Yassin Aden. AwadDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 29, 201915293763 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 15/293,763 10/14/2016 Yassin Aden AWAD Q231708 2994 23373 7590 11/29/2019 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC 2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 900 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 EXAMINER CHOUDHRY, SAMINA F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2462 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/29/2019 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): PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM USPTO@sughrue.com sughrue@sughrue.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte YASSIN ADEN AWAD ____________ Appeal 2018-007259 Application 15/293,763 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JUSTIN BUSCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, 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 and 4, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies NEC Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2018-007259 Application 15/293,763 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The present invention relates to “a communication system and to components thereof for providing relay services to mobile or fixed communication devices.” Spec. 1:10–11. “The invention has particular but not exclusive relevance to relay services used in LTE-Advanced as currently defined in 3GPP standards documentation TR 36.814 Vl.0.0.” Spec. 1:11– 11. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method in a relay node, the method comprising: communicating with a base station; detecting a relay physical downlink control channel intended for the relay node in a subframe, determining a relay physical control channel assignment based on a numeric value representing a number of resource blocks in a set of resource blocks configured for the relay physical downlink control channel transmission; and decoding a corresponding physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) in the same subframe. References and Rejection2 Name References Date Wang US 2010/0281323 A1 Nov. 4, 2010 Xu US 8,315,225 B2 Nov. 20, 2012 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated June 16, 2017 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated Jan. 16, 2018 (“App. Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated May 7, 2018 (“Ans.”); and (4) Reply Brief dated July 6, 2018 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2018-007259 Application 15/293,763 3 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References 1, 4 103 Wang, Xu ANALYSIS3 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 Wang teach “determining a relay physical control channel assignment based on a numeric value representing a number of resource blocks in a set of resource blocks configured for the relay physical downlink control channel transmission,” as recited in each of independent claims 1 and 4 (emphases added). The Examiner finds Wang teaches: determining a relay physical control channel assignment based on a numeric value representing a number of resource blocks in a set of resource blocks configured for the relay physical downlink control channel transmission (para 64-66). Final Act. 2. The Examiner further cites Wang’s paragraph 92 in the Answer. Ans. 5–6. Appellant argues: as explained previously, Wang simply describes that the number of symbols used for a conventional LTE control channel (PDCCH) may depend on the overall system bandwidth in terms of number of resource blocks. The conventional PDCCH referred to in Wang paragraph [0064] is not an R-PDCCH (claimed “relay physical downlink control channel”) and the number of resource blocks in the system 3 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not need to reach the additional arguments. Appeal 2018-007259 Application 15/293,763 4 bandwidth is not the same as or suggestive of the claimed “the number of resource blocks configured for the R-PDCCH.” Accordingly, Wang does not tell a person of ordinary skill in the art that the R-PDCCH assignment (claimed “relay physical control channel assignment”) is determined as claimed “based on a numeric value representing a number of resource blocks in a set of resource blocks configured for the relay physical downlink control channel [R-PDCCH] transmission.” Second, Examiner’s argument continue[s], at pages 4 and 5 of the Examiner’s Answer, to focus on the references in Wang to the number of resource blocks in the system bandwidth; however, such features in Wang are not the same as or even suggestive of the claimed “number of resource blocks in a set of resource blocks configured for the relay physical downlink control channel [R-PDCCH] transmission.” Reply Br. 6; see also App. Br. 7–8. We agree with Appellant. Wang explains: In some embodiments, RS 305 assumes that BS 102 will use the maximum allowed number of symbols for its PDCCH channel transmission. In the LTE system, a number of OFDM symbols for PDCCH channel can be “1,” “2” and “3” if the bandwidth is greater than ten Resource Blocks (RBs). The number of OFDM symbols will be “2,” “3” and “4” if the bandwidth equals to or is less than 10RBs. Wang ¶ 64 (emphases added). One skilled in the art would understand Wang’s “bandwidth” is the system bandwidth. As a result, Wang teaches the base station will use the maximum allowed number of symbols for its PDCCH [Physical Downlink Control Channel] transmission, and the maximum allowed number of symbols is based on whether the system bandwidth is greater than, equals to, or is less than ten resource blocks—not “a Appeal 2018-007259 Application 15/293,763 5 numeric value representing a number of resource blocks in a set of resource blocks configured for the relay physical downlink control channel transmission,” as required by each of claims 1 and 4. Further, the PDCCH of Wang’s paragraph 64 is a regular PDCCH—not a “relay” PDCCH, as required by each of claims 1 and 4, because Wang describes the relay PDCCH as R-PDCCH. See Wang ¶ 65 (“The data region RS 305 receives from BS 102 may include R-PDCCH, R-PDSCH, or both.”). 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 rejection of claims 1 and 4. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1, 4 103 Wang, Xu 1, 4 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation