Ex Parte Damnjanovic et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2017

12897773 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2017)

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