Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 5, 2021

2019004799 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 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.
14/836,695 08/26/2015 Yu Cao HW 91016436US01 3250
74365 7590 02/05/2021
Slater Matsil, LLP/HW/FW/HWC
17950 Preston Road
Suite 1000
Dallas, TX 75252
EXAMINER
DETSE, KOKOU R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/05/2021 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@slatermatsil.com
uspatent@huawei.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YU CAO, MING JIA, and JIANGLEI MA

Appeal 2019-004799
Application 14/836,695
Technology Center 2400

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V, MORGAN, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8–36, all of the claims pending.2
Appeal Br. 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We refer to the Specification filed Aug. 26, 2015 (“Spec.”); the Final
Office Action, mailed May 1, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed
Oct. 9. 5, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Apr. 18,
2019 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed June 3, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Huawei Technologies Co, Ltd. as
the real party-in-interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004799
Application 14/836,695

2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to frame
structure (600) for machine-type communication (MTC) with adjustable
pulse bandwidths and pulse lengths in wireless communication system (100)
including access point (AP 105) configured to transmit wireless signals
between user equipment (UE 110, 112) and machine-type communication
devices (MTCD 114, 116). Spec. ¶¶ 1, 6, 19, 29, Fig. 1A, 6.
The Specification’s Figures 1A and 6, reproduced and discussed
below, are useful for understanding the claimed subject matter:

The Specification’s Figure 1A above illustrates communication system (100)
including AP (105) for processing frames transmitted between UEs (110,
112) and MTCDs (114, 116) to accommodate diverse MTC applications and
different coverage levels associated with multiple MTCDs. Id. ¶ 29.
Appeal 2019-004799
Application 14/836,695

3

The Specification’s Figure 6 above illustrates frame structure (600)
partitioned in subframes with different coverage levels of AP (105)
including level 1 subframe (610) with first length (613) and first bandwidth
(615), level 2 subframe (620) with second length and second bandwidth
(625) (623), level 3 subframe with third length (633) and third bandwidth
(635) (630). Id. ¶¶ 19, 65.
In particular, upon receiving frame (600), AP (105) divides the time-
frequency space thereof into first sub-frame (610) associated with first
MTCD (114) and second sub-frame (620) associated with second
MTCD (116), wherein first sub-frame (610) has a first sub-frame level with
first length (613) and first signal pulse bandwidth (615), and second sub-
frame (620) has a second sub-frame level with second length (623) and
second signal pulse bandwidth (625). Id. Subsequently, AP (105) transfers
information about first sub-frame (610) and second sub-frame (620) to first
MTCD (114) and second MTCD (116) respectively. Id.
Appeal 2019-004799
Application 14/836,695

4
Claims 8, 18, 22 and 23 are independent. Claim 8, reproduced below
with disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative:
8. A method for providing a frame structure for machine-type
communication in a wireless communication system, the
communication system comprising a base station and a plurality of
machine-type communication devices (MTCDs), the method
comprising:
dividing, by the base station, a frame of time-frequency space
into at least one first sub-frame and at least one second sub-frame, the
at least one first sub-frame associated with a first MTCD of the
plurality of MTCDs, the first MTCD within a first coverage level of
the base station, the at least one first sub-frame having a first sub-
frame length and a first signal pulse bandwidth;
the at least one second sub-frame associated with a second
MTCD of the plurality of MTCDs, the second MTCD within a second
coverage level of the base station different from the first coverage
level, the at least one second sub-frame having a second sub-frame
length different from the first sub-frame length and a second signal
pulse bandwidth different from the first signal pulse bandwidth; and
transmitting, by the base station, information about the at least
one first sub-frame to the first MTCD.
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.).
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Reference Date
Shin US 2009/0154532 A1 June 18, 2009
Mochizuki US 2013/0203450 A1 Aug. 8, 2013
Yang US 2015/0110038 A1 Apr. 23, 2015
Sanders US 9,137,201 B2 Sept. 15, 2015

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-004799
Application 14/836,695

5
Sorrentino US 2015/0341934 A1 Nov. 26, 2015
Wong US 2016/0198438 A1 July 7, 2016
IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–7 and 9–20 as follows:
Claims 8–12, 14–17, 18–20, 22–25, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Mochizuki, Wong,
Sorrentino, and Yang. Final Act. 3–11.
Claims 26–28, 31–33 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Mochizuki, Wong, Sorrentino, and
Shin. Id. at 12–14.
Claims 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
the combined teachings of Mochizuki, Wong, Sorrentino, and Sanders. Id.
at 14.
V. ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the combination of Mochizuki, Wong,
Sorrentino, and Yang does not teach or suggest a base station dividing a
frame of time-frequency space into first and second sub-frames having
different sub-frame lengths and signal pulse bandwidths within the same
frame, as recited in independent claim 8. Appeal Br. 8–9.
In particular, Appellant argues that Wong’s disclosure of expanding
the MTC-UE coverage by up to 15 dB (by repeating the physical downlink
control channel (PDCCH) and the physical downlink shared channel
(PDSCH) a hundred times thereby signaling information in a master
information block (MIB) indicating the resource allocation of the system
information block (SIB) to determine the physical resource block (PRB)
Appeal 2019-004799
Application 14/836,695

6
containing the SIB) does not teach or suggest sub-frames having different
signal pulse bandwidths. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 2–3 (citing Wong, ¶¶ 45,
46). Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
We do not agree with the Examiner that Wong’s disclosure of
expanding a normal cell coverage to an additional coverage of up to 15 dB
(Figure 1 of Wong) teaches or suggests a first and second cell coverage
levels having different bandwidths. Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 15. Instead, as
persuasively argued by Appellant, the cited portions of Wong merely relate
to extending the coverage area by 15 dB to accommodate the allocation of
the SIB for the MTC-UE. Appeal Br. 9.
Further, apart from relying on impermissible hindsight, the Examiner
does not provide sufficient rationale to divide the same frame into a plurality
of sub-frame levels, each having a different length and bandwidth, as
required by the claim. Final Act. 4–6; Ans. 16 (citing Wong Abstract). We
find the Examiner’s proffered rationale that doing so would enhance the
efficiency of the system is as best speculative. Id. Although the cited
portion of Wong discusses efficiency, it is merely in the context of
indicating an appropriate resource allocation for the MTC-UE requiring
coverage extension. Otherwise, the record before us is devoid of evidence
sufficient to motivate the ordinarily skilled artisan to divide the same frame
into a plurality of sub-frame levels, each having a different length and a
different bandwidth within a wireless communications system.
Because Appellant shows at least one reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 8, we do not reach
Appellant’s remaining arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 8, 18, 22, and 23,
Appeal 2019-004799
Application 14/836,695

7
each of which includes the argued disputed limitations. Likewise, we do not
sustain the rejections of dependent claims 9–17, 19–21, and 24–36, which
also recite the disputed limitations.
VI. CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 8–36.
VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
8–12, 14–17,
18–20, 22–25,
29, 30
103 Mochizuki, Wong, Sorrentino, Yang
8–12, 14–17,
18–20, 22–25,
29, 30
26–28, 31–33,
36 103
Mochizuki, Wong,
Sorrentino, Shin
26–28, 31–33,
36
13, 21 103 Mochizuki, Wong, Sorrentino, Sanders 13, 21
Overall
Outcome 18–36
REVERSED