QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 8, 2021

2019005313 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 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.
14/567,993 12/11/2014 Tingfang Ji 144914U3 (00024) 2727
169297 7590 02/08/2021
QUARLES & BRADY LLP/Qualcomm
ATTN: IP DOCKET
411 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE
SUITE 2350
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4426
EXAMINER
PATEL, HARDIKKUMAR D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2021 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
pat-dept@quarles.com
qualcomm@quarles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TINGFANG JI, JOHN EDWARD SMEE,
JOSEPH BINAMIRA SORIAGA, NAGA BHUSHAN, PETER GAAL,
ALEXEI YURIEVITCH GOROKHOV,
KRISHNA KIRAN MUKKAVILLI, PETER ANG,
MICHAEL ALEXANDER HOWARD, and ROTEM COOPER
____________

Appeal 2019-005313
Application 14/567,993
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 4, 10–12, 14, 15, 21–23, 26, 32–34, 36, 37, 43–45, 48,
54–56, 58, 59, 65–67, 70, 76–78, 80, 81, 87, and 88, which are all the claims

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Qualcomm as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005313
Application 14/567, 993

2
pending and rejected in the application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

RELATED PTAB APPEAL
This Appeal is related to Appeal No. 2019-005312 (Application No.
14/567,985) (PTAB decision, which reversed the Examiner’s rejections, was
mailed on January 29, 2021).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to “pairing an inter-band carrier with a
time division duplex (TDD) carrier to achieve full duplex communication.”
Spec. ¶ 2. “If the paired band is a frequency division duplex (FDD) band,
then base stations and mobile devices may transmit and receive additional
thin control channels on FDD carriers to enable full duplex operations. . . .
With the introduction of a paired channel and fast control channels, rapid
uplink/downlink switching may be achieved for TDD carriers efficiently and
effectively.” Spec. ¶ 7. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of wireless communication operable at a
subordinate entity, comprising:
wirelessly communicating with a scheduling entity
utilizing a first transmission time interval (TTI) over a first
carrier, the first carrier being a time division duplex (TDD)
carrier;

2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 5–9, 13, 16–20, 27–
31, 35, 38–42, 49–53, 57, 60–64, 71–75, 79, and 82–86 (Ans. 3). Therefore,
such claims are not before us.
Appeal 2019-005313
Application 14/567, 993

3
wirelessly communicating with the scheduling entity
utilizing a second TTI shorter in duration than the first TTI and
overlapping a portion of the first TTI, over a second carrier
paired with the first carrier and separated from the first carrier
in frequency; and
receiving a control channel utilizing the second TTI over
the second carrier, the control channel comprising information
configured to modify data communication on the first carrier
utilizing the first TTI with other data communication utilizing
the second TTI.

References and Rejections3
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References
1, 4, 23, 26,
45, 48, 67, 70
103 Sorond (US 2010/0124183 A1, published May 20,
2010), Kishiyama (EP 2613600 A1, published July
10, 2013)
10–12, 14, 21,
22, 32–34, 36,
43, 44, 54–56,
58, 65, 66,
76–78, 80, 87,
88
103 Sorond, Kishiyama, Yang (US 9,332,466 B2,
issued May 3, 2016)4
15, 37, 59, 81 103 Sorond, Kishiyama, Yang, Chen (US
2012/0044841 A1, published Feb. 23, 2012)

3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated July
27, 2018 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated Jan. 29, 2019 (“Appeal
Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated May 2, 2019 (“Ans.”); and (4) Reply
Brief dated July 2, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
4 Although the heading of the rejection omits Kishiyama (Final Act. 10), the
Examiner’s substantive analysis correctly includes Kishiyama (Final Act. 3–
6). Therefore, the omission appears to be a harmless typographical error.
We note Appellant does not contend the omission caused prejudice.
Appeal 2019-005313
Application 14/567, 993

4
ANALYSIS5
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Sorond
teach “wirelessly communicating with a scheduling entity utilizing a first
transmission time interval (TTI) over a first carrier . . . utilizing a second TTI
shorter in duration than the first TTI and overlapping a portion of the first
TTI, over a second carrier paired with the first carrier and separated from the
first carrier in frequency,” as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis
added). See Appeal Br. 22–23; Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner finds Sorond’s TDD [time division duplex] and FDD
[frequency division duplex] teach the claimed “first carrier” and “second
carrier,” respectively. See Final Act. 3. The Examiner cites Sorond’s
Figures 5a, 5b, 12a, and 12b for teaching the italicized limitation and finds:
Sorond does disclose a second TTI shorter in duration than the
first TTI and at least partially overlapping the first TTI. (. . . .
As discussed in Figs. 5a, b-12a, b that FDD having a TTI (t2-t0)
and TDD having a TTI (t1-t2). Thus, it is interpreted that FDD
TTI is different in duration than the TDD TTI and TDD TTI is
overlapped by FDD TTI).

Ans. 21–22 (emphasis omitted); see also Final Act. 3–4.
We disagree. As pointed out by Appellant (Appeal Br. 22), the
Specification defines the term TTI [transmission time interval] as “a
minimum duration of a unit of information that can be decoded.” Spec.

5 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not address the additional arguments.
Appeal 2019-005313
Application 14/567, 993

5
¶ 37. The Examiner does not dispute that definition. In an exemplary
embodiment, the Specification illustrates the italicized limitation in Figure 5:

Spec., Fig. 5.

FIG. 5 illustrates one example of pairing a TDD carrier
with an FDD carrier, providing for multiplexing of LoLat
uplink transmissions with regular uplink transmissions (i.e.,
transmissions from a subordinate entity) on the TDD carrier. In
the illustrated example, the TDD carrier is illustrated . . . with
uplink resources allocated to different users being represented
by the large blocks spanning a long TTI. . . . .

Spec. ¶ 80 (emphasis added).

As these uplink transmissions are ongoing, if a particular
subordinate entity, denoted as the LoLat user 504, wishes to
request resources for a LoLat uplink transmission, this
Appeal 2019-005313
Application 14/567, 993

6
subordinate entity may transmit a LoLat scheduling request 507
on the thin feedback channel 506 on the FDD uplink
component carrier. Here, the LoLat scheduling request 507 may
utilize the short TTI, although this is not necessarily always the
case. . . . .

Spec. ¶ 82 (emphasis added).
Contrary to the Examiner’s conclusory assertion that Sorond’s (t2-t0)
teaches the claimed “second TTI” because Sorond’s “FDD ha[s] a TTI (t2-
t0)” (Ans. 22), the cited Sorond’s portions do not describe (t2-t0) as the TTI
of FDD.6 As discussed above, the Specification defines TTI as “a minimum
duration of a unit of information that can be decoded” (Spec. ¶ 37), and the
Examiner has not explained why (t2-t0) constitutes the claimed “second TTI”
in light of that definition. Because the Examiner has not demonstrated
Sorond teaches the claimed “second TTI,” the Examiner has not shown
Sorond teaches “utilizing a second TTI shorter in duration than the first TTI
and overlapping a portion of the first TTI, over a second carrier paired with
the first carrier and separated from the first carrier in frequency,” as required
by claim 1 (emphasis added).
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and
independent claims 23, 45, and 67 for similar reasons.
We also reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
corresponding dependent claims 4, 10–12, 14, 15, 21, 22, 26, 32–34, 36, 37,
43, 44, 48, 54–56, 58, 59, 65, 66, 70, 76–78, 80, 81, 87, and 88. Although

6 Sorond describes (t2-t1) as an “uplink time interval or uplink time slot,” and
(t1-t0) as a “downlink time interval or downlink time slot.” Sorond ¶ 49.
Appeal 2019-005313
Application 14/567, 993

7
the Examiner cites additional references for rejecting some dependent claims
(Final Act. 10–14, 19–20), the Examiner has not shown the additional
references overcome the deficiency discussed above in the rejection of claim
1.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 10–12, 14,
15, 21–23, 26, 32–34, 36, 37, 43–45, 48, 54–56, 58, 59, 65–67, 70, 76–78,
80, 81, 87, and 88 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 23, 26,
45, 48, 67,
70
103 Sorond, Kishiyama 1, 4, 23, 26,
45, 48, 67, 70
10–12, 14,
21, 22, 32–
34, 36, 43,
44, 54–56,
58, 65, 66,
76–78, 80,
87, 88
103 Sorond,
Kishiyama, Yang,
10–12, 14, 21,
22, 32–34, 36,
43, 44, 54–56,
58, 65, 66,
76–78, 80, 87,
88
15, 37, 59,
81
103 Sorond,
Kishiyama, Yang,
Chen
15, 37, 59, 81
Overall
Outcome
1, 4, 10–12,
14, 15, 21–23,
26, 32–34, 36,
37, 43–45, 48,
54–56, 58, 59,
65–67, 70,
76–78, 80, 81,
87, 88

REVERSED