wireless communication
device and the communication base station.
_,_Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4--6, 9-14, and 16-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Fong et al. 2 Final Act. 4--10.
Claims 3, 7, 8, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fong and 3GPP TSG-RANI #56. 3 Final Act. 10-12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments (App. Br. 8-13; Reply Br. 2-5). We concur with Appellant's
2 US 2011/0170496 Al, published July 14, 2011.
3 Efficient HARQ Protocol for SIC based DL CoMP, 3GPP TSG-RANI #56,
1-17 (Feb. 9-13, 2009) (Agenda Item 12.2, Athens, Greece).
2
Appeal2014-009266
Application 12/782,479
argument (App. Br. 10-11) that the Examiner errs in finding the identified
"controlling base station" of Fong transmits control data to a wireless
communication device that communicates with a communication base
station, where the control data is transmitted "to allow reception by the
wireless communication device of the control data within a data channel
having a frequency and time allocated by the communication specification
for the wireless communication device to receive data transmissions from
the communication base station," as recited in claim 1. 4
The Examiner finds Fong's Figure 5 illustrates that it is well known in
the art that blocks of PDCCH5 (for carrying control data) are transmitted
within a PDSCH6 (data channel). Ans. 12. The Examiner also finds Fong's
Figure 9 shows transmission of PDCCH (for carrying control data) from the
macro eNB,7 which the Examiner finds is claim l's "controlling base
station," to the low power node, which the Examiner finds is claim l's
"communication base station," by assigning the PDCCH into the PDSCH
data channel. Ans. 12-13. As Appellant points out, however, Fong
describes the macro eNB as transmitting control information over the legacy
control channel region, rather than within the data channel. App. Br. 10
(citing Fong i-fi-184-85). Although Fong's low power nodes use PDSCH as
an extended PDCCH to transmit control information (see App. Br. 10 (citing
4 Because the rejections of all claims on appeal rely on the Examiner's
finding that Fong discloses these limitations of claim 1, this issue is
dispositive as to claims 1-21. Accordingly, we need not reach additional
issues raised by Appellant's arguments.
5 PDCCH stands for Physical Downlink Control Channel. Fong i-f 7.
6 PDSCH stands for Physical Downlink Shared Channel. Fong i1 7.
7 eNB stands for an Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
(E-UTRAN) node B. Fong i-f 2.
3
Appeal2014-009266
Application 12/782,479
Fong iii! 84--85)), the Examiner finds the low power node is the
communication base station of claim 1, and not the controlling base station,
which transmits the control information recited in the claim (Ans. 12).
The Examiner also finds Figures 6(a) and 6(b) of Fong show that user
equipment (UE) that is not shown is attached to the low power node but
receives data transmission from the macro eNB. Ans. 13. According to the
Examiner, Figure 6(b) indicates the assignment of PDCCH within a PDSCH
from the macro eNB to the low power node to transmit to the user
equipment. Id. The Examiner finds Fong also discloses the downlink
scheduling grant can be designated to all UEs in the cell for common
PDSCH resource allocation to carry broadcast control information such as
system information for paging. Ans. 13 (citing Fong if 24 ). We agree with
Appellant, however, that claim 1 requires transmission of control data from a
controlling base station (i.e., macro eNB) to a wireless communication
device (i.e., UE), not to the communication base station (i.e., low power
node). Reply Br. 3--4. In addition, we agree with Appellant that paragraph
24 of Fong does not state that the scheduling grant information is transmitted
over the PDSCH, and that this information is also not shown to pertain to
communication between the low power node and the UEs communicating
with it. Reply Br. 4. Thus, the Examiner's finding that the macro eNB
transmits control data to user devices by assigning PDCCH into the PDSCH
is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 8
8 Because the independent claims are rejected under§ 102(e), the issue of
obviousness of these claims under§ 103(a) is not before us. Although the
Board is authorized to enter a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so.
4
Appeal2014-009266
Application 12/782,479
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Fong. For the same reasons, we
do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 10 and 17, which recite
limitations commensurate in scope with those discussed herein. We also do
not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-21, for the
same reasons. 9
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-21.
REVERSED
See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02 (9th ed.
Rev. 07.2015, Nov. 2015).
9 Although an additional reference (3GPP TSG-RANl #56) is relied on in
rejecting dependent claims 3, 7, 8, and 15, the Examiner does not rely on the
additional reference as teaching the disputed limitations discussed herein.
Accordingly, the obviousness rejection does not remedy the deficiencies
noted with respect to the rejection of the independent claims as anticipated.
5