Bhushan Shanti. Asuri et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2019

15088725 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2019)

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.
15/088,725 04/01/2016 Bhushan Shanti Asuri 116418-209UT1 5680
123305 7590 10/01/2019
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP/Qualcomm
525 B Street, Suite 2200
San Diego, CA 92101
EXAMINER
BURD, KEVIN MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2019 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):
docketing@procopio.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BHUSHAN SHANTI ASURI, JINGCHENG ZHUANG,
PRAVEEN SAMPATH, SHRENIK PATEL, JEREMY DARREN
DUNWORTH, LAI KAN LEUNG, GURKANWAL SINGH SAHOTA, and
JONG MIN PARK
____________

Appeal 2018-009211
Application 15/088,725
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 Qualcomm Incorporated (“Appellant”) is the applicant as provided in 37
C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-009211
Application 15/088,725

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention relates to “wireless
communication systems, and more specifically to techniques for reducing
spurious signal emissions.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Claims 1 and 17 are illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as
follows:
1. An apparatus for frequency hopping uplink
transmission, comprising:
a transmit path;
a plurality of local oscillators (LO); and
a control unit configured to:
receive an upcoming resource block (RB)
allocation;
determine whether the upcoming RB allocation is
the same as a current RB allocation; and
in response to determining that the upcoming RB
allocation is different than the current RB allocation:
select an unused LO of the plurality of LOs;
determine whether a number of allocated
RBs associated with the upcoming RB allocation is
greater than a threshold; and
in response to determining that the number of
allocated RBs associated with the upcoming RB
allocation is not greater than the threshold, tune the
selected LO to a frequency corresponding to the
upcoming RB allocation.

17. A method for frequency hopping uplink
transmission, comprising:
receiving an upcoming resource block (RB) allocation;
determining whether the upcoming RB allocation is the
same as a current RB allocation; and
in response to determining that the upcoming RB
allocation is different than the current RB allocation:
selecting an unused local oscillator (LO) of a
plurality of LOs;
Appeal 2018-009211
Application 15/088,725

3
determining whether a number of allocated RBs
associated with the upcoming RB allocation is greater than
a threshold; and
in response to determining that the number of
allocated RBs associated with the upcoming RB allocation
is not greater than the threshold, tuning the selected LO to
a frequency corresponding to the upcoming RB allocation.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–14, 17–22, 24, 26, 29, and
30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Schwartz (US 2013/0039368
A1; pub. Feb. 14, 2013) and Dong (US 2012/0262238 A1; pub. Oct. 18,
2012). Final Act. 8–18.
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 9, 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Schwartz, Dong, and Gaal (US 2010/0091641 A1; pub.
Apr. 15, 2010). Final Act. 18–19.
The Examiner rejected claims 15, 16, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Schwartz, Dong, and Nilsson (US 2014/0314175
A1; pub. Oct. 23, 2014). Final Act. 19–20.

ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON SCHWARTZ AND DONG
Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–14, 17–22, 24, 26, 29, and 30
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in concluding that claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–14, 17–22, 24, 26, 29, and 30
are unpatentable over Schwartz and Dong.
The Examiner finds that Schwartz teaches or suggests “determin[ing]
whether a number of allocated RBs associated with the upcoming RB
allocation is greater than a threshold” and “in response to determining that
Appeal 2018-009211
Application 15/088,725

4
the number of allocated RBs associated with the upcoming RB allocation is
not greater than the threshold, tune the selected LO to a frequency
corresponding to the upcoming RB allocation,” as recited in claims 1, 29,
and 30. See Final Act. 8–9. The Examiner, in particular, finds
Schwartz [in Fig. 3B] shows subframe 2 will transmit seven
allocated RBs at the frequency shown. In subframe 3, the
transmit frequency is changed to a new transmit frequency and
six allocated RBs are transmit during that subframe. In this case,
prior to the transmission of RBs in subframe 3, the transmitter
will know what the number of allocated RBs to be transmitted
(in this case six RBs) and the transmitter will know that six RBs
are not seven RBs. In response to RBs being allocated for
transmission in subframe 3, the transmit frequency will be
changed as shown in the figure 3B.
Ans. 18. In other words, the Examiner reasons that Schwartz
determines if the number of upcoming allocated RBs is greater than a
threshold because Schwartz’s transmitter knows six RBs is not greater than
seven RBs. Further, according to the Examiner, Schwartz teaches the tuning
in response to determining the threshold limitation because Schwartz
changes the transmit frequency for subframe 3 with six RBs, which is less
than the seven RBs of subframe 2. See, e.g., Ans. 18–20.Appellant, on the
other hand, contends that Schwartz does not teach or suggest “determin[ing]
whether a number of allocated RBs associated with the upcoming RB
allocation is greater than a threshold” and “in response to determining that
the number of allocated RBs associated with the upcoming RB allocation is
not greater than the threshold, tun[ing] the selected LO to a frequency
corresponding to the upcoming RB allocation.” Appellant, in particular,
points out that “[w]hile, FIG. 3B of Schwartz illustrates certain amounts of
sub-slots or RBs allocated to each subframe, nowhere does Schwartz
Appeal 2018-009211
Application 15/088,725

5
describe any decision or comparison of the amounts or number of sub-slots
or RBs, nor that the communicated frequency is based therefrom.” App. Br.
17. Appellant acknowledges that Schwartz’s system will “know” the
number or resource blocks it transmits, but according to Appellants,
Schwartz does not teach or suggest “actually determining that the number of
RBs transmitted is not greater than the alleged threshold and in response to
this determination doing anything with that information beyond transmitting
that number of RBs.” Id.
We agree. Schwartz teaches determining a range of frequencies
allocated to resource blocks [RBs] to be transmitted during a subsequent
sub-frame slot and determining an approximate center frequency of the
range of frequencies. See Schwartz ¶ 31. For example, as shown in Fig. 3B
below, the local oscillator frequency over time is modified to the center of
the frequency of the range of frequencies for the upcoming allocated
resource blocks.

Appeal 2018-009211
Application 15/088,725

6
Schwartz Figure 3B depicts “a graph of frequency versus time, showing
an example allocation of resource blocks to particular frequencies
during a transmission sub-frame of a wireless communication device”
and “a local oscillator frequency over time for the wireless
communication device.”

While Schwartz’s transmitter may “know that six RBs are not seven RBs”
(Ans. 18), merely knowing a number of upcoming allocated RBs does not
teach or suggest determining that the upcoming allocated RBs is greater than
a threshold. Nor does Schwartz teach or suggest that the transmit frequency
is changed in response to Schwartz’s knowing that six RBs is not greater
than seven RBs, as required by the claims. As such, we are persuaded of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 29, and 30, as
well as depending claims 2–5, 7, 8, and 10–14.
We are not persuaded, however, that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 17. Claim 17 includes the determining and tuning steps
discussed above, but these steps are conditioned on the preceding step –
namely, determining whether the upcoming RB allocation is different from
the current RB allocation. Because claim 17 is directed to a method for
frequency hopping uplink transmission, when the upcoming RB allocation is
the same as the current RB allocation, the conditional determining and
tuning steps need not be performed. See Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No.
2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016).
Schwartz describes determining whether the upcoming RB allocation
is different from the current RB allocation. Namely, Schwartz determines
the range of frequencies allocated to RBs to be transmitted during a
subsequent frame and may modify the transmit frequency to match the
center of the range. See, e.g., Schwartz Abstract, ¶ 31. A skilled artisan
Appeal 2018-009211
Application 15/088,725

7
would understand that Schwartz at least suggests, in some instance, the
upcoming allocated RBs would be the same as the current RB allocation
and, in that instance, Schwartz satisfies the claimed invention despite not
performing the conditional determining and tuning steps. As such, we are
not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17, as well as
depending claims 18–22, 242, and 26.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we reverse the rejection
of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–14, 29, and 30, but affirm the rejection of claims 17–
22, 24, and 26 as unpatentable over Schwartz and Dong.
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Claims 6, 9, 15, 16, 23, 25, 27, and 28
As discussed above, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the independent claims as unpatentable over Schwartz and Dong.
The Examiner does not find the additionally cited prior art cures the
deficiencies of Schwartz and Dong. As such, we similarly are persuaded of
error in rejection of claims 6, 9, 15, and 16, which depend directly or
indirectly from claim 1.
We are not persuaded of error, though, with respect claims 23, 25, 27,
and 28, which depend from claim 17. For the reasons discussed above, we
are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims.

2 We note Appellant presents separate arguments with respect to claim 24.
See App. Br. 18–19. The limitations of claim 24, though, are similarly
conditioned on the preceding step of claim 17 and, therefore, these
arguments are not persuasive.
Appeal 2018-009211
Application 15/088,725

8
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we reverse the rejection
of claims 6, 9, 15, and 16, but affirm the rejection of claims 23, 25, 27, and
28 as unpatentable over the cited combinations of prior art.

DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 17–28, but reverse the rejection of
claims 1–16, 29, and 30.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART