INTEL CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 26, 2021

2019004660 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 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.
14/582,110 12/23/2014 Yujian Zhang APP132USA 8852
167761 7590 01/26/2021
Eschweiler/Apple Inc.
c/o Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC
Rosetta Center
629 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1000
Cleveland, OH 44114
EXAMINER
SHAO, HONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/26/2021 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@epiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUJIAN ZHANG, XIANGYING YANG, JING ZHU,
XUE YANG, EMILY QI, and CARLOS CORDEIRO
Appeal 2019-004660
Application 14/582,110
Technology Center 2400

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DAVID J. CUTITTA II, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–22, 24–30, and 32–35, all of the
claims under consideration.2 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 Intel
Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Appellant cancelled claims 2, 23, and 31. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004660
Application 14/582,110

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Summary
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to “coordination of a multi-
radio platform to avoid interference in a heterogeneous wireless
communication system.” Spec. ¶ 16.3 In particular, coordination is
performed using “logic to send information to indicate a time division
multiplexing (TDM) pattern for a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ)
process for the LTE wireless protocol” where “the TDM pattern [is used] to
indicate one or more subframes for use by the HARQ process, the
information to represent the TDM pattern as a series of bits” and “where
each bit in the series of bits indicates whether a respective subframe can be
used for the HARQ process.” Appeal Br. 13, 21.4
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1, 11, 17, 22, and 30 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced
below with the limitation at issue italicized, exemplifies the claimed subject
matter:
1. User equipment (UE), comprising:
a memory;
logic, at least a portion of which is in circuitry coupled to
the memory, the logic to detect in-device coexistence
interference between multiple radios, the multiple radios to use
different wireless protocols, one of which comprises a long
term evolution (LTE) wireless protocol, the logic to send

3 We refer to: (1) the originally filed Specification filed December 23, 2014
(“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action mailed April 11, 2018 (“Final Act.”);
(3) the Appeal Brief filed January 18, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); and (4) the
Examiner’s Answer mailed March 20, 2019 (“Ans.”).
4 Appellant did not number the pages of the Appeal Brief and, therefore, we
have estimated the page numbers included here.
Appeal 2019-004660
Application 14/582,110

3
information to indicate a time division multiplexing (TDM)
pattern for a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process
for the LTE wireless protocol, the TDM pattern to indicate one
or more subframes for use by the HARQ process, the
information to represent the TDM pattern as a series of bits,
where each bit in the series of bits indicates whether a
respective subframe can be used for the HARQ process; and
a radio-frequency (RF) transmitter coupled to the logic,
the RF transmitter to transmit electromagnetic signals
representing the information on a wireless uplink channel.
Appeal Br. 21 (Appendix A).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–20, 22, 24–30, and 32–35 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Fu et al. (US
2011/0312288 A1, published Dec. 22, 2011) (“Fu”) and Novak et al. (US
2010/0220683 A1, published Sept. 2, 2010) (“Novak”). Final Act. 4–17.
The Examiner rejects claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combined teachings of Fu, Novak, and Dayal et al. (US 2011/0243047 A1,
published Oct. 6, 2011) (“Dayal”). Id. at 17–18.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence.
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
Appellant does not persuade us that the Examiner errs. We adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner to the extent consistent
with our analysis herein. Final Act. 4–18; Ans. 3–5. We add the following
primarily for emphasis.
Appeal 2019-004660
Application 14/582,110

4
Appellant argues the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 18. We, thus,
select independent claim 1 as exemplary of the group. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
TDM pattern to indicate subframes for use by the HARQ process
Claim 1 recites “the TDM pattern to indicate one or more subframes
for use by the HARQ process, the information to represent the TDM pattern
as a series of bits, where each bit in the series of bits indicates whether a
respective subframe can be used for the HARQ process.”
Appellant argues that the cited portions of Novak do not teach or
suggest the limitation at issue:
Paragraph [0112] of Novak states that “a resource map is used to
indicate which resources are available or not currently being used
for active persistent resource assignments.” In other words, if a
persistent resource assignment is used for HARQ transmissions
as stated in paragraph [0097], and the resource map is used to
indicate resources not being used for persistent resource
assignments as stated in paragraph [0112], then the cited portions
of Novak essentially teach a resource map used for non-HARQ
transmissions. While paragraph [0114] of Novak states “re-
transmissions may be allocated to the user using . . . an indication
of assigned resources,” this is in the context of re-transmissions
and not HARQ transmissions. Consequently, if the resource map
indicating the non-HARQ processes of Novak would be
combined with the bitmap indicating the non-HARQ processes
of Fu, the resulting combination could not possibly teach “the
TDM pattern to indicate one or more subframes for use by the
HARQ process, the information to represent the TDM pattern as
a series of bits, where each bit in the series of bits indicates
whether a respective subframe can be used for the HARQ
process” as explicitly recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 13–14.

Appeal 2019-004660
Application 14/582,110

5
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that “Novak teaches [a] TDM pattern for HARQ, where
its TDM pattern indicates subframes for use ‘by the HARQ process’ and
each bit indicates a subframe can be used ‘for the HARQ process.’” Ans. 3–
4 (citing Novak ¶¶ 97, 112–114, 230).
Appellant argues that Novak’s statement that “a resource map is used
to indicate which resources are available or not currently being used for
active persistent resource assignments” demonstrates that Novak only
teaches using a resource map “to indicate resources not being used for
persistent resource assignments” and that Novak does not teach using a
resource map for persistent resource assignments. Appeal Br. 14 (citing
Novak ¶ 112). We disagree with Appellant, noting that in the context of
Novak’s overall disclosure, we find Novak’s statement to teach that a
resource map is used for persistent resource assignments.
Novak discloses:
In some embodiments a persistent resource assignment is used
for first HARQ transmissions, and the assignment of the
persistent resource may be known to a user, determinable by the
user, or determinable by the user from a known set of MCSs
being used for transmission. In some embodiments, HARQ re-
transmissions, if needed, are allocated non-persistently by using
resource/MCS adaptation. In some implementations, a resource
map is used to indicate which resources are available or not
currently being used for active persistent resource assignments.
A particular example is a resource availability bitmap described
below.
Novak ¶ 112. Thus, this paragraph of Novak discusses both persistent
resource assignment and allocating non-persistently, and the “resource map”
applies to both types of assignment. Regardless of whether allocating
persistently or non-persistently, the resource map helps by indicating what
Appeal 2019-004660
Application 14/582,110

6
resources are available and what resources to avoid because they are already
used for active persistent resource assignments.
Accordingly, Appellant fails to show reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding that “Novak teaches a persistent resource assignment
used for one or more HARQ transmissions . . . (Novak ¶ 97) where the
resource assignment may take the form of a resource availability bitmap”
(id. ¶¶ 112, 114) and “resources may be defined based on time (para. 230 of
Novak-time-frequency resource may be frame or subframe).” Final Act. 6.
Motivation to Combine
In reasoning that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings
of Fu and Novak, the Examiner determines that “it would have been obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the bitmap sent by a UE, as taught
by Fu, to indicate resources available for HARQ processes, as taught by
Novak, in order to inform the network of all resources that are in use.” Final
Act. 6 (citing Novak ¶¶ 114, 411).
Appellant argues that “[t]he Office Action fails to provide any
rationale as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would seek to
implement the HARQ processes mentioned in Novak into the non-HARQ
processes of Fu for in-device coexistence, other than they both have wireless
networks.” Appeal Br. 15. According to Appellant, it is “clear that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would not read Fu and conclude that it could be
modified to include HARQ processes, since Fu does not mention HARQ
processes in any context.” Id.

Appeal 2019-004660
Application 14/582,110

7
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. It has been held that the
substitution of art-recognized equivalent techniques generally is obvious:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary
skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used
to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Here, the Examiner determines that Fu teaches using a “TDM pattern
to indicate one or more subframes for use.” Ans. 5. The Examiner notes
that “Fu does not explicitly teach using its TDM pattern ‘for a hybrid
automatic repeat request (HARQ) process,’ where its TDM pattern indicates
subframes for use ‘by the HARQ process’ and each bit indicates a subframe
can be used ‘for the HARQ process.’” Id. But, the Examiner finds “Novak
teaches a persistent resource assignment used for one or more HARQ
transmissions . . . where the resource assignment may take the form of a
resource availability bitmap . . . and resources may be defined based on
time.” Ans. 6 (citing Novak ¶¶ 97, 112, 114, 230).
Appellant presents insufficient evidence or reasoning that the
Examiner’s proposed modification of Fu’s bitmap, for scheduling of
subframes for interference avoidance, “to indicate resources available for
HARQ processes, as taught by Novak” was “uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Final Act. 6; Leapfrog Enters.,
Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). To the
contrary, Fu’s bitmap provides a predictable way to demonstrate whether
Appeal 2019-004660
Application 14/582,110

8
frames are available for HARQ transmissions. Moreover, Appellant does
not show why the Examiner’s proffered motivation would not apply to the
current combination.
Appellant further argues that “a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not read Novak and conclude that HARQ processes could be inserted
into non-HARQ processes” because “Novak actually teaches away from
such a combination” by “teach[ing] use of a resource map for non-HARQ
processes.” Appeal Br. 15. This argument is unpersuasive, because, as we
discuss above on page 5, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Novak
teaches that a resource map is used for persistent resource assignments and
that Novak further discloses that “a persistent resource assignment is used
for first HARQ transmissions.” Novak ¶ 112.
Appellant next argues the cited combination would not have been
obvious because “Fu clearly characterizes the in-device coexistence problem
as a phenomenon that occurs at the UE” and the resource map “discussed in
Novak would be generated at a base station.” Appeal Br. 17 (citing Fu ¶¶ 5–
6; Novak ¶ 112).
In response, the Examiner finds, “Novak doesn’t restrict UE from
determining the resource map . . . therefor[e] bitmap in Fu is sent by UE, and
bitmap in Novak may be determined by UE, such that there is no conflict for
combining two references.” Ans. 5 (citing Novak ¶¶ 112, 160).
We agree with the Examiner. Appellant does not provide sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that Novak’s resource map generation is limited
only to a base station. See Novak ¶ 112 (discussing use of a resource map in
“some implementations” rather than limiting use of a resource map to only a
base station). Nor does Appellant demonstrate any difference between
Appeal 2019-004660
Application 14/582,110

9
Novak’s base station and UE devices with respect to implementation of a
resource map. Still further, although we do not rely on the finding in
affirming the Examiner’s decision, we note that Novak teaches using
“resource availability bitmap (RAB) 410” and “assignment bitmap 420 [to]
indicate that users UE12, UE30, UE46 and UE24 are assigned a resource.”
Novak ¶ 187.
For the reasons discussed, Appellant does not persuade us of
reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, as
well as the rejections of claims 3–22, 24–30, and 32–35, which Appellant
does not argue separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 18.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–22, 24–30,
and 32–35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–20,
22, 24–30,
32–35
103(a) Fu, Novak 1, 3–20,
22, 24–30,
32–35

21 103(a) Fu, Novak, Dayal 21
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–22,
24–30, 32–
35

Appeal 2019-004660
Application 14/582,110

10
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