Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 12, 2018

13459907 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 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.
13/459,907 04/30/2012 Youngbum Kim 1398-397
(YPF201104-0075)
1153
66547 7590 01/17/2018
THF FARRFT T T AWFTRM PC
EXAMINER
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
SMITH, MARCUS
Melville, NY 11747 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/17/2018 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):
pto @ farrelliplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOUNGBUM KIM, CHENG SHAN, YOUNSUN KIM and
BRUNO CLERCKX
Appeal 2017-007216
Application 13/459,9071
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-007216
Application 13/459,907
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to Appellants, the invention relates “to an Orthogonal
Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) wireless communication
system, wherein control and data channels for a particular User Equipment
(UE) are time-division multiplexed.” Spec. 1:15—17.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below with the disputed
limitation emphasized.
1. A downlink transmission method by a base station in a
mobile communication system, the method comprising:
identifying a sub-set of resource blocks for a terminal
among resource blocks;
transmitting, to the terminal, information on the sub-set of
resource blocks;
transmitting, to the terminal, control information including
resource allocation information for data, the control information
being transmitted via a control channel identified based on the
information on the sub-set of resource blocks; and
transmitting, to the terminal, the data via a data channel
based on the control information and the sub-set of resource
blocks for the terminal,
wherein the sub-set of resource blocks includes at least one
control channel resource, and
wherein a search space for the control channel of the
terminal is defined based on a number of the at least one control
channel resource.
2
Appeal 2017-007216
Application 13/459,907
Reference and Rejection2
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Malladi et al. (US 2011/0110296 Al, pub. May 12, 2011,
“Malladi”). Final Act. 4—7.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “wherein a search space for the control channel of the
terminal is defined based on a number of the at least one control channel
resource.” The Examiner finds Malladi’s resource blocks correspond to the
claimed control channel resource. Ans. 7. Citing paragraphs 49 and 51 and
Figure 4 of Malladi, the Examiner finds “[sjince [Malladi’s] search space is
for the control region (control channel) and specifies one or more [resource]
blocks of the wireless device for control data,. . . Malladi teaches a search
space for the control channel of the terminal is defined based on a number of
the at least one control channel resource.” Ans. 8.
Appellants argue “[w]hile Malladi may describe specifying a location
of control data within the control region related to the wireless device and
defining a search space for a wireless device specifying one or more
resource blocks, Malladi does not teach or suggest that a search space for the
control channel of the terminal is defined based on a number of the at least
one control channel res ounce. ” App. Br. 7. According to Appellants, “the
mere existence of a search space in Malladi does not indicate how the search
space is defined.” App. Br. 10. Appellants further contend “Malladi merely
specifies the RB [resource block] or the location within the RB to define the
2 The rejection of claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph (Final Act. 3) has been withdrawn. Advisory Act. 2.
3
Appeal 2017-007216
Application 13/459,907
search space and fails to define the search space based on a number of the at
least one control channel resource” (App. Br. 11) and that “the Examiner has
not identified Malladi doing anything based on a number of control channel
resources in the sub-set of the resource blocks” (App. Br. 12).
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. Malladi discloses a control
region defining component 204 and a control region indicating component
206 that “can define a search space for a wireless device specifying one or
more resource blocks, and/or locations within the resource blocks, that may
comprise control data for the wireless device.” Malladi 149; see also
Ans. 6—7; Final Act. 4. Malladi, therefore, clearly discloses defining a
search space for a terminal.
Moreover, given the Examiner’s finding that Malladi’s resource
blocks correspond to the claimed “control channel resource” and given
Malladi’s disclosure that the search space is defined by specifying one or
more resource blocks (Malladi 149), we agree with the Examiner that
Malladi discloses defining the search space “based on a number of the at
least one control channel resource.” In other words, the ordinary artisan
would have understood that defining a search space by specifying one or
more resource blocks is included in the scope of defining the search space
based on a number of resource blocks.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well
as claims 2—20, for which no arguments for separate patentability are
presented.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 is affirmed.
4
Appeal 2017-007216
Application 13/459,907
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5