Ex Parte Frenne et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2019

13989833 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/989,833 05/29/2013
102721 7590 03/29/2019
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mattias Frenne
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1009-0556 I P38227 US2 4562
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, ELTON S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2019 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTIAS FRENNE, JOHAN FURUSKOG,
HA VISH KOORAPATY, and DANIEL LARSSON
Appeal2018-006062
Application 13/989,833
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, BETH Z. SHAW, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-006062
Application 13/989,833
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
20-25, 27, 28, 37--40, and 43, 2 which are the only claims pending on appeal.
App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
The claims are directed to control signaling in a wireless
communication network. Spec. 1, 11. 7-8. Claim 20, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
20. A method, in a user equipment, for receiving control
information in a radio communications network, the method
compnsmg:
receiving a downlink signal comprising an enhanced
control region consisting of at least a first set of physical
resource block (PRB) pairs and a second set of PRB pairs, each
PRB pair consisting of a group of non-overlapping physical
layer building blocks;
forming one or more distributed enhanced control-
channel elements ( eCCE) from the first set of PRB pairs by
aggregating physical layer building blocks from multiple PRB
pairs to form each distributed eCCE;
forming one or more localized eCCEs from the second
set of PRB pairs by aggregating physical layer building blocks
such that each of the localized eCCEs is formed from physical
layer building blocks from within a single PRB pair of the
second set;
forming first control channel message candidates from
the distributed eCCEs and second control channel message
candidates from the localized eCCEs; and
1 Appellants identify Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Appellants note that claims 29-36, 41, 42, 44, and 45 were cancelled on
June 19, 2017. App. Br. 2.
2
Appeal2018-006062
Application 13/989,833
decoding each of the first and second control channel
message candidates to search for a valid control channel
message;
wherein said physical layer building blocks are enhanced
Resource Element Groups ( eREGs ), each eREG consisting of
eight or nine resource elements, and wherein forming the first
control channel message candidates from the distributed eCCEs
and the second control channel message candidates from the
localized eCCEs comprises determining a starting eCCE
position within the enhanced control region, such that the
starting eCCE position varies according to a subframe number
for the downlink signal and a Radio Network Temporary
Identifier (RNTI) for the user equipment, and forming a number
of control channel message candidates from eCCEs beginning
at the starting eCCE position.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Marinier
Zhu
Chen
Papasakellariou
US 2013/0039284 Al
US 2013/0242885 Al
US 2013/0114530 Al
US 9,226,273 B2
REJECTIONS
Feb. 14,2013
Sept. 19, 2013
May 9, 2013
Claims 29--36, 41, 42, 44, and 45 were cancelled on June 19, 2017.
App. Br. 2. Accordingly, we need only address the rejections of claims
currently pending.
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 20-25, 27, and 37-39 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
I03(a) as being unpatentable over Marinier and Zhu. Final Act. 6.
3
Appeal2018-006062
Application 13/989,833
Claim 28 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Marinier, Zhu, and Chen. Final Act. 31.
Claims 40 and 43 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Marinier, Zhu, and Papasakellariou. Final Act. 32.
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Independent claims 20 and 37
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims
20 and 37 because
no combination of Marinier and Zhu suggests that a UE uses
both styles during a single search for a valid control channel
message, as required by the claims. Rather, the combination of
Marinier and Zhu suggests only that that a UE uses one style or
the other, for any given search, depending on the then-current
circumstances.
App. Br. 13. The Examiner responds, however, that the claim does not
require a single search, and does not require that each style needs to be used
at the same time. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds Mariner states: "In an
example, there may be more than one E-PDCCH region in a subframe, and
each E-PDCCH region may be defined independently. For example a first
E-PDCCH region may be frequency selective and a second E-PDCCH
region may by frequency-distributed." Id. ( emphasis omitted) ( quoting
Mariner ,r 126).
In Reply, Appellants argue that "claim 20 is explicit that each of
control channel message candidates, of both types, is decoded to search for f!
valid control channel message." Reply Br. 3.
4
Appeal2018-006062
Application 13/989,833
The issue regarding claim 20 therefore depends on the interpretation
of "decoding each of the first and second control channel message
candidates to search for a valid control channel message."
"[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every application is
subjected, is to try to make sure that what each claim defines is
patentable. . . . [T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co.,
150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Giles S.
Rich, The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of Claims-American
Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497,499 (1990)).
Our reviewing court "has repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite
article 'a' or 'an' in patent parlance carries the meaning of 'one or more' in
open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase 'comprising."' KCJ
Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). That
"a" or "an" can mean "one or more" is best described as a rule, rather than
merely as a presumption or even a convention. The exceptions to this rule
are extremely limited: a patentee must "evince[] a clear intent" to limit "a"
or "an" to "one." Id.; Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d
1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
We see no "clear intent" in the record to limit "a" valid control
message as recited in claim 20 to "one" valid control message. Thus, we are
not persuaded by the argument that claim 20 requires each of control
channel message candidates, of both types, is decoded to search for one
valid control channel message.
Moreover, although Appellants argue that a "single" search is required
(App. Br. 13), the claim does not recite a "single search." Thus, Appellants'
arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim language.
5
Appeal2018-006062
Application 13/989,833
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the
Examiner's interpretation of claim 20 is inconsistent with all embodiments
in the Specification. Reply Br. 5. First, Appellants only refer to Figure 13
for support of this argument. Id. Second, the language "decoding each of
the first and second control channel message candidates to search for a valid
control channel message" found in claim 20 is also found in original claim
20, and thus is part of the Specification. See In re Benno, 768 F.2d 1340
(Fed. Cir. 1985).
Finally, Appellants do not contest the Examiner's findings with
respect to Zhu, which the Examiner finds additionally teaches the argued
limitations. Ans. 4 ( citing Zhu ,r 11, Fig. 5).
For all these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 20 and 37. Because Appellants have not
presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially
the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claims
20 and 37 above, claims 21, 22, 24, 27, 38--40, and 43 fall therewith. See 37
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Dependent claims 23, 25, and 28
With respect to dependent claim 23, Appellants argue the cited
references suggests that the RCC signaling used to configure e-PDCCH
operation includes an indication of how to divide PRB pairs into first and
second sets of PRB pairs. App. Br. 17. We agree, because although the
Examiner refers to RCC signaling and parameters and qualities of resource
elements, the cited portions of Marinier and Zhu do not teach signaling that
6
Appeal2018-006062
Application 13/989,833
indicates a division of PRB pairs into first and second sets of PRB pairs.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 23.
With respect to dependent claim 25, Appellants argue none of the
cited portions of Marinier and Zhu suggest any division of PRB pairs into
multiple sets such as discussed above with respect to claim 23, much less the
division of a third set of PRB pairs into first and second portions. App. Br.
18. We agree with Appellants and do not sustain the rejection of claim 25
for this reason.
With respect to dependent claim 28, Appellants argue the cited
portion of Chen fails to teach that first control channel messages are formed
by traversing numbered eCCEs in one direction while second control
channel messages are formed by traversing numbered eCCEs in the reverse
direction. App. Br. 20. The Examiner responds that this is a "design choice
and does not change the underlying structure of the claimed invention and
provides no other benefit other than as stated in Chen [0087] wherein 'the
indices can be applied by the device 802 and base station 804 to specified
resources to identify the resources."' Ans. 10 ( emphasis omitted).
We agree with Appellants that the Answer does not sufficiently
explain why the person of ordinary skill in the art would apply Chen's
eCCE-numbering scheme in the manner described, i.e., "that first control
channel messages are formed by traversing numbered eCCEs in one
direction while second control channel messages are formed by traversing
numbered eCCEs in the reverse direction." Merely stating that a particular
element is a design choice does not make it obvious. The rejection must
offer a reason lvhy a person of ordinary skrn in the art would have made the
7
Appeal2018-006062
Application 13/989,833
specific design choice. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 28.
CONCLUSIONS
For the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 20-22, 24,
27, 37--40, and 43.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 23, 25, and 28.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 20-22, 24, 27, 37--40, and 43.
We reverse the rejection of dependent claims 23, 25, and 28.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv) (2009).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8