He Wang et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2021

2020000648 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2021)

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.
13/703,808 12/12/2012 He Wang LUTZ 01589US01 4132
48116 7590 04/02/2021
FAY SHARPE/NOKIA
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
EXAMINER
THAI, CAMQUYEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2021 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
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HE WANG and CHANDRIKA WORRALL
____________

Appeal 2020-000648
Application 13/703,808
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4–15. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal 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 Alcatel
Lucent. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000648
Application 13/703,808

2
The present invention relates generally to transmitting a multimedia
broadcast multicast service reception status message. See Spec., Abstr.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of transmitting a multimedia broadcast
multicast service reception status message in a terminal of a
wireless communication network, the method comprising:
receiving a radio resource control message from a
base station;
determining whether the radio resource control
message satisfies a predetermined condition; and
if the radio resource control message satisfies the
predetermined condition, transmitting the multimedia broadcast
multicast service reception status message to the base station,
wherein the multimedia broadcast multicast
service reception status message is used for identifying a
multimedia broadcast multicast service being received by the
terminal and
wherein the predetermined condition comprises:
that indication information in the radio resource
control message indicates that the terminal is required to
transmit the multimedia broadcast multicast service reception
status message, and indication information in a previously
received radio resource control message indicates that the
terminal is not required to transmit a multimedia broadcast
multicast service reception status message.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
R1. Claims 1, 7–9, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhang (US
2008/0045228 A1, Feb. 21, 2008), Lee (US 2011/0222457 A1, Sept. 15,
2011), and Chun (US 2010/0208597 A1, Aug. 19, 2010). Final Act. 5–9.
R2. Claims 2, 4, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Zhang, Lee, Chun, and Kim
Appeal 2020-000648
Application 13/703,808

3
(WO 2007/040300 A1, Apr. 12, 2007). Final Act. 9–11.
R3. Claims 5, 6, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Zhang, Lee, Chun, and Kim, and
Somasundaram (WO 2008/137354 A1, Nov. 13, 2008). Final Act. 11–14.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
ANALYSIS
Illustrative claim 1 recites, inter alia, “that indication information
. . . indicates that the terminal is required to transmit the . . . reception status
message.” Claim 1. Appellant contends that “there is no specific mention in
Zhang of indication information . . . indicating that the terminal is required
to transmit the multimedia broadcast multicast service reception status
message, as claimed.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant emphasizes that the cited
portions of Zhang “only disclose[] that the Node B requires [channel quality
indicator (CQI)] feedback from WTRUs to select a transmission rate and
schedule data over HS-DSCH . . . [and] a CQI report is sent only if the
triggering criterion has been met.” Id. at 7–8.
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Zhang teaches
“that the Node B requires channel quality {CQI} feedback from WTRUs . . .
[and] Zhang also stated that UE sends the CQI feedback once the triggering
criterion is met.” Ans. 3–4 (citing Zhang ¶¶ 51, 52, 55).
Specifically, Zhang discloses, “the Node B requires CQI feedback
from WTRUs in order to optimally select a transmission rate and schedule
multicast data over an HS-DSCH” and “a CQI report triggering criterion is
established and CQI reports are sent only if the triggering criterion has been
Appeal 2020-000648
Application 13/703,808

4
met.” Zhang ¶ 51. Zhang further discloses that “the WTRU continuously
monitors whether a trigger condition is satisfied such that an ACK/NACK
signal is required to be sent for MBMS feedback.” Id. ¶ 69.
In other words, Zhang’s explicitly requires feedback transmissions
from the wireless transmit/receive units (WTRUs), albeit when triggering
criterions are met. Although Appellant tries to distinguish Zhang’s teaching
from the claimed invention by highlighting that in Zhang a CQI report is
only sent if the triggering criterion has been met (see Appeal Br. 7–8), we
find that the recited message indicates that the terminal is required to
transmit the . . . status message (see claim 1) also reads on transmissions
required during an event, i.e., when a triggering event occurs.
Illustrative claim 1 also recites, inter alia, “indication information
in a previously received radio resource control message indicates that the
terminal is not required to transmit a . . . status message.” Claim 1.
Regarding this portion of claim 1, Appellant contends that the cited portions
of Chun “fail[] to specifically mention indication information in a
previously received radio resource control message indicating that the
terminal is not required to transmit a . . . status message.” Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant points out that Chun’s stop command is sent while the user
equipment is performing channel quality reporting procedures and Chun “is
silent as to previously received RRC messages.” Id.
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Chun “indicate[s]
that the ‘reporting stop command’ can be sent in a preamble response
message, e.g., previously received RRC message, which is transmitted to
[user equipment (UE)] before the UE performs channel quality reporting.”
Ans. 4–5 (citations omitted). In other words, the Examiner directs our
Appeal 2020-000648
Application 13/703,808

5
attention to a specific procedure in Chun for transmitting the “stop
command,” i.e., using a previously sent preamble response message.
For example, Chun discloses that “[t]he reporting stop command can
be transmitted to the user equipment on . . . [a] preamble response message.”
Chun ¶ 57. Chun further discloses that “[t]he user equipment which has
received the preamble response message performs channel quality reporting
(CQ reporting) using the radio resource allocation information.” Id. ¶ 52.
Additionally, Chun discloses that “the preamble set is included in the system
information which is previously received by the user equipment.” Id. ¶ 50.
In other words, Chun teaches that a user equipment can receive a
preamble response message, indicating a reporting stop command, before
channel quality reporting begins. As a result, we find that the recited
“previously received . . . message” reads on Chun’s preamble response
message. Although Appellant highlights an example in Chun whereby a
stop command is sent while the user equipment is performing channel
quality reporting procedures (i.e., was not previously received), Appellant
fails to address and/or persuasively distinguish the Examiner’s proffered
stop command sent via Chun’s preamble response message.
Finally, as for Appellant’s argument that “Chun is concerned with
channel quality and is apparently silent as to reception status” (see Appeal
Br. 9), we highlight that the Examiner also relies on Zhang, not merely
Chun, to teach the claimed reception status. See Final Act. 6–7; Ans. 4.
As a result, Appellant’s argument against Chun separately from Zhang
does not persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where
the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co.,
Appeal 2020-000648
Application 13/703,808

6
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425–
26 (CCPA 1981).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellant’s arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 7, 12, and 14 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and
Appellant does not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims.
See Appeal Br. 9–11. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2 and 4–15.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4–15 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 7–9,
12, 14, 15
103 Zhang, Lee, Chun 1, 7–9,
12, 14, 15

2, 4, 13 103 Zhang, Lee,
Chun, Kim
2, 4, 13
5, 6, 10, 11 103 Zhang, Lee,
Chun, Kim,
Somasundaram
5, 6,
10, 11

Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–15
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED