FUJITSU LIMITED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 20, 2020

2019002046 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2020)

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.
14/303,788 06/13/2014 Yi WANG FJCN 5129 1021
61650 7590 05/20/2020
MYERS WOLIN, LLC
100 HEADQUARTERS PLAZA
WEST TOWER, FLOOR 7
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960-6834
EXAMINER
DANIEL JR, WILLIE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2020 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):
patent@myerswolin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YI WANG, YUANTAO ZHANG, and HUA ZHOU
Appeal 2019-002046
Application 14/303,788
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Fujitsu
Limited. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002046
Application 14/303,788

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application “relates to wireless communication technologies, and
in particular to a mapping method and apparatus for a search space of a
physical downlink control channel in an LTE (long-term evolution)/LTE-A
(LTE-advanced) system.” Spec. 1:10–12. Claims 1–7, 9, 11–17, and 19 are
pending; claims 1 and 11 are independent. Appeal Br. 7. Claim 1 is
reproduced below for reference (some formatting and bracketed numbering
added):
1. A mapping method for a search space of a physical
downlink control channel (PDCCH), comprising:
determining a search space allocated to the PDCCH
according to a resource allocation scheme;
[1] mapping candidates of the PDCCH onto time
frequency resources of the search space by taking a candidate of
the PDCCH as a unit according to a predefined interval, and
wherein the method further comprises:
[2] mapping discretely multiple allocating units of a
resource block (RB) contained in each candidate of the PDCCH
onto time frequency resources to which the candidate of the
PDCCH corresponds by taking an allocating unit of RB
contained in each candidate of the PDCCH as a unit.
References and Rejections
Claims 1–7, 9, 11–17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kim (US 2013/0010685 Al; Jan. 10, 2013) in view
of Yamada (US 8,537,768 B2; Sept. 17, 2013). Final Act. 2.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
Appeal 2019-002046
Application 14/303,788

3
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We disagree
with Appellant that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner. We add the following primarily for
emphasis.

Mapping Limitation [1]
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error, because “Kim
does not disclose ‘mapping candidates of the PDCCH onto time frequency
resources of the search space by taking a candidate of the PDCCH as a unit
according to a predefined interval’ as required by claim 1.” Appeal Br. 8–9.
Particularly, Appellant contends that “what is allocated in Kim is the R-
PDCCH SS (namely the candidate region of R-PDCCH), and the candidate
region may be discrete RBs, but in Kim the position of each candidate in the
candidate region is not defined, and each candidate in the candidate region
may not be discrete.” Id. at 10. Appellant contends “it can be seen that
there is an essential difference between the teaching in Kim and” mapping
limitation [1], because the recited “‘a candidate of PDCCH’ is not the same
as ‘a PDCCH SS RB’ in Kim.” Id. at 11.
The Examiner finds Kim teaches or suggests candidates of the
PDCCH as claimed, citing Kim’s disclosure of “a PDCCH candidate region
(i.e. a PDCCH search space) is reserved in a control region,” and “every
RBG[2] used as backhaul resources may correspond to an SS [(search
space)].” Kim ¶¶ 92, 167; Final Act. 8.3 The Examiner further finds Kim

2 “RB Groups (RBGs).” Kim ¶ 37.
3 Separately, we note Kim further teaches one or more “RBs per RBG may
be designated as part of an R-PDCCH SS,” and provides “an example in
Appeal 2019-002046
Application 14/303,788

4
teaches or suggests mapping these candidates as claimed. See Final Act. 3.
Particularly, the Examiner finds Kim teaches mapping by taking a candidate
as a unit according to a predefined interval, citing Kim’s disclosures that
“the indexes of resources allocated for backhaul communication are
uniformly distributed,” and “[i]t is also possible to configure an SS with
every Nth frequency resource.” Kim ¶ 167 (cited at Final Act. 3, 8); see also
Kim ¶ 169; Final Act. 3, 8.
Appellant has not persuasively shown the cited portions of Kim fail to
teach or suggest the limitations of mapping limitation [1]. Particularly,
Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
See, e.g. Appeal Br. 10 (“[I]n Kim the position of each candidate in the
candidate region is not defined, and each candidate in the candidate region
may not be discrete.”). Mapping limitation [1] does not recite that each
candidate position is defined or that each candidate is discrete. We note the
limitation requires only a single candidate is taken as a unit (“taking a
candidate”). Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the
Examiner errs in finding the limitation to be obvious in view of Kim’s
teaching that “the system allocates resources of the search space (SS) with
an index of a predetermined offset . . . , and the system provides resources
that are mapped for the search space.” Final Act. 8; Kim ¶¶ 137, 169, 184,
185.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding Kim
teaches or suggests mapping limitation [1], within the meaning of the claim.
See Final Act. 2, 3, 8.

which 4 RBs of an RBG are all designated as R-PDCCH transmission
candidates.” Kim ¶¶ 166, 167.
Appeal 2019-002046
Application 14/303,788

5
Mapping Limitation [2]
Appellant argues:
Kim fails to disclose “mapping discretely multiple allocating
units of a resource block (RB) contained in each candidate of
the PDCCH onto time frequency resources to which the
candidate of the PDCCH corresponds by taking an allocating
unit of RB contained in each candidate of the PDCCH as a
unit” as required by claim 1.
Appeal Br. 12. Particularly, Appellant contends “Kim does not relate to how
to map multiple allocating units of RB contained in each candidate after the
mapping position of each candidate is determined,” and “Kim does not
disclose multiple allocating units of RB, multiple allocating units contained
in each candidate, and does not disclose, in time frequency resources of each
candidate, mapping discretely by taking an allocating unit of RB contained
in each candidate as a unit.” Appeal Br. 12.
We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. Appellant
presents conclusory assertions regarding Kim, unsupported by technical
reasoning or evidence. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 12 (“Kim does not disclose
multiple allocating units of RB.”); see also Final Act. 3; Kim ¶ 54 (“One RB
has 12 subcarriers by 7 (6) OFDM symbols”); Kim ¶¶ 63, 95. Conclusory
statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little
probative value. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in
finding Kim teaches or suggests mapping limitation [2]. See Final Act. 3, 9.
Appellant’s arguments further comprise reciting the limitations of
claim 1 along with alleged technical improvements provided by the claim.
See, e.g., Appeal Br. 13 (“better performance is obtained according to
feedback information (see the pages 8-9 of appellant’s written
description).”). These arguments do not compare the claim limitations with
Appeal 2019-002046
Application 14/303,788

6
the Examiner’s specific findings relating to Kim. See Appeal Br. 12–14;
Final Act. 3; Kim ¶¶ 63, 155, 169, 179, 182–86, 191. Such a response to the
Examiner’s findings is insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“The arguments shall explain why the examiner
erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant.”). That is,
although Appellant argues Kim does not relate to the technical solution or
problem claimed, Appellant does not provide reasoning or cite authority to
show the Examiner errs in relying on Kim to teach the disputed limitations.4
Appeal Br. 13. Rather, we find Kim is in the same field of endeavor as the
subject matter of claim 1, and we agree with the Examiner that one of
ordinary skill would look to Kim at the time of the invention. See Final Act.
2–4; Kim ¶ 46.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the
limitations of claim 1 to be obvious in view of the cited references.

CONCLUSION
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding independent claim
1 to be obvious in view of the teachings of Kim and Yamada. Appellant
presents substantively similar arguments for independent claim 11. See

4 In the Reply Brief, Appellant presents new arguments regarding the
Examiner’s proffered combination reasoning. See Reply Br. 7. These
arguments could have been raised in the opening brief and are therefore
waived. See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that
an argument not first raised in the brief to the Board is waived on appeal);
see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (“Any argument raised in the reply brief
which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument
raised in the examiner’s answer, . . . will not be considered by the Board for
purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.”).
Appeal 2019-002046
Application 14/303,788

7
Appeal Br. 14–20. Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding
the limitations of claim 11 to be obvious in view of the cited references, for
the same reasons discussed above. We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claims 1 and 11, and the claims dependent
therefrom which are not separately argued.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9, 11–
17, 19
103 Kim, Yamada 1–7, 9, 11–
17, 19

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED