Ex Parte Zhao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2018

14239492 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2018)

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