Ex Parte Luo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

12685189 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/685, 189 0111112010
23696 7590 06/29/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tao Luo
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.
090874Ul 6873
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, HANH N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAO LUO, WANSHI CHEN, and JUAN MONTOJ0 1
Appeal2015-000836
Application 12/685, 189
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Technology
The application relates to selecting a transmission scheme in wireless
communications. Spec. i-f 9. Claim 1 is representative and reproduced
below with the key limitation emphasized:
1. A method for wireless communications, comprising:
monitoring a plurality of search spaces;
receiving control information in one of the search spaces; and
transmitting data using a transmission scheme selected based
1 Appellants state the real party in interest is Qualcomm Inc. App. Br. 3.
1
Appeal2015-000836
Application 12/685, 189
on the search space in which the control information was received.
Rejection
Claims 1-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the combination of Chung et al. (US 2009/0088148 Al; Apr. 2, 2009) and
Piirainen (US 7 ,542, 734 B2; June 2, 2009). Final Act. 4.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Piirainen teaches or suggests a
transmission scheme "selected based on the search space in which the
control information was received," as recited in claims 1, 7, 13, 19, and 25?
ANALYSIS
Chung teaches monitoring both a common search space and a user-
equipment search space for inbound control information. Chung i-fi-f l 02---03.
Piirainen teaches receiving control information and selecting a
transmission scheme based on content of that control information. Piirainen
12:44---65.
All five independent claims ( 1, 7, 13, 19, and 2 5) require a
transmission scheme be "selected based on the search space in which the
control information was received." The "Examiner interprets that [to mean]
the claimed transmission scheme is selected based on the received control
information in [the] search space." Ans. 2 (emphasis added). Under that
interpretation, the Examiner finds Piirainen selecting a transmission scheme
"as indicated by the control information" teaches this limitation. Id. 3.
2
Appeal2015-000836
Application 12/685, 189
Appellants contend the Examiner's interpretation "does not comport
with a reasonable construction" because claim 1 expressly recites a
transmission scheme selected "based on a search space in which the control
information was received'' whereas the Examiner rewrites this to be "based
on the received control information in search space." Reply Br. 3.
We agree with Appellants. Piirainen merely teaches the selection of a
transmission scheme based on control information, and such selection would
be the same regardless of which search space the control information was
received on. In the context of the claims and Specification, we find that
insufficient. Claims 3 and 4 are instructive, as they require a specific
transmission scheme be selected "based on the determination that the control
information was received in a user-equipment-specific search space" (claim
3) as opposed to "in a common search space" (claim 4). See also Spec.
i-fi-1 45, 51; App. Br. 11. Thus, different selections are made depending upon
which search space the control information was received in. Here, under a
proper claim interpretation, the Examiner has not persuasively shown
Piirainen teaches or suggests any transmission scheme "selected based on
the search space in which the control information was received."
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1,
7, 13, 19, and 25. Claims 2-6, 8-12, 14--18, 20-24, and 26-30 stand with
their respective independent claims.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-30.
REVERSED
3