Ex Parte Onggosanusi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 22, 201814469349 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation