QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 16, 2022

2021000122 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2022)

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. 15/789,459 10/20/2017 Navid ABEDINI QUAL/170417US 1274 15055 7590 02/16/2022 Patterson + Sheridan, L.L.P. Qualcomm 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77046 EXAMINER THOMAS, WILFRED ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2416 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/16/2022 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): PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NAVID ABEDINI, BILAL SADIQ, SUNDAR SUBRAMANIAN, MUHAMMAD NAZMUL ISLAM, and JUNYI LI Appeal 2021-000122 Application 15/789,459 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JASON J. CHUNG, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, 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 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 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 Qualcomm Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000122 Application 15/789,459 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to multiplexing initial access and data transmissions in assisted millimeter wave systems. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for wireless communication by a first base station (BS), comprising: communicating, in a first time interval, with at least a first user equipment (UE), via directional transmissions using a first set of frequency resources, wherein communicating with the first UE comprises receiving or monitoring for a first set of one or more signals in the first set of frequency resources from the first UE; and participating in at least one of an access or management procedure, during the first time interval, via directional transmissions using a second set of frequency resources different from the first set of frequency resources, wherein participating in at least one of the access or management procedure further comprises receiving or monitoring for a second set of one or more signals in the second set of frequency resources. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Atarashi US 2003/0162551 A1 Aug. 28, 2003 Meshkati US 2011/0237261 A1 Sept. 29, 2011 Seol US 2013/0182683 A1 July 18, 2013 Maltsev US 2014/0204846 A1 July 24, 2014 Kang US 2016/0050050 A1 Feb. 18, 2016 Luo US 2016/0057604 A1 Feb. 25, 2016 Van Der Velde US 2016/0338039 A1 Nov. 17, 2016 Jung US 2017/0207843 A1 July 20, 2017 Nam US 2017/0288743 A1 Oct. 5, 2017 Stirling US 2018/0035396 A1 Feb. 1, 2018 Appeal 2021-000122 Application 15/789,459 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 13, 19, 20, 29, and 30 are rejected under § 103 as obvious over Van Der Velde, Luo, and Atarashi. Claims 3, 4, 9, 21, 22, and 25 are rejected under § 103 as obvious over Van Der Velde, Luo, Atarashi, and Stirling. Claims 6 and 24 are rejected under § 103 as obvious over Van Der Velde, Luo, Atarashi, Stirling, and Meshkati. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under § 103 as obvious over Van Der Velde, Luo, Atarashi, and Meshkati. Claims 5, 10, 23, and 26 are rejected under § 103 as obvious over Van Der Velde, Luo, Atarashi, Stirling, and Seol. Claim 7 is rejected under § 103 as obvious over Van Der Velde, Luo, Atarashi, Stirling, Meshkati, Kang. Claim 8 is rejected under § 103 as obvious over Van Der Velde, Luo, Atarashi, Stirling, and Nam. Claims 11, 12, and 27 are rejected under § 103 as obvious over Van Der Velde, Luo, Atarashi, Stirling, and Jung. Claims 16-18, and 28 are rejected under § 103 as obvious over Van Der Velde, Luo, Atarashi, and Maltsev. OPINION In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Obviousness is determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. Appeal 2021-000122 Application 15/789,459 4 See Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445; Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472. Upon review of the evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record by Appellant, we find that Appellant has identified error in the obviousness rejections by a preponderance of evidence in the record. In particular, Appellant argues that Van Der Velde does not teach that a base station, meaning either the MeNB or the SeNB, individually uses two different frequencies for any type of communication. Appeal Br. 8. In the Answer, the Examiner asserts that Figure 1 of Van Der Velde shows the “base station using different frequencies Control (112) and Data (114, 116).” Ans. 3-4. As Appellant argues, however, and we agree, the cited portions of Van Der Velde do not appear to support this finding because the cited portions of Van Der Velde do not state that Control 112 and Data 114 or 116 represent different frequencies. See Reply Br. 7-9. We will not resort to speculation or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s fact finding. The Examiner also asserts that Atarashi teaches using different frequencies at different time intervals. Ans. 4. As Appellant points out, however, the claim features do not mention different “time intervals,” but instead recite the opposite-using different sets of frequency resources during the same “first time interval.” Reply Br. 7. Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 13, 19, 20, 29, and 30. We also do not sustain the rejections of the remaining pending claims, because the Examiner does not assert the other cited references cure this deficiency. Appeal 2021-000122 Application 15/789,459 5 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 13, 19, 20, 29, 30 103 Van Der Velde, Luo, Atarashi 1, 2, 13, 19, 20, 29, 30 3, 4, 9, 21, 22, 25 103 Van Der Velde, Luo, Atarashi, Stirling 3, 4, 9, 21, 22, 25 6, 24 103 Van Der Velde, Luo, Atarashi, Stirling, Meshkati 6, 24 14, 15 103 Van Der Velde, Luo, Atarashi, Meshkati 14, 15 5, 10, 23, 26 103 Van Der Velde, Luo, Atarashi, Stirling, Seol 5, 10, 23, 26 7 103 Van Der Velde, Luo, Atarashi, Stirling, Meshkati, Kang 7 8 103 Van Der Velde, Luo, Atarashi, Stirling, Nam 8 11, 12, 27 103 Van Der Velde, Luo, Atarashi, Stirling, Jung 11, 12, 27 16-18, 28 103 Van Der Velde, Luo, Atarashi, Maltsev 16-18, 28 Overall Outcome 1-30 Appeal 2021-000122 Application 15/789,459 6 REVERSED