Ex Parte Onggosanusi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2018

14469349 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/469,349 08/26/2014
23494 7590 03/26/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
P 0 BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eko N. ONGGOSANUSI
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.
TI-66272A 5769
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, HANH N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2018 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EKO N. ONGGOSANUSI, ANAND G. DABAK,
BADRI V ARADARAJAN, RUNHUA CHEN,
and TARIKMUHAREMOVIC
Appeal2017-009600
Application 14/469,349 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-15, 17-19, and 21-54. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Texas Instruments Incorporated as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-009600
Application 14/469,349
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to
A transmitter [that] includes a bandwidth configuration unit
configured to provide an increased system bandwidth
corresponding to a bandwidth extension over multiple
component carriers. Additionally the transmitter also includes a
transmit unit configured to employ the bandwidth extension.
Abstract.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. An apparatus comprising:
a bandwidth configuration unit configured to provide
control information in an increased bandwidth corresponding to
a bandwidth extension over multiple component carriers; and
a transmit unit configured to transmit the control
information over the bandwidth extension.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 53, and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim
the subject matter which the inventors regard as the invention. Final Act. 2.
2. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17-19, 21-54 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Nory (US 8,934,417 B2, Jan. 13,
2015). Final Act. 3-5.
3. Claims 2 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nory and Lindoff (US 8,526,377 B2, Sept. 3, 2013).
Final Act. 5-6.
2
Appeal2017-009600
Application 14/469,349
ANALYSIS
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112(B)
The Examiner finds "the claimed limitation does not clearly address
based on what the bandwidth is increased or extended." Final Act. 2. The
Examiner elaborates in the Answer that the limitation an "'increased
bandwidth' appears to be a term of degree without any standard to measure
the degree or mechanism of increase." Ans. 2.
Appellants argue the "Examiner improper[ly] decouples the term
'increased bandwidth' from the remainder of the term 'corresponding to a
bandwidth extension over multiple component carriers."' App. Br. 3.
"A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose
meaning is unclear." Ex Parte McAward, 2017 Pat. App. LEXIS 8537
(P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) (citing In re Packard, 751 F.3d
1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, the Examiner has not sufficiently shown
that the claim term "an increased bandwidth corresponding to a bandwidth
extension of multiple component carriers" is unclear. In particular, the
Examiner has not sufficiently shown that "an increased bandwidth" is indeed
a term of degree, rather than just a description of the corresponding
bandwidth extension.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1,
7, 11, 17, 53, and 54 for being indefinite.
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(E)
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites "a bandwidth configuration unit configured to provide
control information in an increased bandwidth corresponding to a bandwidth
3
Appeal2017-009600
Application 14/469,349
extension over multiple component carriers." The Examiner finds Nory
discloses a base station that comprises a controller for configuring a
transceiver to transmit control messages on an anchor carrier such that the
control messages comprise resource assignment of a set of component
carriers, 431 and 432. Final Act. 3 (citing Nory 2:65-3:20; 7:30-55, Fig. 4).
The Examiner finds that the set of additional component carriers (component
carriers 431, 432) in Nory correspond to the "increased bandwidth
corresponding to a bandwidth extension over [multiple] component
. " A 3 carriers. ns. .
Appellants emphasize claim 1 requires that the control information be
in the increased bandwidth corresponding to the bandwidth extension over
multiple component carriers and argue that the Examiner's finding that
control information is in a single anchor carrier does not teach this
limitation. App. Br. 19. Appellants argue that control information for
component carriers 431 and 432 is carried by the anchor carrier and not
within the component carriers themselves. Reply Br. 8-9 (citing Nory 7:44--
63). Thus, the control information is not in the increased bandwidth
corresponding to the bandwidth extension (i.e. not in the additional
component carriers 431 and 432) and indeed, that "there can be no control
information in component carriers 431 and 432." Reply Br. 9.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments. We agree with
Appellants that Nory discloses control messages 410 and 411 are signaled to
the UE on the anchor carrier, and that the UE is therefore not required to
monitor its PDCCH region, thus, allowing the base station to not configure a
PDCCH in every component carrier. Nory 7:55---63. This, however, does
not necessitate that there can be no control information in component
4
Appeal2017-009600
Application 14/469,349
carriers 431 and 432, only that some of the component carriers will not have
a PDCCH. In fact, Nory discloses that while component carrier 432 "is not
configured with a PDDCH region" (Nory 7:62---63) component carrier 431 is
configured with a PDCCH region. See Fig. 4 (illustrating that component
carrier 431 has a PDCCH region 402); 7:59---60. Thus, there is control
information in the increased bandwidth corresponding to a bandwidth
extension.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 and of independent claims 7, 53, and 54, which were argued together
as a group. See App. Br. 17-20.
Claim 11
Appellants argue none of the cited portions ofNory cited by the
Examiner text teach or suggest "control information in a bandwidth
extension portion of the transmission." App. Br. 20-21. Appellants
summarize the cited portions briefly but do not provide persuasive
arguments rebutting the Examiner's findings other than to say the
disclosures in N ory are at a high level. To the extent Appellants rely on the
same arguments made with respect to claim 1, we find these arguments
unpersuasive for the reasons stated above.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 11 and of
claim 17 which was argued together with claim 11. See App. Br. 20-21.
Claim 4
For dependent claim 4, Appellants quote the Examiner cited portion
ofNory and argue "[n]owhere does this text mention 'bandwidth
extension', 'common control information', or the occupation of
5
Appeal2017-009600
Application 14/469,349
component carriers as required" by claim 4. App. Br. 25. Additionally,
Appellants rely on arguments made for independent claim 1. App. Br. 22.
We do not find the arguments made for claim 1 persuasive for the
reasons stated above, namely, that we agree Nory discloses a bandwidth
extension in the form of additional component carriers. With respect to the
other arguments, Appellants' arguments amount to no more than generally
alleging that the cited prior art references are deficient. Merely pointing out
certain claim features recited in the claim and nakedly asserting that none of
the cited prior art references teach or suggest such features does not amount
to a separate patentability argument. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A
statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim."); see also In
re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.")
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4 and of
claims 8, 14, 18, 22, 24, 26, 30, 32, 34, 38, 40, 42, 46, 48, and 50, which
were argued together with claim 4. See App. Br. 25-26.
Claim 5
Appellants once again quote a portion ofNory and argue "nowhere in
the cited text are bandwidth extension or the number of component carriers
taught or suggested." App. Br. 29. We disagree that Nory does not teach or
suggest a bandwidth extension as explained above with respect to claim 1.
Further, Appellants' arguments are conclusory and therefore unpersuasive.
6
Appeal2017-009600
Application 14/469,349
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 5, and of
claims 9, 15, 19, 23, 25, 27, 31, 33, 35, 39, 41, 43, 47, 49, and 51, which
were argued together. See App. Br. 29.
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(A)
Claim 2
With regard to claim 2, Appellants rely on arguments made for claim
1. See App. Br. 31. Additionally, Appellants argue the "Examiner does not
teach or suggest where Nory teaches the 'bandwidth extension' required by
Claims 2 and 12." App. Br. 31. Appellants also argue Lindoff "does not
teach all words in the limitation 'bandwidth extension jointly aggregates
multiple contiguous component carriers into a single carrier of larger
bandwidth' which appears in both Claims 1 and 12." App. Br. 32.
Again, we find Nory teaches or suggests a bandwidth extension, as
explained above with respect to claim 1. Further, Appellants' argument that
Lindo ff "does not teach all the words in the claim" is conclusory and
unpersuasive. The teaching in the prior art reference need not be ipsissimis
verbis. Structural Rubber Products v. Park Rubber, 749 F.2d 707, 716 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 and of
claim 12, which was argued together with claim 2.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 53, and 54 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b) is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17-19,
and 21-54 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed.
7
Appeal2017-009600
Application 14/469,349
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is affirmed.
Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection for every pending
claim, the Examiner's rejections of the claims are affirmed.
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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
8