TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 6, 2021

2020000334 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 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. 15/091,903 04/06/2016 Marco Belleschi P46700 US2 1170 27045 7590 05/06/2021 ERICSSON INC. 6300 LEGACY DRIVE M/S EVR 1-C-11 PLANO, TX 75024 EXAMINER WYLLIE, CHRISTOPHER T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2465 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/06/2021 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): amber.rodgers@ericsson.com michelle.sanderson@ericsson.com pam.ewing@ericsson.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MARCO BELLESCHI, MATTIAS TAN BERGSTROM, and KAI-ERIK SUNELL ____________________ Appeal 2020-000334 Application 15/091,903 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, 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 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.2 1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the “real party in interest, by assignment, is: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.” Appeal Br. 1. 2 Our decision uses Appellant’s preferred spelling of “signalling” only when quoting Appellant. Otherwise we use the American spelling of “signaling.” Appeal 2020-000334 Application 15/091,903 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added): 1. A method by a wireless device for mapping control information on carriers, the wireless device being served by a plurality of serving cells, the plurality of serving cells comprising at least a primary cell (PCell) and a secondary cell (SCell), the method comprising: [A.] receiving, by the wireless device, a mapping between at least one serving cell of the plurality of serving cells and at least one PUCCH3 channel provided by the SCell, the mapping indicated via radio resource control (RRC) signalling; [B.] based on the mapping, determining a particular PUCCH channel on which PUCCH-related signalling is to be transmitted for a particular serving cell of the at least one serving cell; and [C.] transmitting the PUCCH-related signalling on the particular PUCCH channel. 3 Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH). Appeal 2020-000334 Application 15/091,903 3 REFERENCES4 The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Oizumi5 US 2015/0124725 A1 May 7, 2015 Kwon US 2012/0300752 A1 November 29, 2012 Wang US 2013/0039231 A1 February 14, 2013 Earnshaw US 2011/0269490 A1 November 3, 2011 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable: • claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 over the combination of Oizumi and Kwon, • claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 over the combination of Oizumi, Kwon, and Wang, and • claims 7, 14, and 21 over the combination of Oizumi, Kwon, Wang, and Earnshaw. Final Act. 2-8, Ans. 3-5. Appellant argues separate patentability for claim 1. Appeal Br. 4-6. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. To the extent that Appellant discusses independent claims 8 and 15, and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21, Appellant merely references the arguments directed to claim 1. Appeal Br. 5-6. Such a referenced argument (or repeated argument) is not an argument for “separate patentability.” Thus, the rejection of these claims turns on our decision as to claim 1. 4 All citations herein to patent and pre-grant publication references are by reference to the first named inventor only. 5 WO 2013/179540. Appeal 2020-000334 Application 15/091,903 4 Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103 rejection of claims 2-21 further herein. OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s Appeal Brief and Reply Brief arguments. A. A.1. As a preliminary matter, note that “cell”, “serving cell,” “SCell,” “PCell,” or “Component Carrier”/ “CC” all refer to “serving cells” of the claim. See the Specification, Figure 3 where 302A-X are each a CC and “For instance, if measurements indicate that a certain CC is strong enough that CC is configured via RRC signaling and added to the list of serving cells for a UE.” Spec. 3:5-7 (emphasis added). “As depicted, the CC configuration includes multiple CCs 302A-X grouped into groups 304A-C.” Spec. 11:28-29. A.2. The Examiner determines that Oizumi discloses all of the steps of claim 1 except for “the mapping indicated via radio resource control (RRC) signalling” of step A, which Examiner determines that Kwon discloses. Final Act. 3-4. B. B.1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the cited Oizumi/Kwon combination “fails to disclose” above steps A and B of claim 1. Appellant’s arguments focus on Appeal 2020-000334 Application 15/091,903 5 the application of Oizumi to the claims and the findings based on the disclosure of Kwon or the reasoning for the combination with Oizumi are not contested by the Appellant. With respect to Kwon, Appellant provides a single sentence conclusory statement in each of the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. “Kwon has not been shown to cure these deficiencies.” Appeal Br. 5. “Kwon does not correct Oizumi’s deficiencies.” Reply Br. 4. Particularly, Appellant raises the following arguments in contending that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103: The portions of Oizumi cited by the Examiner simply disclose that “[w]hen CIF [Cross Indicator Field] is configured, base station 100 indicates [secondary cell] SCell as PUCCH transmission cell information X using a [primary cell] PCell PDCCH indicating an SCell PDSCH.” Id., ¶ 0190; Fig. 11 (middle right). This merely shows that the SCell is the PUCCH transmission cell. There is no disclosure of receiving a mapping between any of the other serving cells and specific PUCCH channels provided by the SCell. Nor is there any disclosure of a wireless device determining a particular PUCCH channel on which PUCCH-related signalling is to be transmitted for a particular serving cell, as required by the independent claim 1. In response to these arguments, the Examiner in the Advisory Action has taken the position that the ‘“at least one PUCCH channel provided by the SCell’ can be the ‘particular PUCCH channel’ as disclosed by paragraph 0190 and Figure 11 of Oizumi et al.” Even if this is accurate (a point Applicant does not necessarily concede), it still fails to disclose or suggest the “receiving...a mapping” and “based on the mapping, determining” limitations as recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis added). Appeal 2020-000334 Application 15/091,903 6 Essentially, in above quoted portion of the the Appeal Brief, Appellant presents two arguments: (1) Oizumi does not disclose, suggest, or render obvious “receiving … a mapping” between “any of the other serving cells and specific PUCCH channels” provided by the SCell; and (2) Oizumi does not disclose, suggest, or render obvious that a wireless device determines (through the information provided by the received mapping) a particular PUCCH channel for a particular serving cell. Further, in the Reply Brief, Appellant argues: (3) “by having [the claim 1 step A] mapping indicated via RRC signalling, there is no need for the [network] to provide a mapping for a particular transmission as required by [O]izumi.” Reply Br. 4. That is, Appellant argues there is no need of mapping for the purpose of conveying the same information that Oizumi sends in the particular transmission (i.e., PDSCH). B.2. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s first argument, that Oizumi does not disclose, suggest, or render obvious “receiving . . . a mapping” between “any of the other serving cells and specific PUCCH channels” provided by the SCell. The argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim language. We do not find a requirement of “between any of the other serving cells and specific PUCCH channels” in claim 1. Claim 1 is not explicitly so limited, nor does Appellant explain how claim 1 would be inherently so limited, nor do we find alternative language that would similarly mandate the argued limitation. At most, above step A of claim 1 Appeal 2020-000334 Application 15/091,903 7 requires “receiving . . . a mapping between at least one serving cell of the plurality of serving cells and at least one PUCCH channel provided by the SCell.” Contrary to Appellant’s argument, claim 1 does not require a mapping between other serving cells (plural) and specific PUCCH channels (plural). Although not required for our decision, we now address Appellant’s argument as though claim 1 recites between “any of the other serving cells and specific PUCCH channels” as a limitation. We first observe that the instant application upon which the claim is based is directed to “methods of mapping control information on carriers.” Spec. 5:2-3. Through the “mapping” process, the base station tells a wireless user device which serving cells/carrier cells (CC) to use for download of information and upload of acknowledgment of the download. See Spec. 3:15-20 and 5:2-3 for the statement of the issues. The cited Figure 11 and paragraph 190 of Oizumi pertain to “Embodiment 1” of Oizumi. The description of Embodiment 1 begins with Figure 1 and includes Figure 8 amongst other drawings. Oizumi, in Figure 8, teaches that “control information generating section 102” generates “control information,” which includes “control information carrying downlink assignment,” which in turn includes “information X indicating which uplink component carrier is to be used to transmit an error detection result on transmission data (downlink data) (PUCCH transmission cell information or information indicating a component carrier to be used for transmission of a response signal).” Oizumi ¶¶ 80-90. The “control information,” which includes the PUCCH information, is sent to a “mapping section 108” and then sent to the “terminal apparatus 200”/“wireless Appeal 2020-000334 Application 15/091,903 8 device.” Therefore, the control information “received” at the “terminal 200”/“wireless device” may be called “mapping” information and what occurs is “receiving . . . a mapping,” as claimed. Also, Oizumi teaches that the “base station 100” is sending the “PUCCH transmission cell information X” to the user equipment/“terminal 200”/“wireless device” through the “mapping section 108.” This is reflected in the portion cited by the Examiner (Oizumi ¶ 190) and also shown in Figures 8, 10, and 11 of Oizumi. The fact that this information is sent using a “PCell PDCCH indicating an SCell PDSCH” shows the means of sending/transmitting of the “mapping” information that is received by the “terminal 200”/“wireless device” and used for determining the channel that is expected for returning the error detection feedback signals (ACK/NACK) to the base station, namely the PUCCH channel. Thus, in Oizumi, there is a sending of an indication/mapping/assignment by the base station and a receiving of this indication/mapping/ assignment at the wireless device. Further, the “mapping” information of Oizumi provides that a cell of SCell type must be used as the PUCCH channel. Oizumi, first states that in carrier aggregation6, “there is a high possibility that PUCCH transmission needs to be performed using SCell rather than PCell.” Oizumi ¶ 32 (emphasis added). Thus, mapping/indication of a SCell as the serving cell that is used for performing the PUCCH transmission is taught in Oizumi to be highly possible. Then, Oizumi shows three scenarios for determining the PUCCH cell in one of which the PUCCH must be a SCell type of cell: 6 Which is the subject of the instant application as well. Spec. 2:3. Appeal 2020-000334 Application 15/091,903 9 For example, when only PDSCH is assigned in PCell, PUCCH is transmitted using PCell to secure mobility of the terminal. On the other hand, when only PDSCH is assigned in SCell, PUCCH is transmitted using SCell to reduce PUCCH overhead, PUCCH transmission power and interference. When PDSCHs are simultaneously assigned in PCell and SCell, PUCCH is transmitted using PCell or SCell depending on the purpose. Oizumi ¶ 36 (emphasis added). In the assignment-based method of determining the PUCCH cells, the PDSCH signal by the base station determines the PUCCH transmission cell. The PDSCH signal can assign only SCells for the task of transmitting PUCCH signals. See also Ans. 4-5. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that limitation “receiving, by the wireless device, a mapping between at least one serving cell of the plurality of serving cells and at least one PUCCH channel provided by the SCell,” (emphasis added) of claim 1 is disclosed by Oizumi. B.3. Also, we are not persuased by Appellant’s second argument, that Oizumi does not disclose, suggest, or render obvious that a wireless device determines (through the information provided by the received mapping) “a particular PUCCH channel on which PUCCH-related signalling is to be transmitted for a particular serving cell.” Appellant’s argument (2) as to step B is predicated on Appellant’s argument (1) as to step A. Appeal Br. 5. Therefore, Appellant again presents an argument that is not commensurate with the scope of the claim language. As we note above, step A of claim 1 does not recite “between any of the other serving cells and specific PUCCH channels.” Rather, step A requires “receiving . . . a mapping between at least one serving cell of the Appeal 2020-000334 Application 15/091,903 10 plurality of serving cells and at least one PUCCH channel provided by the SCell.” That is, the only mapping required by step A is between a singular serving cell and a singular PUCCH channel. Therefore, the “determining a particular PUCCH channel . . .for a particular serving cell of the at least one serving cell” of step B merely requires usage of this singular mapping. We determine that Appellant’s arguments (1) and (2) are predicated on a more complex mapping than is actually required by claim 1. We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning. Examiner pointed to the mapping of the received information on a particular SCell/serving cell shown in Figure 11 where PUCCH provides a particular channel for sending the ACK/NACK information back to the base station. Ans. 4-5. Oizumi in Figure 10 shows the transmission of the “PUCCH transmission cell information X” to the wireless device to indicate the assignment of an SCell as the PUCCH channel (X=SCell). This assignment is “specific” because it indicates “which uplink component carrier is to be used.” Oizumi ¶ 81. As evidenced by X=SCell, in Figure 10, this is not merely which type of component carrier but rather which particular component carrier is assigned. Oizumi teaches that there can be one particular cell/component carrier from which the bases station expects to receive the PUCCH signal: In this way, base station 100 will no longer need to detect PUCCH using a plurality of uplink component carriers (PCell and SCell) in preparation for a case where terminal 200 fails to receive a PDCCH. That is, base station 100 needs only to detect a PUCCH using only a single uplink component carrier whereby base station 100 expects to receive a PUCCH in accordance with PDSCH assignment of the downlink component carrier to terminal 200 as described above. By so doing, it is Appeal 2020-000334 Application 15/091,903 11 possible to prevent deterioration in detection accuracy of PUCCH in base station 100. Oizumi ¶ 160 (emphasis added). Further, the middle scenario shown in Figure 11, cited by Examiner, states: “Assignment for ONLY SCell” and ends with “Indicating Maximum 1 Cell’s worth of ACK/NACKs  use of PUCCH format 1a/b” which expressly indicates that a maximum of one cell (SCell) is used for PUCCH transmission. This teaches the limitation of (emphasis added) “based on the mapping, determining a particular PUCCH channel on which PUCCH- related signaling is to be transmitted for a particular serving cell of the at least one serving cell.” The “particular serving cell” is the maximum of “one” SCell that is determined to be the PUCCH channel. Accordingly, Oizumi discloses that it “receives” the information that “maps”/determines a “particular” SCell to be used as the PUCCH cell which provides the particular channel to be used for sending of the response ACK/NACK signals. Thus, limitation “[B.] based on the mapping, determining a particular PUCCH channel on which PUCCH-related signalling is to be transmitted for a particular serving cell of the at least one serving cell” of claim 1 is also disclosed by Oizumi. B.4. Further, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s third argument, that there is no need of mapping for the purpose of conveying the same information that Oizumi sends in the particular transmission (i.e., PDSCH). Essentially, Appellant’s argument is premised on an artisan being an automaton incapable of using an alternative information conveying method Appeal 2020-000334 Application 15/091,903 12 as set forth in the proposed Oizumi-Kwon combination. Reply Br. 4. We conclude this premise is contrary to our reviewing courts guidance. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Also, we find nothing in Oizumi that precludes an artisan from using (i.e., teaches away from) an alternative information conveying method. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has counseled: A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. . . . [I]n general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). Further, “RRC signaling” is presented in Oizumi’s Background Art statement as an alternative to the method that is used by Oizumi’s assignment-based embodiments. As the method of switching between PUCCH transmission cells, two methods may be used. One is a configuration-based method and the other is an assignment-based method. The configuration-based method is a method whereby PUCCH transmission cells are switched through RRC signaling by a base station. Appeal 2020-000334 Application 15/091,903 13 Oizumi ¶¶ 34-35. The teaching of Oizumi that sets RRC signaling as the alternative to the method actually used by the embodiments of Oizumi may be deemed a motivation to combine and the combination may operate as a simple substitution of one known element/method for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. We determine that the Examiner’s articulated reasoning is sufficient and supported by evidence drawn from the record. CONCLUSION The Examiner does not err in rejecting claims 1-21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-4, 8-11, 15-18 103 Oizumi, Kwon 1-4, 8-11, 15-18 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20 103 Oizumi, Kwon, Wang 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20 7, 14, 21 103 Oizumi, Kwon, Wang, Earnshaw 7, 14, 21 Overall Outcome 1-21 Appeal 2020-000334 Application 15/091,903 14 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