2020002925 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2021)

Kyeong-In JEONG et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 29, 2021

2020002925 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 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. 13/525,973 06/18/2012 Kyeong-In JEONG 678-3446 CON (P15970) 4132 66547 7590 10/29/2021 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. Paul J Farrell 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER SLOMS, NICHOLAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2476 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/29/2021 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): pto@farrelliplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte KYEONG-IN JEONG, GERT JAN VAN LIESHOUT, HIMKE VAN DER VELDE, and SOENG-HUN KIM ________________ Appeal 2020-002925 Application 13/525,973 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before JOHN A. EVANS, JASON J. CHUNG, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection of claims 27–36.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.3 INVENTION The invention relates to “efficiently detecting contention, for reducing signaling overhead during a random access procedure.” Spec. 1:16–17. Claim 29 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 1–26 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 19. 3 A previous decision in this application mailed on March 30, 2017. Appeal 2020-002925 Application 13/525,973 2 29. A user equipment (UE) for performing a random access procedure in a mobile communication system, the UE comprising: a transceiver; and a controller coupled with the transceiver and configured to: transmit, to a base station, a random access preamble on a random access channel, receive, from the base station, a random access response including grant information indicating uplink resources and a temporary-radio network temporary identifier (T-RNTI), in response to the transmitted random access preamble; transmit, to the base station, a message including a cell- radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) for identifying the UE in a cell through the uplink resources, the uplink resources being allocated to the UE based on the grant information, if the C-RNTI exists, transmit, to the base station, a message including one of a unique identifier (ID) of the UE and a random ID through the uplink resources, if the C-RNTI does not exist, determine that the contention for the random access procedure is resolved, if UE-specific control information is received based on the C-RNTI on one downlink control channel, without receiving a contention resolution (CR) message based on the T-RNTI, and determine that the contention for the random access procedure is resolved, if the CR message including the one of the unique ID of the UE and the random ID is received based on the T-RNTI, wherein the UE-specific control information includes a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) specified by the C-RNTI in the transmitted message. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). Appeal 2020-002925 Application 13/525,973 3 REJECTIONS4 The Examiner rejects claims 27–34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Appellant’s admitted prior art (“AAPA”), Kitazoe,5 and Damnjanovic.6 Non-Final Act. 4–8. The Examiner rejects claims 27–34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of AAPA, Kitazoe, Damnjanovic, and R2-070263.7 Non-Final Act. 4–8. The Examiner rejects claims 35 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of AAPA, Kitazoe, Damnjanovic, R2-070263, and R2-070301.8 Non-Final Act. 8–9. The Examiner rejects claims 35 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of AAPA, Kitazoe, Damnjanovic, R2-070263, and R2-070212.9 Non-Final Act. 8–9. ANALYSIS The Examiner concludes although the claims state “on one downlink control channel,” the claim does not state only one downlink control channel. Ans. 4–5; Non-Final Act. 2. Moreover, the Examiner finds Kitazoe, Damnjanovic, and R2-070263 teach L1/L2 control signaling using 4 The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph was withdrawn. Ans. 3. 5 US 2010/0189071 A1, filed Oct. 2, 2007. 6 US 2010/0093386 A1, filed Oct. 31, 2007. 7 Summary of email discussion point 3: Initial access procedure: C-RNTI and HARQ, 3GPP TSG RAN WG2, Tdoc-R2-070263, 2–10 (January 2007) (“R2-070263”). 8 Initial access procedure and C-RNTI Allocation, 3GPP TSG RAN WG2, R2-070301, (January 2007) (“R2-070301”). 9 RACH procedure, 3GPP TSG RAN WG2, R2-070212, 2–5 (January 2007) (“R2-070212”). Appeal 2020-002925 Application 13/525,973 4 a shared channel, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “on one downlink control channel” recited in claim 29. Ans. 3–4 (citing Damnjanovic, Fig. 4; R2-070263, table 1); Non-Final Act. 6–7 (citing Kitazoe ¶¶ 9–11, 31–36, 44–48). Appellant argues Damnjanovic, Kitazoe, and R2-070263 merely teach a conventional reception of the CR message (or message 4) for resolving a contention, and the CR message is received over two channels (i.e., PDCCH and DL-SCH) to resolve the contention, whereas claim 29 requires reception “on one downlink control channel.” Appeal Br. 10–16; Reply Br. 2–6. We agree with Appellant. The cited portions of Kitazoe, Damnjanovic, and R2-070263 teach control signaling using a shared channel, which fails to teach the limitation “on one downlink control channel” (emphasis added) recited in claim 29. Ans. 3–4 (citing Damnjanovic, Fig. 4; R2-070263, table 1); Non-Final Act. 6–7 (citing Kitazoe ¶¶ 9–11, 31–36, 44–48).10 Stated another way, a shared channel is not a control channel. Compare Appeal Br. 10–16; Reply Br. 2– 6, with Ans. 3–4 (citing Damnjanovic, Fig. 4; R2-070263, table 1); Non- Final Act. 6–7 (citing Kitazoe ¶¶ 9–11, 31–36, 44–48). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of: (1) independent claims 27, 29, 31, and 33; and (2) dependent claims 28, 30, 32, and 34–36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 10 Although paragraph 69 of Damnjanovic teaches both a control channel and a shared channel using message 2, we find this feature fails to teach “determine that the contention for the random access procedure is resolved, if UE-specific control information is received based on the C-RNTI on one downlink control channel” (emphasis added). Appeal 2020-002925 Application 13/525,973 5 CONCLUSION In summary: REVERSED Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 27–34 103(a) AAPA, Kitazoe, Damnjanovic 27–34 27–34 103(a) AAPA, Kitazoe, Damnjanovic, R2- 070263 27–34 35, 36 103(a) AAPA, Kitazoe, Damnjanovic, R2- 070263, R2- 070301 35, 36 35, 36 103(a) AAPA, Kitazoe, Damnjanovic, R2- 070263, R2- 070212 35, 36 Overall Outcome 27–36