Ex Parte Song et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

14114762 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2017)

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.
14/114,762 10/30/2013 Xinghua Song 1009-0758 / P38660 US1 8440
102721 7590 09/29/2017
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
CLARK, ROSENE S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2412
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2017 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XINGHUA SONG, ERIK ERIKSSON, DANIEL LARS SON,
SHAOHUA LI, and QIANXI LU
(Applicant: Telefonaktiebolaget L M Eriksson)
Appeal 2017-005064
Application 14/114,762
Technology Center 2400
Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 13—24, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. Claims 1—12 have been canceled. See App. Br. 2.
We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to allocation of uplink control
channel resources within wireless communication networks. Spec. 1:5—6.
Appeal 2017-005064
Application 14/114,762
Claim 13, which is illustrative, reads as follows, with disputed limitations
emphasized in italics:
13. A method in a wireless device operating in a wireless
communication network configured for time-division duplexing
(TDD) operation, said method comprising:
receiving downlink control information (DCI) via an
Enhanced Physical Downlink Control Channel (ePDCCH) in a
downlink subframe, the received ePDCCH scheduling a
downlink shared channel transmission to the wireless device or
indicating a release of semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) to the
wireless device;
determining a resource index for a Physical Uplink
Control Channel (PUCCH) resource based on the lowest
enhanced Control Channel Element (eCCE) index of the
received DCI, a device-specific offset value previously signaled
to the wireless device via Radio Resource Control (RRC)
signaling, and an index i, wherein the index i identifies the
downlink subframe in a pre-determined set of one or more
downlink subframes associated with an uplink subframe,
wherein said determining is according to a formula that results
in a sequential allocation of PUCCH resources in the uplink
subframe with respect to the downlink subframes associated with
the uplink subframe, for each of a plurality of sets of ePDCCH
resources', and
transmitting hybrid automatic-repeat-request (HARQ)
feedback in the uplink subframe, using a PUCCH resource
corresponding to the resource index.
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
Chen et al. US 2013/0242770 A1 Sept. 19, 2013
3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification
Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial
2
Appeal 2017-005064
Application 14/114,762
Radio Access (E-UTRA); Physical Layer Procedures (Release
10), 3GPP TS 36.213 vl0.5.0 (2012) (hereinafter “3GPP”).
Rejection
Claims 13—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Chen and 3GPP. Final Act. 3—14.
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the combination of Chen and 3 GPP fails to teach
or suggest the following step of claim 13:
determining a resource index for a Physical Uplink Control
Channel (PUCCH) resource based on
the lowest enhanced Control Channel Element (eCCE) index of
the received DCI,
a device-specific offset value previously signaled to the wireless
device via Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling, and
an index i, wherein the index i identifies the downlink subframe
in a pre-determined set of one or more downlink subframes
associated with an uplink subframe,
wherein said determining is according to a formula that results in
a sequential allocation of PUCCH resources in the uplink
subframe with respect to the downlink subframes associated with
the uplink subframe, for each of a plurality of sets of ePDCCH
resources.
App. Br. 7—20; Reply Br. 2—21. In particular, Appellant contends the cited
references fail to teach or suggest the step of “determining a resource index
for a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) resource based on ... a
device-specific offset value previously signaled to the wireless device via
Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling.” App. Br. 17—19; Reply Br. 14—
3
Appeal 2017-005064
Application 14/114,762
18.
To meet the claimed “device-specific offset value,” the Examiner
finds the variable N(1)pucchj “mathematically represents, given the broadest
reasonable interpretation, some offset value” because “it is a simple variable
with superscript and subscript for identification.” Ans. 4 (citing 3GPP 100).
The Examiner further finds the variable N(1)pucchj “is device-specific
because it refers to a PUCCH or Physical Uplink Control Channel as
evidenced by the subscript in standard mathematical notation” and “[sjince
the PUCCH is transmitted from one given user device to the base station (the
uplink), per timeslot, per subframe, it is necessarily device specific.” Ans. 4.
However, we agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 16) that this is incorrect
because the subscript “j” is standard mathematical notation indicating a
member, N(1)pucchj, from a set of PUCCH resources, N(1)pucch (3GGP 100).
Further, according to 3GPP, N(1)pucchj indicates the particular PUCCH
resource to be utilized by the user equipment and not a value upon which a
determination of a resource index for the PUCCH resource is to be based, as
required by claim 13. See 3GPP 100. Thus, while the PUCCH resource,
N(1)pucchj, may be device-specific, 3GPP teaches the PUCCH resource is
determined by the user equipment and not “previously signaled to the
wireless device” (e.g., the user equipment), as also required by claim 13.
Therefore, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding 3 GPP teaches or
suggests the claimed “device-specific offset value.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13;
independent claims 16, 19, and 22, which recite commensurate limitations;
and claims 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, and 24, which depend therefrom.
Because we agree with at least one dispositive argument advanced by
4
Appeal 2017-005064
Application 14/114,762
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13—24.
REVERSED
5