Ex Parte Nimbalker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 23, 2019

14692204 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/692,204 04/21/2015
124181 7590 01/25/2019
Google/Technology Holdings LLC
Lerner David
600 South Avenue West
Westfield, NJ 07090
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ajit Nimbalker
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.
GOOGLE 3.0-1670 CON 7129
(E)
EXAMINER
AMINZAY, SHAIMAQ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2019 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):
eofficeaction@lernerdavid.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AJIT NIMBALKER, RA VI KUCHIBHOTLA, ROBERT T.
LOVE, VIJAY NANGIA, and RA VIKIRAN NORY
Appeal2018-003870
Application 14/692,204 1
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, SHARON PENICK, and JOHN R. KENNY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 8-14, 16-22, 26, and 27, which are all
the claims pending in the application. Claims 1--4, 7, 24, 25, and 28 are
withdrawn. App. Br. 12-16 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellants, Google Technology Holdings LLC is the real
party in interest. App. Br. 1.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed July 25, 2017 ("App.
Br."); Reply Brief filed February 26, 2018 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's
Answer mailed January 4, 2018 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed
January 27, 2017 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed April 21,
2015 ("Spec.").
Appeal2018-003870
Application 14/692,204
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants' invention relates to "device-to-device [D2D]
communication in a wireless [cellular] network" with user equipment [UE]
where "UEs are able to communicate directly with one another using so-
called Device-to-Device (D2D) communication" "without passing through a
network of other intermediate entity." Spec. ,r,r 2, 19-20. "Benefits of D2D
communication in a cellular network include (1) increased cellular system
throughput ( e.g., D2D traffic uses fewer resources to communicate same
amount of data), and (2) improved user experience ( e.g., faster data transfer
and reduced latency)." Spec. ,r 21. According to Appellants,
the determination as to whether or not UEs should communicate
using D2D is made based on one or more of a variety of factors,
including [1] the proximity of the UEs to one another, [2] the
strength of reference signals that one of the UEs receives from
the other UE, [3] the strength of the signals that the network
entity receives from one or more of the UEs, [ 4] the detection of
a user input.
Spec. ,r 91 (bracketing added).
Illustrative Claim
Claims 8 and 16 are independent. Claim 8 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter, as reproduced below with disputed limitations
italicized:
8. A method in a first user equipment, the method comprising:
wirelessly communicating with a network element on a
earner;
configuring a device-to-device link with a second user
equipment for exchanging encoded messages between the first
user equipment and the second user equipment;
2
Appeal2018-003870
Application 14/692,204
configuring, by the first user equipment, soft buffer
configuration based on a category of the second user equipment;
encoding a packet in accordance with a capability
partitioning configuration of the second user equipment; and
wirelessly transmitting the encoded packet on the carrier
directly to the second user equipment.
App. Br. 12 (Claims App.).
EXAMINER'S REJECTION
Claims 8-14, 16-22, 26, and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being obvious over Liu et al. (US 2013/0225184 Al;
published Aug. 29, 2013; "Liu") and Che et al. (US 2010/0050034 Al;
published Feb. 25, 2010; "Che"). Final Act. 5-10.
DISCUSSION
In support of the § 103 rejection of independent claim 8 and,
similarly, claim 16, the Examiner finds Liu teaches direct device-to-device
(D2D) communication between UEs in a wireless network, shown in Figure
1, including all limitations, except for an express disclosure of "a capability
partitioning configuration of the second user equipment" in the context of
"encoding a packet" for transmission. Final Act. 5---6 ( citing Liu ,r,r 26, 77,
93, 96, Fig. 1 ).
Liu's Figure 1 is reproduced below with additional markings for
illustration.
3
Appeal2018-003870
Application 14/692,204
I
I
l
\
/
FIG~ 1
\ CONTROL
'\ 150
\(../
'
/
/
\
\
\
Liu's Figure 1 shows wireless network 115 where UEs 120-130
communicate directly with each other via direct device-to-device (D2D)
communication ("DMC") 160 without involving network entity (i.e.,
communication with a cellular base station 110). Liu ,r,r 23-27.
Liu also teaches (1) communication resources are allocated to
multiple UEs for direct device-to-device (D2D) communication ("DMC")
when a DMC link is established between UEs; and (2) "if one UE is
transmitting on the DMC link, the other DMC UEs should be prepared to
receive" and for purposes of data packet transmission and reception, "UEs
involved in a DMC group [] are informed when, the time resources, where,
the frequency resources, and how, the related HARQ [hybrid automatic
retransmit request] procedure, modulation and coding scheme ('MCS '),
power, and multi-input/multi-output ('MIMO') scheme to transmit and
receive [along with data]." Liu ,r,r 30-31, 34. For example, each UE
4
Appeal2018-003870
Application 14/692,204
configures its HARQ processes for the DMC link and manages those
processes for data communication, including its soft buffer memory
requirement and sub-frame allocation. Liu ,r,r 77, 79--81. Liu further
teaches a "UE can receive data ... decoded the data packets" and
"ACK/NACK feedback can be encoded with, or separately from, the data"
for transmission. Liu ,r,r 93, 98.
To the extent necessary, the Examiner relies on Che for expressly
teaching "a capability partitioning configuration of the second user
equipment" in the context of "soft buffer memory partitions" for data
transmission to support the conclusion of obviousness. Final Act. 6 ( citing
Che ,r,r 35, 37).
Appellants dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding Liu and
Che. First, Appellants argue neither Liu nor Che teaches or suggests
"configuring, by the first user equipment, soft buffer configuration based on
a category of the second user equipment" recited in claims 8 and 16. App.
Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 1-2. Appellants acknowledge Liu teaches resource
allocation and related HARQ processes of a UE including its soft buffer
memory requirement, but argue Liu does not teach any configuration or
"category" of a second user equipment. App. Br. 6 ( citing Liu ,r 77).
Likewise, Appellants acknowledge Che teaches partitioning or allocating
soft buffer memory between HARQ and MIMO processes, but argue Che
makes "no mention of configuring a soft buffer configuration 'based on a
category of the second user equipment."' Id.
Second, Appellants argue neither Liu nor Che teaches or suggests
"encoding a packet in accordance with a capability partitioning
configuration of the second user equipment" recited in claim 8, or
5
Appeal2018-003870
Application 14/692,204
alternatively, "decoding the packet in accordance with a capability
partitioning configuration of the second user equipment" recited in claim 16.
App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2-3. According to Appellants, "[p]aragraph [0035]
and [0036] of Che have nothing to do with encoding packets" and make "no
reference to either 'encoding' or to a 'capability partitioning configuration"'
or even "second user equipment" recited in claims 8 and 16. App. Br. 7.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Instead, we find the
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments
supported by evidence. Ans. 7-15. As such, we adopt the Examiner's
findings and explanations provided therein, as discussed below. Id. For
additional emphasis, we note claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest
reasonable interpretation, claim terms are given their ordinary and
customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Trans logic Tech., Inc.,
504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The term "capability partitioning configuration" is described in
Appellants' Specification as "a [ divided] set of capabilities" of a UE, i.e., "a
capability configuration" that includes "one or more of:
( 1) the data rate (e.g., the maximum data rate) that a UE supports;
(2) how many transmit and/ or receive antennas the UE has;
(3) the types of transmission schemes supported by the UE;
(4) the soft buffer configuration of the UE;
(5) the UE's MIMO capability (e.g., supported number of layers
per band, support of UL MIMO);
( 6) the UE' s the carrier aggregation capability;
(7) the UE's battery life;
6
Appeal2018-003870
Application 14/692,204
(8) the maximum number of transport block bits rate per TTI
supported by the UE[; and]
(9) the UE's processing capability (e.g., the number of
processors a UE has, the number of simultaneous processes it
can execute at one time)."
Spec. ,r,r 126-127.
Based on Appellants' Specification, the term "capability partitioning
configuration" can be broadly, but reasonably, interpreted to encompass both
(1) Liu's allocation of communication resources for UEs, including "related
HARQ procedure [i.e., soft buffer memory allocation], modulation and
coding scheme ('MCS'), power, and multi-input/multi-output ('MIMO')
scheme to transmit and receive [along with data]" (see Liu ,r,r 30-31, 77, 79--
81 ), or alternatively (2) Che's partition or allocation of soft buffer memory
to HARQ processes, as implicitly recognized by the Examiner. Final Act. 6
( citing Che ,r,r 3 5-3 6); see also Che ,r,r 11, 3 7, 4 7 ("soft buffer memory sizes
are dimensioned to fit the received bits at the minimum coding rate of 1/3
for UE categories 1 and 2. For UE categories 3, 4, and 5, all received bits fit
into the soft buffer memory at the minimum coding rate of 2/3. ").
meaning of the term "capability partitioning configuration" recited in
Appellants' claims 8 and 16, we now tum to the cited prior art references,
including Liu and Che. At the outset, we note these cited prior art references
need not recite the claim language ipsissimis verb is. See Kennametal, Inc. v.
Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015). For
example, Liu teaches two main ways of implementing DMC where
communication resources are allocated to UEs, including: (1) a device-
centric approach where one UE initiates the DMC connection with another
UE; and (2) a network-centric approach where the network initiates the
7
Appeal2018-003870
Application 14/692,204
DCM connection between UEs. Liu ,r,r 27-30. According to Liu, "if one
UE is transmitting on the DMC link, the other DMC UE should be prepared
to receive," and for purposes of data packet transmission and reception, UEs
"are informed when, the time resources, where, the frequency resources, and
how, the related HARQ procedure, modulation and coding scheme ('MCS '),
power, and multi-input/multi-output ('MIMO') scheme to transmit and
receive [along with data]." Liu ,r,r 31, 34. For example, each UE configures
its HARQ processes for the DMC link and manages those processes for data
communication, including its soft buffer memory requirement and sub-frame
allocation. Liu ,r,r 77, 79-81, 85, Fig. 5. Liu further teaches a "UE can
receive data ... decoded the data packets" and "ACK/NACK feedback can
be encoded with, or separately from, the data" for transmission. Liu ,r,r 93,
97.
Based on these disclosures, we agree with the Examiner that a skilled
artisan would understand (1) Liu's UE configuring its HARQ processes and
preparing the soft buffer memory requirement for data encoding and
transmission as teaching or suggesting Appellants' claimed "configuring ...
soft buffer configuration" (Ans. 12-13); (2) Liu's UE's managing its HARQ
processes and sub-frame allocation when communicating another UE within
a DMC link as teaching or suggesting Appellants' claimed "configuring ...
soft buffer configuration based on a category of the second user equipment"
(Ans. 13); and (3) both Liu's data packets/frames and Che's data
packets/frames are digital data and, as such, need to be encoded for
transmission and decoded for reception for MIMO communication (Ans.
14 ). In addition to Liu, Che also teaches soft buffer memory partitions per
HARQ process and soft buffer memory sizes dimensioned to fit receive bits
8
Appeal2018-003870
Application 14/692,204
at different coding rates for different categories of a UE. See Che ,r,r 11, 35-
3 7, 4 7 ("soft buffer memory sizes are dimensioned to fit the received bits at
the minimum coding rate of 1/3 for UE categories 1 and 2. For UE
categories 3, 4, and 5, all received bits fit into the soft buffer memory at the
minimum coding rate of 2/3. "), Figure 5 ("downlink physical layer
parameter values set by user equipment category), and Figure 6 ("uplink
shared channel transport block transmitted ... as a function of user
equipment category"). See Che ,r,r 17, 18.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claim 8 and 16 and respective dependent claims 13, 21, and 22,
which Appellants do not argue separately.
Dependent Claims 9, 10, 17, and 19
Claim 9 depends from claim 8, and further recites "receiving
information regarding the capability partitioning configuration of the
second user equipment from the network element on a second carrier."
Claim 17 depends from claim 16, and recites the same limitation. Similarly,
claims 10 and 19 only differ from claims 9 and 1 7 in that the carrier is
identified as "a downlink carrier."
Appellants argue neither paragraph [77] nor paragraph [96] of Liu
teaches "whether information is received on a first carrier or a second
carrier" or "using different carriers, let alone specifically uplink and
downlink carriers." App. Br. 8-9.
We disagree and adopt the Examiner's explanation provided on pages
15-17 of the Examiner's Answer, i.e., all data is encoded during
transmission, and decoded during reception, via carriers, for example, an
9
Appeal2018-003870
Application 14/692,204
uplink carrier for transmission and a downlink carrier for reception. See Liu
,r,r 23, 26, 76, Fig. 1 ("uplink/downlink wireless communication links 140,
150); Che ,r,r 28, 35, 40. As such, we also sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of dependent claims 9, 10, 17, and 19.
Dependent Claims 11, 12, 18, and 20
Claim 11 depends from claim 8, and further recites "wherein the
encoding further comprises encoding the packet in accordance with the
category of the second user equipment." Claim 18 depends from claim 16,
and recites the same limitation.
Claim 12 depends from claim 8, and further recites "wherein the
capability partitioning configuration of the second user equipment comprises
a configuration a soft buffer of the second user equipment." Claim 20
depends from claim 16, and recites the same limitation.
Appellants reiterate the same argument presented against claims 8 and
16, i.e., the cited art further fails "to describe that the encoding (or decoding)
includes encoding ( or decoding) the packet in accordance with the category
of the second user device" and "to teach the capability partitioning
configuration of the second user device includes a configuration a soft buffer
of the second user device." App. Br. 9. We disagree and sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent claims 11, 12, 18, and 20 for
the same reasons discussed relative to claims 8 and 16.
Dependent Claim 2 7
Claim 11 depends from claim 8, and further recites "wherein a
number of soft channel bits for encoding the packet is based on at least a
signaled category of the second user equipment and a maximum number of
layers supported by the second user equipment on the carrier."
10
Appeal2018-003870
Application 14/692,204
Appellants argue Liu makes "no mention that a number of soft
channel bits for encoding the packet is based on at least a signaled category
of the second user equipment and a maximum number of layers supported
by the second user equipment." App. Br. 10.
We disagree. As recognized by the Examiner, Che's Figures 5---6
show the number of soft channel bits for encoding the packet based on
different categories of a UE and the maximum number of supported layers.
Ans. 16-17. For these reasons, we also sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of dependent claim 27.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8-14, 16-22, 26, and
27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 8-14, 16-
22, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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).
AFFIRMED
11