Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 4, 2022

2020005564 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 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. 14/980,710 12/28/2015 Tarik Tabet 8888-56001 5089 81310 7590 01/04/2022 Kowert Hood Munyon Rankin & Goetzel (Apple) 1120 S. Capital of Texas Hwy Building 2, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78746 EXAMINER PHUNG, LUAT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2468 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2022 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): patent_docketing@intprop.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TARIK TABET, FAROUK BELGHOUL, and AWAIS M. HUSSAIN Appeal 2020-005564 Application 14/980,710 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, 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 1-6, 8-12, 14-16, 18, 20, and 22-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-005564 Application 14/980,710 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “a system and method for providing system information for link budget limited wireless device.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus, comprising: a processing element configured to cause a base station that serves a cell to: transmit a master information block (MIB) comprising first information for accessing the cell, wherein the MIB indicates a location of a first system information block (SIB) of a first set of SIBs, the first SIB comprising at least some fields of a SIB-1 of a second set of SIBs and at least one other field, wherein the first SIB is configured for a device with link budget limitations and/or a lower complexity device category than the SIB-1 of the second set of SIBs; transmit the first SIB a plurality of times within each radio frame transmitted by the base station; and transmit the second set of SIBs, including the SIB-1. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES2 The Examiner relies on these references: Name Reference Date Montojo US 2013/0064119 A1 Mar. 14, 2013 Papasakellariou (“Papa”) US 2015/0085717 A1 Mar. 26, 2015 Viorel US 2016/0212686 A1 July 21, 2016 2 Citations to the references are to the first named inventor/author only. Appeal 2020-005564 Application 14/980,710 3 REJECTIONS3 Claims 1-6, 8-12, 15, 16, 18, 20, and 22-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Viorel and Papa. Final Act. 4. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Viorel, Papa, and Montojo. Final Act. 11. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Viorel and Papa teaches or suggests “transmit the first SIB a plurality of times within each radio frame transmitted by the base station,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Viorel and Papa. Final Act. 4. Relevant to the issue before us, the Examiner finds that Viorel teaches “transmit the first SIB a plurality of times” (Final Act. 5), but does not “specifically disclose transmit the first SIB a plurality of times within each radio frame transmitted by the base station” (Final Act. 6). The Examiner introduces Papa, finding that “if pattern ‘11’ 3340 is indicated by the eNB, [then] all frames contain CE-PBCH or CE-SIB repetitions.” Final Act. 6 (citing Papa Fig. 33, ¶ 220; Table 3). The Examiner further finds “a pattern for . . . CE-SIB repetitions can be associated to a . . . CE-SIB repetition level within a frame and to a frame containing . . . CE-SIB repetitions, respectively.” Final Act. 6 (citing Papa ¶ 221). Appellant argues the rejection is in error because in the pattern ‘11’ relied upon by the Examiner, repetition level 1 is applied for each frame, 3 The Examiner withdrew the enablement rejection in the Answer. Ans. 7. Appeal 2020-005564 Application 14/980,710 4 which means that frame includes only one repetition. Appeal Br. 9. According to Appellant, “[c]ited pattern ‘11’ does not include multiple repetitions within any frame, let alone within each frame as in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 9. We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The disputed limitation of claim 1 is narrow. It requires that the “processing element configured to cause a base station that serves a cell to . . . transmit the first SIB a plurality of times within each radio frame transmitted by the base station.” That is, the claimed processing element must be configured such that each and every radio frame that is transmitted by the base station must include the first SIB at repetition level 2 or greater, and no transmitted radio frame lacks the first SIB at repetition level 2 or greater. Papa describes four repetition patterns for CE-SIB transmission within a frame. Although one of the patterns (pattern ‘00’) contains transmissions with repetition level 2 within the frame, transmission repetitions occur only in SF#0 and SF#5, and not “within each radio frame” as required by the claim. The only pattern in Papa that transmits a SIB “within each radio frame” is pattern ‘11.’ However, as correctly argued by Appellant, repetition level 1 is applied on pattern ‘11,’ meaning that the SIB is transmitted only once, and not “a plurality of times” as claimed. The Examiner has not provided any explanation for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to modify patter ‘11’ to include transmissions with repetition level 2. Without such an explanation, we are constrained by the record before us to conclude that the Examiner has erred in concluding claim 1 is obvious over Viorel and Papa, and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain Appeal 2020-005564 Application 14/980,710 5 the rejection of claims 8 and 15 which recite limitations commensurate in scope. Remaining Claims The remaining claims are dependent, and they stand for the same reasons as their respective base claims. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-6, 8- 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22-25 103 Viorel, Papasakellariou 1-6, 8-12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22-25 14 103 Viorel, Papasakellariou, Montojo 14 Overall Outcome 1-6, 8-12, 14-16, 18, 20, 22-25 REVERSED