Ex Parte Damnjanovic et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 201712897773 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2017) 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. 12/897,773 10/04/2010 Jelena M. Damnjanovic 100047 2528 23696 7590 03/30/2017 OTTAT mMM TNmRPORATFD EXAMINER 5775 MOREHOUSE DR. SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 TALUKDER, MD K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2648 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2017 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): us-docketing@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JELENA M. DAMNJANOVIC, PETER GAAL, and JUAN MONTOJO Appeal 2016-003535 Application 12/897,7731 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—5, 7—15, 28, 30, 31, 36-40, 42—50, 63, 65, 66, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, and 81, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 The real party in interest is identified as QUALCOMM Incorporated. App. Br. 4. Appeal 2016-003535 Application 12/897,773 Claimed Subject Matter The claimed invention relates to methods and devices for adjusting transmit power of component carriers in a multi-carrier wireless communication network, to control power in the network. Spec. 12, Title, Abstract. Independent claims 1 and 28, reproduced below, are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for wireless communications, comprising: receiving, at a user equipment (UE), control information comprising a group of transmit power control (TPC) commands; determining, based on a plurality of TPC indices, locations of one or more TPC commands from the group to use for adjusting power of uplink transmissions on a corresponding plurality of component carriers, wherein each TPC index is associated with at least one of a control channel or a data channel of a corresponding component carrier in the plurality of component carriers; and adjusting a transmit power of one or more of the plurality of component carriers in accordance with the determined locations. 28. A method for wireless communications, comprising: receiving, at a user equipment (UE), a downlink control information (DCI) message comprising one or more transmit power control (TPC) commands and a downlink grant for a downlink channel; determining one or more TPC commands in the DCI message to use for adjusting power of uplink transmissions on a corresponding plurality of component carriers; and adjusting transmit power of the plurality of component carriers in accordance with the determined TPC commands, 2 Appeal 2016-003535 Application 12/897,773 wherein the DCI message comprises a plurality of TPC commands, each used to adjust power of a different component carrier, and wherein at least one of the one or more TPC commands is applied to an uplink channel of an uplink carrier where control feedback for the granted downlink channel is expected. Examiner’s Rejections and References (1) Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13-15, 28, 30, 31, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 48—50, 63, 65, 66, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, and 81 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kim et al. (US 2010/0323744 Al; Dec. 23, 2010) (“Kim”) and Pan et al. (US 2010/0254329 Al; Oct. 7, 2010) (“Pan”). Final Act. 2—25. (2) Claims 3,11, 12, 38, 46, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kim, Pan, and Mir (US 2005/0176437 Al; Aug. 11, 2005). Final Act. 26—28. (3) Claims 9 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kim, Pan, and UE Transmitter characteristics impact due to DC-HSUPA, R4-091680, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG4 Meeting #51 1-11, (2009) (“HSUPA”). Final Act. 28.2 2 We note claims 9 and 44 depend from independent claims 1 and 36. The Examiner’s summary of the rejection of claims 9 and 44 does not include Pan. Final Act. 28. We find this oversight on the Examiner’s part is harmless error and interpret the rejections of dependent claims 9 and 44 to include all references used in the rejection of claims 1 and 36, from which they depend. 3 Appeal 2016-003535 Application 12/897,773 ANALYSIS Claims 1-5, 7-15, 36-40, 42-50, 71, 72, 77, and 78 Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, a method for wireless communications, comprising: determining, based on a plurality of TPC indices, locations of one or more TPC commands from the group to use for adjusting power of uplink transmissions on a corresponding plurality of component carriers, wherein each TPC index is associated with at least one of a control channel or a data channel of a corresponding component carrier in the plurality of component carriers. The Examiner finds Kim’s transmission power control (TPC) commands, transmitted from downlink (DL) component carriers (CCs) to uplink component carriers (UL CCs), are TPC indices. Ans. 5 (“TPC indices Transmit power control command data (TPC command itself)”). The Examiner finds “TPC command location corresponds to component carrier ICC) locations in fthel power control command.” Ans. 5—6 (citing Kim 38—39, 46, Figs. 9—12); see also Final Act. 3 (citing Kim Fig. 13). The Examiner further finds Pan teaches a TPC index associated with a control channel PUSCH (physical uplink shared control channel) or PUCCH (physical uplink control channel) of a corresponding component carrier in a plurality of component carriers. Ans. 6 (citing Pan 120, Figs. 6A—6B); Final Act. 4 (citing Pan H 20, 55—56). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that Kim combined with Pan teaches the claimed step of “determining, based on a plurality of TPC indices.'1'’ Ans. 5—6; Final Act. 3^4. Appellants argue neither Kim nor Pan discloses a plurality of TPC indices, each TPC index being associated with a control or data channel of a 4 Appeal 2016-003535 Application 12/897,773 corresponding component carrier in a plurality of component carriers, as recited in claim 1. Particularly, Appellants contend Kim at most describes TPC commands of downlink component carriers control power of corresponding uplink component carriers, but is silent as to any TPC indices. App. Br. 14—15; Reply Br. 5. Appellants also contend Pan teaches a “tpc- index” identifies a specific device (wireless transmit/receive unit, i.e., WTRU) to which a TPC command applies, but does not teach or suggest “any association between a TPC index and the PUCCH or PUSCH [control channels] of an uplink CC.” App. Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 7. We agree with Appellants. The cited portions of Kim disclose uplink CCs are individually mapped to downlink CCs that receive TPC commands for the uplink CCs, but do not teach the claimed TPC indices, which are used to determine TPC commands’ locations and correspond to component carriers, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 14—15 (citing Kim || 38—39); Reply Br. 4—5 (citing Kim 146). The cited portions of Pan disclose a TPC index, but each TPC index of Pan is not associated with a channel of a corresponding component carrier in a plurality of component carriers, as recited in claim 1; rather, each TPC index of Pan is associated with a specific WTRU device “to determine [an] index to the TPC command for the specific WTRU.” App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 6—7; see Pan || 55—56. That is, each TPC index of Pan is associated with all the WTRU’s component carriers. See Pan Figs. 6A—6B (steps 625—630 and 650—655 associating a WTRU’s TPC index with all of WTRU’s component carriers), Tfl[ 52—53 (describing a WTRU’s component carriers), 55—56 (describing one “tpc- Index” per WTRU). Thus, Pan fails to teach or suggest TPC indices 5 Appeal 2016-003535 Application 12/897,773 associated with a corresponding component carrier in a plurality of component carriers, as claimed. The Examiner also cites portions of Pan that refer to TPC-PUSCH- RNTI and TPC-PUCCH-RNTI identifications (transmit power control channel radio network temporary identifications). Final Act 4 (citing Pan 20, 55—56). The Examiner does not, however, explain how Pan’s radio network temporary identifications (RNTIs) may be considered TPC indices used to determine a TPC command’s location in a group, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 17. The Examiner has also not provided reasoning as to why it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to replace Pan’s RNTIs with Pan’s “tpc-Index, which is sent by higher layers, to determine the index to the TPC command for the specific WTRU.” See Pan 1 55. The Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of Mir and HSUPA make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Kim and Pan. As the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the finding that the references teach or suggest the claimed “determining, based on a plurality of TPC indices, locations of one or more TPC commands from the group,” where “each TPC index is associated with at least one of a control channel or a data channel of a corresponding component carrier in the plurality of component carriers,” we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2—5 and 7—9 dependent therefrom. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 10, 36, 45, 71, 72, 77, and 78, which contain limitations commensurate in scope with the above-recited limitations of claim 1, and 6 Appeal 2016-003535 Application 12/897,773 claims 11—15, 37-40, 42-44, and 46—50 dependent therefrom (App. Br. 13, 18). Because the above-discussed issue is dispositive as to the obviousness rejections of claims 1—5, 7—15, 36-40, 42—50, 71, 72, 77, and 78, we do not reach additional issues raised by Appellants’ arguments as to the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, 37, and 44. Claims 28, 30, 31, 63, 65, 66, 75, and 81 Appellants argue Kim and Pan fail to teach or suggest a method for wireless communications using a “DCI message [that] comprises a plurality of TPC commands, each used to adjust power of a different component carrier,” as recited in claim 28. App. Br. 18—19; Reply Br. 9—10. Appellants acknowledge Pan teaches a DCI (downlink control information) message, but assert that the DCI message has one TPC command adjusting power of one UL component carrier “n” and argue “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion [in Pan] that n identifies multiple carriers.” Reply Br. 10 (citing Pan | 55); see also App. Br. 19 (citing Pan | 53). The Examiner finds Pan teaches a DCI message comprising a plurality of TPC commands, each command used to adjust power of a different component carrier, as recited in claim 28. Ans. 7—8 (citing Pan || 53—54, 56, 58, Figs. 6A—6B); Final Act. 12 (citing Pan 126). We agree. Pan teaches the DCI message comprises multiple TPC commands, as claimed. See Pan | 55 (“The WTRU extracts the transmit power control (TPC) commands from DCIformat 3 or 3A ... . Since DCIformat 3 or 3A carries multiple power control commands for a group of WTRUs, the WTRU needs to know which TPC command is applicable to the specific WTRU” 7 Appeal 2016-003535 Application 12/897,773 (emphasis added)), Fig. 6A (steps 620, 645 describing “TPC COMMANDS” in the DCI message). Pan further teaches that each TPC command in the DCI message is used to adjust power of a different component carrier, as claimed. In particular, Pan teaches “[t]he WTRU then adjusts the transmit power of the PUSCH in uplink component carrier n according to the TPC command received for this WTRU.” Pan | 55. Although other TPC commands carried by Pan’s DCI may adjust power of component carriers for other WTRUs, the language of claim 28 is not limited to a DCI message with TPC commands applicable to different component carriers for a single WTRU. Because each of Pan’s TPC commands is used to adjust power of a specific component carrier, and each DCI message carries multiple power control commands, Pan teaches the disputed limitations of claim 28. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kim and Pan. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 28, and, for the same reasons, the rejection of claims 30 and 31, not argued separately. We sustain the rejection of independent claims 63, 75, and 81 argued for the same reasons as claim 28, and dependent claims 65 and 66 not separately argued. App. Br. 18. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—5, 7—15, 36-40, 42—50, 71, 72, 77, and 78 is reversed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 28, 30, 31, 63, 65, 66, 75, and 81 is affirmed. 8 Appeal 2016-003535 Application 12/897,773 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation