Ex Parte PAPASAKELLARIOU et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 22, 2018

14305699 - (D) (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. § 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. § 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. § 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. § 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. § 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. § 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.
§ 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. § 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. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Cheng, Nayeb Nazar, Kwon, Xu, Pietraski, and Nary. 1
ANALYSIS
§ 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. § 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.
§ 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.
§ 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.
§ 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
§ 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. § 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.
§ 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.
§ 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