Ex Parte Zhao et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 201814239492 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/239,492 02/18/2014 48116 7590 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 06/01/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Yan Zhao 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. LUTZ 201794US01 8550 EXAMINER DANIEL JR, WILLIE J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2462 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2018 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): docketing@faysharpe.com ipsnarocp@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YAN ZHAO, XIAOBO ZHANG, and RUAN SUN Appeal2018-000433 Application 14/239,492 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2018-000433 Application 14/239,492 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from a rejection of claims 1-3, 11-13, and 21-34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to an interference cancellation method and apparatus for enhanced physical downlink control channel. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An interference cancellation method for an enhanced physical downlink control channel (E-PDCCH), comprising: allocating different orthogonal covering code (OCC) sequences to different cells; and combining a plurality of control channel elements (CCEs) constituting one PDCCH by a cell-specific OCC sequence so as to enable a user equipment to cancel interference on the PDCCH. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Chen et al. Nazar et al. US 2011/0085513 Al US 2011/0243066 Al Apr. 14, 2011 Oct. 6, 2011 Dahlman et al., 4G LTE/LTE-Advancedfor Mobile Broadband, ch. IO "Downlink Physical-Layer Processing" Elsevier Ltd., 143-202, (2011 ). REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1-3 and 11-13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Dahlman in view of Chen. 2 Appeal2018-000433 Application 14/239,492 Claims 21-34 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dahlman in view of Chen and Nazar. ANALYSIS With respect to independent claims 1, 11, 24, and 31, Appellants argue the claims in two groups, but Appellants' arguments are directed to the similar "combining" limitations, but with slightly varied wording in the different claims. Claims 1 and 11 With respect to the first group, we address independent claim 1 as the illustrative claim. With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants contend that the Dahlman reference in combination with the Chen reference does not teach or suggest the claimed "combining a plurality of control channel elements (CCEs) constituting one PDCCH by a cell-specific OCC sequence so as to enable a user equipment to cancel interference on the PDCCH." (App. Br. 5). The Examiner provides a number of citations to the Dahlman reference in an attempt to evidence the claim limitations both in the statement of the rejection (Final Act. 2-3) and the response to arguments section of the Examiner's Answer. (Ans. 18-22). Appellants respond to each of the Examiner's citations addressing the subject matter taught by the Dahlman and Chen references, and Appellants contend that the references do not teach or suggest the claimed combining step. (App. Br. 5-12; Reply Br. 4--11). 3 Appeal2018-000433 Application 14/239,492 From our review of the relied upon portions of the Dahlman and Chen references, we cannot agree with the Examiner that the Dahlman reference teaches or fairly suggests combining multiple CCEs in a PDCCH with a cell- specific or user-specific orthogonal covering code (OCC) as claimed. Additionally, the Examiner has not identified specific portions within the Chen reference which teaches or suggests the claimed combining multiple CCEs in a PDCCH with a cell-specific or user-specific OCC as claimed. As a result, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of illustrative independent claim 1 and the rejection of independent claim 10 which contains similar deficiencies. Claims 24 and 31 With respect to claim 24, the Examiner relies upon the Dahlman and Chen references to teach or suggest the claimed invention and alternatively relies upon the Nazar reference in the combination to teach or suggest the claimed steps of "combining a plurality of control channel elements (CCEs) constituting the one PDCCH by a user-specific OCC sequence so as to enable a user equipment to cancel interference on the PDCCH." (Final Act. 8-10). Appellants provide similar detailed discussions of the portions of the references relied upon by the Examiner in the statement of the rejection and the response to arguments as set forth for claim 1. (App. Br. 13-19; Reply Br. 22-28). From our review of the relied upon portions of the Dahlman, Chen, and Nazar references (Final Act. 8-10; Ans. 20-22), we cannot agree with the Examiner that the Dahlman, Chen, and Nazar references teach or fairly suggest the combining multiple CCEs in a PDCCH with a cell-specific or user-specific orthogonal covering code (OCC) as claimed. 4 Appeal2018-000433 Application 14/239,492 As a result, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of illustrative independent claim 24 and the rejection of independent claim 31 which contains similar deficiencies. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 11-13, and 21-34 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1-3, 11-13, and 21-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation