Ex Parte LEE et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 12, 2019

14223225 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/223,225 03/24/2014
68103 7590 02/14/2019
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Heun Chui LEE
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.
0209-0008 8047
EXAMINER
AUNG,SAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2416
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/14/2019 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):
usdocketing@jeffersonip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HEUN CHUL LEE, BRUNO CLERCKX, and YOUNG HO JUNG
Appeal2017-006070
Application 14/223,225
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-006070
Application 14/223,225
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16-18, 20, 22, 24-26, 28, 30, and 32. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
Representative Claim
Representative claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A communication method of a terminal, the method comprising:
receiving control information including an offset and resource
information of data;
receiving the data based on the resource information;
determining a resource of feedback information for the data based on
the offset; and
transmitting the feedback information using the resource,
wherein the control information is received in an enhanced-physical
downlink control channel (E-PDCCH).
Claims App'x 14.
Gu
Seo
References
US 2006/0079264 Al
US 2012/0039285 Al
Apr. 13, 2006
Feb. 16,2012
1 Appellants submit that the real parties in interest for the instant application
are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Industry-University Cooperation
Foundation Korea Aerospace University. Appeal Br. 2.
2
Appeal2017-006070
Application 14/223,225
Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16-18, 20, 22,
24-26, 28, 30, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2 as being unpatentable over
the combination of Seo and Gu. Final Act. 4-12.
Issue on Appeal
This appeal turns on a single issue: Did the Examiner err in finding
that Gu teaches "an enhanced-physical downlink control channel
(E-PDCCH)," as recited in independent claims 1, 9, 17, and 25?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. For
purposes of our discussion, we focus on the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Our discussion is equally applicable to all independent claims, as they recite
similar language. Claim 1 recites that the "control information is received in
an enhanced-physical downlink control channel (E-PDCCH)." The
Examiner finds that Seo teaches receiving control information in a physical
downlink control channel (PDCCH), but does not disclose that the control
information is received in an enhanced-physical downlink control channel
2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ("AIA"), Pub. L. No. 112-29,
125 Stat. 284, 287-88 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. § 103, effective March 16,
2013. Because the instant application claims benefit of an application filed
before the effective date of the relevant section of the AIA, we refer to the
pre-AIA version of§ 103 throughout this decision.
3
Appeal2017-006070
Application 14/223,225
(E-PDCCH). Final Act. 8. For a disclosure ofE-PDCCH, the Examiner
turns to Gu. Id.
The Examiner finds that Gu teaches using "Enhanced-PDCCH
(E-PDCCH) to measure channel quality value for uplink and downlink data
transmission between the U[ ser] E[ quipment] and Access Point." Ans. 7
(citing Gu ,r 33). The Examiner quotes as pertinent Gu's disclosure of using
an "E-PDCCH (enhanced physical dedicated control channel) to determine a
measured ... value, which is then again the measured value of the indicator
of channel quality." Id. at 8 (quoting Gu ,r 33).
Applicants point out that Gu' s enhanced physical dedicated control
channel is not an enhanced-physical downlink control channel. Appeal Br.
7. In particular, Applicants argue that, even though Gu uses the term
"E-PDCCH," Gu uses this particular channel as an uplink, for the User
Equipment ("UE") to indicate to a service access point or node that it is
transmitting either "new" or "retransmitted" data packets. Id. at 7-8. The
claim, in contrast, recites that the E-PDCCH is used for conveying to the
terminal "control information" including an "offset" and "resource
information." Id. That is, according to Appellants, while Gu describes an
E-PDCCH as an uplink channel, the claim requires use of an E-PDCCH as a
downlink channel. Reply Br. 2-4.
We agree with Appellants that Gu' s E-PDCCH does not teach the
recited E-PDCCH. First, Gu explicitly defines E-PDCCH as an "enhanced
physical dedicated control channel." Gu ,r 33 (emphasis added). The claim,
however, recites "an enhanced-physical downlink control channel." These
are different channels used for different purposes. For instance, Gu
4
Appeal2017-006070
Application 14/223,225
describes that its E-PDCCH conveys a "new-data indicator" in the Enhanced
Uplink Packet Access ("EUPA") protocol extension. Id. Thus, this
"dedicated" control channel is for the UE to transmit control information to
the Node, which detects the "new-data indicator" and, based on that control
information, receives the "new data." Id. ,r,r 33-35. Gu's E-PDCCH,
therefore, is not a downlink control channel. And the Examiner does not
explain how such an uplink channel is the same as or can replace the
claimed E-PDCCH, which is a downlink control channel. Other than
sharing the same acronym, there is no evidence that Gu's E-PDCCH is an
enhanced-physical downlink control channel (E-PDCCH).
CONCLUSIONS
On the present record, we determine that Appellants have shown error
in the Examiner's reliance on Gu as teaching the recited "enhanced-physical
downlink control channel (E-PDCCH)," recited in all pending independent
claims. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10,
12, 14, 16-18, 20, 22, 24-26, 28, 30, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
combination of Seo and Gu.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16-18, 20,
22, 24-26, 28, 30, and 32 is reversed.
REVERSED
5