Ex Parte PAPASAKELLARIOU et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 201613204107 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/204,107 08/05/2011 Aris PAPASAKELLARIOU 678-4020 (P17798) 9114 66547 7590 04/01/2016 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER DIVITO, WALTER J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2465 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ARIS PAPASAKELLARIOU and YOUNG-BUM KIM ____________ Appeal 2014-005679 Application 13/204,107 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2014-005679 Application 13/204,107 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–18:1 Claims 1–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Heo (US 2011/0310986 A1; published Dec. 22, 2011) and Shen (US 2009/0213769 A1; published Aug. 27, 2009). Ans. 3–12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We affirm. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention transmits acknowledgement information in an uplink (UL) of a communication system. Spec. 1:13–15. A UL conveys information sent from user equipment (UE). Id. at 1:18–20. Likewise, a downlink (DL) conveys signals sent to the UE. Id. The UL’s data signals are conveyed through a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH). Id. at 2:1–2. Through the PUSCH, the UE may convey UL-control information (UCI) together with data. Id. at 2:5–6. This UCI includes Acknowledgement (ACK) and Negative Acknowledgement (NACK) information. Id. at 2:21–25. Specifically, 1 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed July 19, 2013 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed December 20, 2013 (“App. Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 6, 2014 (“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed April 4, 2014 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2014-005679 Application 13/204,107 3 ACK-NACK information indicates whether the UE correctly received the DL information. Id. Bundling can reduce the amount of this ACK-NACK information. Id. at 8:17–21. To account for problems with conventional bundling, the invention adaptively performs bundling based on the UE’s available resources for multiplexing in the PUSCH. Id. at 9:6–12. Independent claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for a User Equipment (UE) to transmit acknowledgement information together with data information to a base station during a Transmission Time Interval (TTI), the acknowledgement information initially having a first set of Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest Acknowledgement (HARQ- ACK) information bits, the method comprising the steps of: determining a number of nominal resources for transmission of the first set of HARQ-ACK information bits; comparing the number of nominal resources for the transmission of the first set of HARQ-ACK information bits to a number of resources available to the UE for transmission of the acknowledgement information; transmitting the first set of HARQ-ACK information bits if the number of nominal resources is less than or equal to the number of available resources; selecting a second set of HARQ-ACK information bits from the first set of HARQ-ACK information bits and performing one or more bundling operations over respective one or more distinct subsets of HARQ-ACK information bits in the second set of HARQ-ACK information bits to obtain a third set of HARQ-ACK information bits if the number of nominal resources is greater than the number of available resources, wherein at least one of the one or more bundling operations generates a smaller number of HARQ-ACK information bits than a number of HARQ-ACK information bits in the respective distinct subset of HARQ-ACK information bits; and Appeal 2014-005679 Application 13/204,107 4 transmitting the third set of HARQ-ACK information bits and a fourth set of HARQ-ACK information bits, wherein the fourth set of HARQ-ACK information bits is obtained from HARQ-ACK information bits that belong in the first set but not in the second set. THE HEO REFERENCE Contentions The Examiner finds that Heo teaches every element of claim 1, except for selecting a second set of bits and performing the recited bundling operations. Ans. 4–5. But the Examiner finds that Shen discloses these limitations in concluding that claim 1 would have been obvious. Id. at 6–7. According to the Examiner, Heo’s resources that are allocated to symbols for UCI correspond to the recited nominal resources. Ans. 13–14; see also id. at 4, Final Act. 8 (citing Heo ¶ 45). Likewise, the Examiner finds that the number of Heo’s PUSCH resources corresponds to the recited available resources. Ans. 14 (citing Heo ¶¶ 119–20). In the Examiner’s view, Heo compares the total number of symbols for UCI, containing HARQ ACK-NACK symbols, to the number of PUSCH resources. Ans. 13–14 (citing Heo ¶¶ 119–20); see also Ans. 4, Final Act. 9 (citing Heo ¶ 119). Specifically, the Examiner finds that the nominal resources are greater than the available resources when Heo determines that “too many” resources are required to transmit UCI. Ans. 14. The Examiner finds that, in this situation, Heo uses HARQ ACK-NACK bundling. Id. at 5 (citing Heo ¶ 126). Appeal 2014-005679 Application 13/204,107 5 Appellants argue that Heo lacks comparing, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 3–4.2 According to Appellants, Heo’s dropping criterion uses a predetermined threshold rather than the recited comparison of nominal to available resources. App. Br. 4–5 (citing Heo ¶¶ 123, 125). In Appellants’ view, comparison to a threshold cannot be expected to produce adaptive bundling. Id. at 5. Furthermore, Appellants characterize Heo’s criterion as comparing “coded symbols and symbols provided by the PUSCH resources,” not “the number of scheduled PUSCHs to a number of PUSCHs required for the coded symbols.” Reply Br. 2–3 (citing Heo ¶ 119). In an alternative rationale, the Examiner maps Heo’s step 204 to the comparison. See Ans. 4 (citing Heo, Fig. 6, 204). In response, Appellants present additional arguments against this rationale. See App. Br. 4 (discussing step 204); Reply Br. 2 (discussing the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ argument directed to the alternative rationale). Issue Has the Examiner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Heo teaches or suggests “comparing the number of nominal resources for the transmission of the first set of HARQ-ACK information bits to a number of resources available to the UE for transmission of the acknowledgement information,” as recited in claim 1? 2 In arguing against the rejection of claim 1, Appellants refer to “claim 43.” App. Br. 3. Because claim 18 is the highest numbered claim (id. at 12) and this argument is found under the heading for claim 1 (see id. at 3), we deem this reference to claim 43 a typographical error. Appeal 2014-005679 Application 13/204,107 6 Analysis The Examiner presents two alternative positions regarding the limitation at issue. See Ans. 4–7; see also id. at 12–15. According to the first rationale, the Examiner finds that the recited comparison reads on Heo’s use of a puncturing ratio. Id. at 4 (citing Heo ¶ 119); see also Ans. 14. Heo uses the puncturing ratio if a single UL component carrier (CC) is scheduled. Heo ¶ 87. According to the second rationale, the Examiner finds that the recited comparing reads on Heo’s step 204 that determines UL CC availability. Ans. 4 (citing Heo, Fig. 6, 204). Heo performs step 204 when multiple UL CCs are scheduled. Id. ¶ 88; see also id., Fig. 6 (showing step 200 branching to step 204). For the reasons discussed in detail below, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments against the first rationale. App. Br. 3–4; Reply Br. 2–3. Accordingly, the Examiner’s second rationale (Ans. 4 (citing Heo, Fig. 6, 204)) is cumulative. So, we need not reach the issue of whether Heo performs the recited comparing in step 204. Rather, our analysis focuses on the Examiner’s discussion of the Heo’s puncturing ratio under the first rationale. Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 223 USPQ 193 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (indicating an agency (e.g., ITC) can decide a single dispositive issue of numerous issues resolved by the presiding officer and that there is no need for the Commission to decide all issues decided by the presiding officer). Turning to the Examiner’s first rationale, Heo’s puncturing ratio is used in the transmission of control information and uplink-shared channel (UL-SCH) data. Heo ¶ 119. For example, Heo allocates some PUSCH- subframe symbols for HARQ ACK-NAK transmission. Id. ¶ 45, cited in Appeal 2014-005679 Application 13/204,107 7 Ans. 4. HARQ ACK-NACK information is contained in the uplink-control information (UCI). Heo ¶ 10. And coded ACK-NACK bits can be multiplexed with UL-SCH data. Heo ¶ 15. The Examiner finds that when Heo determines “too many” resources are required for UCI transmission, Heo’s nominal resources are greater than those available. Ans. 14. On this record, the Examiner’s finding (id.) is reasonable. Specifically, to determine whether “too many” PUSCH resources are required, Heo compares the required number of coded symbols for UCI and the PUSCH resource. Heo ¶ 119, cited in Ans. 4, 14. This comparison uses a predetermined threshold and a puncturing ratio. Heo ¶¶ 119–20, cited in Ans. 14. Heo’s limit of “too many” establishes the number available to transmit the UCI. See Heo ¶ 119, cited in Ans. 4, 14. In other words, if the puncturing ratio is smaller than the threshold, Heo transmits UCI using the resources in one scheduled UL CC. See Heo ¶ 120, cited in Ans. 14. Otherwise, insufficient resources are available, and Heo reduces the required resources by bundling UCI. See, e.g., Heo ¶ 126, cited in Ans. 5. Appellants argue that the puncturing ratio is used to determine whether data is dropped. App. Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 3. But the puncturing ratio is more than a dropping criterion. Specifically, Heo bundles HARQ ACK-NACK bits instead of dropping UL-SCH data. Heo ¶ 126, cited in Ans. 4–5. That is, Heo proposes bundling when the dropping criterion, set by the puncturing ratio (see, e.g., Heo ¶ 125), is met. Id. ¶ 126, cited in Ans. 5. So like the recited comparison, Heo’s comparison determines whether to transmit using available resources (Heo ¶ 120, cited in Ans. 14) or reduce the amount of UCI by bundling (Heo ¶ 126, cited in Ans. 5). Appeal 2014-005679 Application 13/204,107 8 Appellants further contend that Heo’s criterion “compares coded symbols and symbols provided by the PUSCH resources,” not “the number of scheduled PUSCHs to a number of PUSCHs required for the coded symbols.” Reply Br. 2–3. But the claim does not require comparing a number of scheduled PUSCHs to a number of required PUSCHs. Instead, claim 1 calls for “determining a number of nominal resources for transmission . . .” and comparing that number to “a number of resources available . . . for transmission . . . .” By reciting “determining” without further limitation, the claim does not expressly require a particular method of doing so. And Appellants do not present any definitions for “determining” or “comparing” that exclude Heo’s steps. See Reply Br. 2–3. Nor do Appellants present any arguments for a required unit of measurement for the resources. See id. On this record, Appellants have not established that the Examiner erred in finding that Heo performs the recited comparison (Ans. 4, 14). Accordingly, we need not reach the issue of whether Heo additionally performs the recited comparing in step 204 under the Examiner’s alternative rationale (id. at 4). THE SHEN REFERENCE Contentions The Examiner finds that Heo performs bundling operations if the nominal resources are greater than those available. Ans. 5 (citing Heo ¶ 126). The Examiner, however, finds that Heo does not select, bundle, and transmit the recited second, third, and fourth sets. Ans. 5–6. Appeal 2014-005679 Application 13/204,107 9 But the Examiner cites Shen as disclosing these limitations and concludes that when these teachings are combined with Heo’s, claim 1 would have been obvious. Id. at 6–7. In particular, the Examiner finds that Shen’s Figure 3B shows the recited second, third, and fourth sets of bits. Id. at 6. According to the Examiner, Shen explains how the bit sets are bundled and transmitted in the respective subframes. Id. at 15. Appellants argue that Shen’s disclosure merely amounts to a subframe configuration. App. Br. 5. According to Appellants, Shen lacks the third and fourth sets of bits that remain after bundling. Reply Br. 4.3 In Appellants’ view, claim 1 requires “a third set of bundled bits and a fourth set of non-bundled bits.” Id. Issue Has the Examiner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Shen teaches or suggests performing bundling operations and transmitting a third and fourth sets of bits, as recited in claim 1? Analysis In distinguishing Shen, Appellants argue that the claim requires that the fourth set is not bundled. Reply Br. 4. But the claim is not so limited. In particular, claim 1 recites, in part, “wherein the fourth set of HARQ-ACK information bits . . . is obtained from . . . bits that belong in the first set but not in the second set” (emphasis added). So we first must determine 3 Appellants’ arguments refer to “claim 13” but quote and discuss features recited claim 1. See Reply Br. 3. Because Appellants address claim 13 elsewhere (Reply Br. 4) and do not discuss any feature specific to claim 13—which depends from claim 8, we treat the argument (Reply Br. 3–4) as an argument for the patentability of claim 1 and 13, not claim 13 alone. Appeal 2014-005679 Application 13/204,107 10 whether a fourth set “obtained from” a first set excludes obtaining this fourth set via bundling the first set. To resolve this issue, we first turn to the Specification because it is “always highly relevant” and the “single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). We find no expressly stated definition for the phrase “obtained from” in Appellants’ Specification. But apart from any lexicography or explicit disavowal, the term’s use in the Specification contradicts Appellants’ construction urged on appeal (Reply Br. 4). For example, the Specification states that the bundling process continues until a number of “bundled HARQ-ACK information bits are obtained.” See id. at 15:22–16. This use supports the interpretation that the claimed fourth set is not limited to unbundled sets. Accordingly, a broad, but reasonable, interpretation of “obtained from” includes obtaining bits via bundling. Given this interpretation, we find no error in the Examiner’s interpretation that Shen teaches the recited fourth set (Ans. 6). Specifically, the Examiner cites Shen’s Figure 3B as teaching the fourth set. Ans. 6. Shen’s Figure 3B is reproduced below. Appeal 2014-005679 Application 13/204,107 11 Shen’s Figure 3B showing uplink ACK/NAK bundling for Figure 3A’s frame structure. In Figure 3B, the squares labeled “0” through “9” are sub-frames within the frames labeled “300:n-1” through “300:n+1.” Shen. ¶ 37. By using an up or down arrow, the row of rectangles containing arrows shows whether a sub-frame is a UL subframe or a DL subframe. See id. ¶¶ 34, 37. Shen’s ACK-NAK bits are transmitted in an associated UL subframe. Id. ¶ 33. ACK-NAK bits indicate whether the UE correctly received a DL subframe’s packet. See id. ¶ 38. At the bottom of Figure 3B, curved arrows illustrate how multiple ACK-NAK bits are mapped to a single, bundled bit. Id. ¶ 34. Referring to Shen’s Figure 3B, the Examiner finds that (1) the recited first set corresponds to all of Shen’s ACK-NAK bits for the frame 300:n-1; (2) third set corresponds to the bundled response bits from sub-frames 0, 1, 4, and 5 of frame 300:n-1; and (3) the fourth set corresponds to the bundled response bits from sub-frames 6, 7, 8, and 9. Ans. 6. That is, under the Examiner’s mapping (id.), Shen’s fourth set is bundled. Shen ¶ 37. But claim 1 does not exclude obtaining the fourth set by bundling, as discussed previously, as long as the fourth set is “obtained from” the first. Because the bits from the first set are bundled to produce the fourth set (see Shen ¶ 37), Shen’s fourth set reasonably can be interpreted as being “obtained from” the first set of bits. Ans. 6. For example, if DL packets in sub-frames 6, 7, 8, and 9 were all correctly received, the four respective ACK bits would be bundled into a single ACK bit. See Shen ¶ 37; see also id., Fig. 4 (showing bundling four ACK bits into a single bundled ACK). Under the Examiner’s rationale, the four respective ACK bits correspond to Appeal 2014-005679 Application 13/204,107 12 the first set, and the single, bundled ACK bit corresponds to the fourth set. See Ans. 6. On this record, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Shen lacks the required sets (Reply Br. 4). We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that Shen merely shows a mapping of uplink subframes to the HARQ-NAK bits. App. Br. 5. Specifically, Appellants argue that Shen merely discloses “bundle mappings” and “subframe configuration.” Id. But here, Appellants’ distinction (id.) is not supported by the record. For example, Shen’s Figure 4 shows how the ACK bits are bundled into a single ACK bit. See Shen ¶ 37, cited in Ans. 6. That is, like the claimed method, Shen’s bundling generates one bit set from another. Shen ¶ 37; see also id., Fig. 4. On this record, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 5) against the Examiner’s mapping of the recited second, third, and fourth sets to those in Shen (Ans. 6). For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not convinced us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 (id. at 4–7), as well as the rejection of claims 2–18 (id. at 7–12), which are not argued separately with particularity (see App. Br. 6–7; Reply Br. 4–5). DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–18 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). Appeal 2014-005679 Application 13/204,107 13 AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation