14305699 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2018)

Ex Parte PAPASAKELLARIOU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 22, 2018

14305699 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/305,699 06/16/2014 66547 7590 08/24/2018 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 2IOE Melville, NY 11747 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Aris PAPASAKELLARIOU 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. 678-3924 CON (Pl 7505) 1007 EXAMINER ADHAMI, MOHAMMAD SAJID ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2471 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/24/2018 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 ARIS PAP ASAKELLARIOU and YOUNG-BUM KIM Appeal2017-002773 Application 14/305,699 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC B. CHEN, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1, 3---6, 8-11, 13-16, and 18-20. Claims 2, 7, 12, and 17 have been cancelled. (Final Act. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal2017-002773 Application 14/305,699 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to transmitting and receiving Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest ACKnowledgment (HARQ-ACK) information in a Physical Uplink Shared CHannel (PUSCH). (Abstract.) Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A method for receiving hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) bits by a node B in a communication system, the method comprising steps of: configuring a plurality of cells for a user equipment (UE), where each of the plurality of cells is associated with one transmission mode; decoding encoded concatenated HARQ-ACK bits, wherein HARQ-ACK bits for the plurality of cells are concatenated based on an order of a cell index for each of the plurality of cells, wherein the concatenated HARQ-ACK bits include 2 HARQ-ACK bits for a cell associated with a transmission mode supporting up to 2 transport blocks and 1 HARQ- ACK bit for a cell associated with a transmission mode supporting up to 1 transport block, and wherein the encoded concatenated HARQ-ACK bits are decoded based on a (32, 0) block code, if a number of the concatenated HARQ-ACK bits is greater than or equal to 3. Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2012/0320805 Al; pub. Dec. 20, 2012) and Xu et al. (US 2009/0245284 Al; pub. Oct. 1, 2009). Claims 3, 8, 13, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Yang, Xu, and Nayeb Nazar et al. (US 2011/0249578 Al; pub. Oct. 13, 2011). 2 Appeal2017-002773 Application 14/305,699 Claims 4, 9, 14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Yang, Xu, and Pietraski et al. (US 2013/0153298 Al; pub. June 20, 2013). Claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Yang, Xu, Pietraski, and Dinan (US 2013/0077514 Al; pub. Mar. 28, 2013). Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 13, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2013/0010690 Al; pub. Jan. 10, 2013), Nayeb Nazar, Kwon et al. (US 2012/0008585 Al; Jan. 12, 2012), and Xu. Claims 4, 9, 13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Cheng, Nayeb Nazar, Kwon, Xu, and Pietraski. Claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Cheng, Nayeb Nazar, Kwon, Xu, Pietraski, and Nary. 1 ANALYSIS Â§ 103 Rejection-Yang and Xu We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 3--4) that the combination of Yang and Xu would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "wherein the encoded concatenated HARQ-ACK bits are decoded based on 1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 1, 3---6, 8-11, 13-16, and 18-20 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting, in view of Appellants' terminal disclaimer of commonly-owned Papasakellariou et al. (US 9,161,348 B2; iss. Oct. 13, 2015), filed May 2, 2016. (Ans. 15.) 3 Appeal2017-002773 Application 14/305,699 a (32, 0) block code, if a number of the concatenated HARQ-ACK bits is greater than or equal to 3 . " The Examiner found that sending the control information of Xu, including channel quality indicator (CQI) information and the acknowledgement (ACK) information, corresponds to the limitation "wherein the encoded concatenated HARQ-ACK bits are decoded based on a (32, 0) block code, if a number of the concatenated HARQ-ACK bits is greater than or equal to 3." (Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 5.) We do not agree with the Examiner's findings. Xu relates to "[t]echniques for sending control information in a wireless communication system." (Abstract.) In one embodiment, Xu explains that "a user equipment (UE) may map first information ( e.g., CQI information) to M most significant bits (MSBs) of a message and may map second information (e.g., ACK information) to N least significant bits (LSBs) of the message." (Id.) Xu explains that "[t]he CQI information may comprise M bits, where M may be any suitable value and M :S 11 in one design" and "[ t ]he ACK information may comprise N bits, where N may also be any suitable value and N 2: 2 in one design." (i-f 33.) Xu further explains that in one embodiment, "only CQI information or both CQI and ACK information may be encoded based on a (20, L) block code, which may be derived from a (32, 6) Reed-Muller code, where L 2: M+N." (Id.) However, the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that Xu teaches the limitation "wherein the encoded concatenated HARQ-ACK bits are decoded based on a (32, 0) block code, if a number of the concatenated HARQ-ACK bits is greater than or equal to 3." In particular, the Examiner has not explained how one of ordinary skill in the 4 Appeal2017-002773 Application 14/305,699 art would have selected values for Xu's M, N, and L variables on a (20, L) block code or a (32, 6) Reed-Muller code, such that "encoded concatenated HARQ-ACK bits are decoded based on a (32, 0) block code, if a number of the concatenated HARQ-ACK bits is greater than or equal to 3," as required by claim 1. Thus, on this record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Xu teaches the limitation "wherein the encoded concatenated HARQ-ACK bits are decoded based on a (32, 0) block code, if a number of the concatenated HARQ-ACK bits is greater than or equal to 3."2 Moreover, the Examiner's application of Yang does not cure the deficiencies of Xu. Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that while paragraph [0033] of Xu mentions encoding using a (20, L) block code, which may be derived from a (32, 6) Reed-Muller code, there is nothing in the cited section or any other section of Xu, which teaches or suggests the encoded concatenated HARQ- ACK bits are decoded based on a (32, 0) block code, if a number of the concatenated HARQ-ACK bits is greater than or equal to 3. (App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 3--4.) 2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should determine if the limitation "wherein the encoded concatenated HARQ-ACK bits are decoded based on a (32, 0) block code, if a number of the concatenated HARQ-ACK bits is greater than or equal to 3" is a conditional limitation, in which step "the encoded concatenated HARQ-ACK bits are decoded based on a (32, 0) block code" occurs only "if a number of the concatenated HARQ-ACK bits is greater than or equal to 3." See Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013- 007847, at 10 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) ("If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed."). 5 Appeal2017-002773 Application 14/305,699 Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a).3 Independent claims 6, 11, and 16 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 6, 11, and 16 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. Â§ 103 Rejection-Yang, Xu, and Nayeb Nazar Claims 3, 8, 13, and 18 depend from independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16. Nayeb Nazar was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 3, 8, 13, and 18. (Final Act. 6.) However, the Examiner's application ofNayeb Nazar does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Yang and Xu. Â§ 103 Rejection-Yang, Xu, and Pietraski Claims 4, 9, 14, and 19 depend from independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16. Pietraski was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 4, 9, 14, and 19. (Final Act. 7.) However, the Examiner's application of Pietraski does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Yang and Xu. Â§ 103 Rejection-Yang, Xu, Pietraski, and Dinan Claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 depend from independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16. Dinan was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 5, 10, 15, and 20. (Final Act. 7-8.) However, the 3 We do not reach the issue of whether Yang qualifies as prior art. (App. Br. 9.) 6 Appeal2017-002773 Application 14/305,699 Examiner's application of Dinan does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Yang, Xu, and Pietraski. 4 Â§ 103 Re} ection-Cheng, N ayeb Nazar, Kwon, and Xu We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 13, 16, and 18 for the same reasons discussed with respect to rejection of claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yang and Xu. Cheng and Kwon were additionally cited by the Examiner for teaching the features of claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 13, 16, and 18. (Final Act. 13-17.) However, the Examiner's application of Cheng and Kwon does not cure the above noted deficiencies ofNayeb Nazar and Xu. Â§ 103 Rejection-Cheng, Nayeb Nazar, Kwon, Xu, and Pietraski Claims 4, 9, 14, and 19 depend from independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16. Pietraski was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 4, 9, 14, and 19. (Final Act. 17-18.) However, the Examiner's application of Pietraski does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Cheng, Nayeb Nazar, Kwon, and Xu. Â§ 103 Rejection- Cheng, Nayeb Nazar, Kwon, Xu, Pietraski, and Nary Claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 depend from independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16. Nary was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 5, 10, 15, and 20. (Final Act. 18-19.) However, the Examiner's 4 We do not reach the issue of whether Dinan qualifies as prior art. (App. Br. 9.) 7 Appeal2017-002773 Application 14/305,699 application of Nary does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Cheng, Nayeb Nazar, Kwon, Xu, and Pietraski. DECISION The Examiner's decision to rejecting claims 1, 3---6, 8-11, 13-16, and 18-20 is reversed. REVERSED 8