APPLE INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 22, 2022

2021001569 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 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. 15/565,436 10/10/2017 Yushu ZHANG 30134/32102(P46579US1) 8715 114746 7590 03/22/2022 Apple Inc. -- FKM 150 Broadway Suite 702 New York, NY 10038 EXAMINER CHOWDHURY, MOHAMMED SHAMSUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2467 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2022 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): fhall@fkmiplaw.com mmarcin@fkmiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte YUSHU ZHANG, YUAN ZHU, WENTING CHANG, GANG XIONG, and QINGHUA LI ____________________ Appeal 2021-001569 Application 15/565,436 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and ERIC B. CHEN, 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 25-48, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 1-24 have been cancelled. Appeal Br. 8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001569 Application 15/565,436 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 25 illustrates the claimed subject matter (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added): 25. An apparatus of a user equipment (UE) comprising circuitry to: [A.] configure a scheduling request (SR) transmission based on a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH); [B.] combine the scheduling request with a buffer status report group indicator (BSRGI), [i.] wherein [a.] a buffer status report (BSR) is divided into two or more groups and [b.] the BSRGI is used to indicate to which BSR group the BSR belongs, [ii.] wherein the BSRGI is added to an end of Channel State Information (CSI); [C.] transmit the combined SR and BSRGI in a single subframe to a network entity; [D.] receive uplink resource scheduling from the network entity in reply to the combined SR and BSRGI; and [E.] transmit uplink data to the network entity according to the uplink resource scheduling. Appeal 2021-001569 Application 15/565,436 3 REFERENCES2 The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Moulsley US 2014/0204800 A1 July 24, 2014 Pajukoski US 2015/0071213 A1 Mar. 12, 2015 Kim US 2017/0202009 A1 July 13, 2017 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 25-28, 31, 32, 37-40, 43, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Moulsley and Pajukoski. Final Act. 3-11. We select claim 25 as the representative claim for this rejection. Appellant does not argue separate patentability for claims 26-28, 31, 32, 37-40, 43, and 44. Appeal Br. 4-6. The Examiner rejects claims 29, 30, 33-36, 41, 42, and 45-48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Moulsley, Pajukoski, and Kim. Final Act. 11-20. Appellant does not present separate arguments for claims 29, 30, 33-36, 41, 42, and 45-48. Thus, the rejections of these claims turn on our decision as to claim 25. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103 rejections of claims 26-48 further herein. 2 All citations herein are by reference to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2021-001569 Application 15/565,436 4 OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s Appeal Brief and Reply Brief arguments. A. Appellant raises the following argument in contending that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. It is respectfully submitted that the cited art fails to disclose or suggest “combine the scheduling request with a buffer status report group indicator (BSRGI)” “wherein the BSRGI is added to an end of Channel State Information (CSI),” as recited in claim 25, because Pajukoski merely discloses including a [preliminary buffer status report (P-BSR)] with [a scheduling request (SR)] and at no point discloses or suggests adding a BSRGI to an end of channel state information. Pajukoski [at paragraph 48] provides an example of the P-BSR being a single bit indicating whether the buffer includes more or less data than a threshold value. The information bits for SR, [channel quality indicator (CQI)] and BSR may be jointly coded, where one bit is reserved for an SR indication and the remaining bits reserved for a CQI and/or P-BSR. The Examiner cites the foregoing portions of Pajukoski in support of the rejection. However, the mere inclusion of a bit corresponding to a P-BSR (interpreted by the Examiner as the recited BSRGI) in a transmission format including a CQI is insufficient to disclose the specific recitations of claim 25, where the BSRGI “is added to an end of channel state information (CST).” Nowhere in Pajukoski is a specific location for the P-BSR disclosed. The present Specification discloses the BSRGI being transmitted together with feedback CSI, where BSRGI bits are added at the tail of CSI bits. Specification, 5:17-23. Two tailed bits may be utilized that correspond to a particular BSRGI group. Id. Appeal 2021-001569 Application 15/565,436 5 The specific recitations of claim 25, where the bits are added to an end of CSI, clearly correspond to the disclosure of the BSRGI being transmitted at the tail of CSI bits. Nothing in Pajukoski suggests this specific recited format. Pajukoski discloses allocating resources to a P-BSR in a combined SR/CQI transmission format but is silent with respect to a location in the transmission format where the P-BSR is to be included. Appeal Br. 5-6 (additional emphasis added). B. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. Essentially, Appellant argues that Pajukoski’s reserving “the remaining bits reserved for a CQI and/or P-BSR” does not suggest “the BSRGI is added to an end of Channel State Information (CSI)” (emphasis added), as required by claim 1. Even if we accept as correct the Appellant’s assertion that “[n]owhere in Pajukoski is a specific location for the P-BSR disclosed” (Appeal Br. 5), there are a finite number of possibilities as to that “specific location” within Pajukoski’s “jointly coded” SR, CQI (channel quality indicator) and (P-)BSR information bits (Pajukoski ¶ 48). Therefore, we conclude it would have been obvious to try the “added at an end” possibility that Appellant argues is not taught by Pajukoski. The Court in KSR states: When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (emphasis added). Again, it is not disputed that Pajukoski shows the desirability of providing jointly coded SR, CQI, and P-BSR information bits. Appeal 2021-001569 Application 15/565,436 6 CONCLUSION The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 25-48 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 25-48 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 25-28, 31, 32, 37-40, 43, 44 103 Moulsley, Pajukoski 25-28, 31, 32, 37-40, 43, 44 29, 30, 33- 36, 41, 42, 45-48 103 Moulsley, Pajukoski, Kim 29, 30, 33- 36, 41, 42, 45-48 Overall Outcome 25-48 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