Ex Parte XU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 1, 2018

14244752 (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/244,752 04/03/2014
15055 7590 05/03/2018
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hao XU
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.
132404US 1464
EXAMINER
PHAM,CHIH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2471
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2018 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):
qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com
P AIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAO XU, W ANSHI CHEN, TINGF ANG JI, and PETER GAAL
Appeal2017-010991
Application 14/244,752
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOYCE CRAIG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 3-22, and 24--30. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Qualcomm Incorporated.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-010991
Application 14/244,752
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention "generally relate[ s] to
wireless communications and, more particularly, to techniques for enhanced
transmission time interval (TTI) bundling design for machine type
communications (MTC)." Spec. i1i12, 6. 2 The Specification explains that
those techniques include "determining a mapping of one or more uplink or
downlink channels to one or more fixed bundling sizes" with "each of the
one or more fixed bundling sizes indicat[ing] a number of transmission time
intervals (TTis) over which a channel should be transmitted." Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as
follows (with formatting added for clarity):
1. A method for wireless communications by a wireless
device, comprising:
determining a mapping of one or more uplink or
downlink channels to one or more fixed bundling sizes,
wherein each of the one or more fixed bundling
sizes indicates a number of transmission time intervals
(TTis) over which a channel should be transmitted, and
wherein a bundling size for a channel dictates a
bundling size for one or more other channels; and
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the
Specification, filed April 3, 2014; "Final Act." for the Final Office Action,
mailed September 15, 2016; "Adv. Act." for the Advisory Action, mailed
December 7, 2016; "Appeal Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed February 13,
2017; "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed June 27, 2017; and
"Reply Br." for the Reply Brief, filed August 27, 2017.
2
Appeal2017-010991
Application 14/244,752
processing transmission of the one or more uplink or
downlink channels based on the mapping.
App. Br. 12 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence ofunpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Eriksson et al.
("Eriksson")
US 2014/0056237 Al
The Re} ections on Appeal
Feb.27,2014
(filed Mar. 11, 2013)
Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 14, 16-22, and 26-30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Eriksson. Final Act. 4---6; Ans. 2--4.
Claims 5-11, 13, 15, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Eriksson. Final Act. 7; Ans. 4--5.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1, 3-22, and 24--30 in light
of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. Based on the record
before us and for the reasons explained below, we concur with Appellants'
contention that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of
Eriksson disclose or suggest a bundling size for one channel dictating a
bundling size for another channel.
The§ 102 Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 14, 16--22, and 26--30
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 22, 29, and 30 because Eriksson does not disclose or suggest the
following limitation in each claim: "a bundling size for a channel dictates a
bundling size for one or more other channels." App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2-3.
More specifically, Appellants assert that Eriksson "merely teaches different
3
Appeal2017-010991
Application 14/244,752
signaling options, each mapped to a TTI bundling size." App. Br. 8.
Appellants also assert that Eriksson "merely teaches that the network
node 10 may control the TTI bundle size of any number of wireless nodes."
Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner finds that Eriksson "clearly teaches that 'the network
node 10 is configured to dynamically control the TTI bundle size used by the
wireless device 12 for bundled transmission by the wireless device 12 ...
[and] the network node 10 may perform such bundling size control and
related signaling for any number of wireless devices 12'." Ans. 6 (quoting
Eriksson i-f 29); see Final Act. 5 (citing Eriksson i-fi-1 14, 29-30, Figs. 3A-3B);
Adv. Act. 2 (citing Eriksson i-fi-114, 29-30, 38--40, Figs. 3A-3B). Based on
that finding, the Examiner determines that Eriksson discloses the disputed
limitation in the independent claims. Ans. 6; see Final Act. 5; Adv. Act. 2.
Based on the record before us, however, we agree with Appellants
that the Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of
Eriksson disclose or suggest a bundling size for one channel dictating a
bundling size for another channel. Eriksson instructs that the network
node 10 uses different signaling options to dynamically adjust the TTI
bundle size used by the wireless device 12. Eriksson i-fi-110, 12-14, 16-17,
29-30, 34, 36, Abstract. The wireless device 12 employs a predetermined
mapping between signaling options and TTI bundle sizes to select the
appropriate size. Id. i-fi-112, 14, 17, 29-32, Figs. 3A-3B. Eriksson describes
various signaling options for controlling TTI bundle sizes: (1) specifying a
size with particular bits; (2) using different Redundancy Version Indicator
(RVI) values to denote different sizes; (3) using different Radio Network
Temporary Identifier (RNTI) values to denote different sizes; (4) using
4
Appeal2017-010991
Application 14/244,752
different subframe indexes to denote different sizes; and ( 5) sending an
uplink grant to denote a first size and a NACK to denote a second size. Id.
i-fi-f 11, 37--42. But Eriksson does not describe a mapping where a bundling
size for one channel dictates a bundling size for another channel. Id.
i-fi-f 11-12, 14, 17, 29-32, 36-42. Hence, we do not sustain the§ 102
rejection of claims 1, 22, 29, and 30.
Claims 3, 4, 12, 14, 16-21 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1,
while claims 26-28 depend directly from claim 22. For the reasons
discussed regarding the independent claims, we do not sustain the § 102
rejection of these dependent claims.
The§ 103 Rejection of Claims 5-11, 13, 15, 24, and 25
Claims 5-11, 13, and 15 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1,
while claims 24 and 25 depend directly from claim 22. For the reasons
discussed regarding the independent claims, we do not sustain the § 103
rejection of these dependent claims.
Because this determination resolves the appeal with respect to
claims 1, 3-22, and 24--30, we need not address Appellants' other arguments
regarding Examiner error. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d
1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that an administrative agency may
render a decision based on "a single dispositive issue").
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-22, and 24--
30.
REVERSED
5