Ex Parte Shiizaki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 26, 2018

14487664 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/487,664 09/16/2014 61650 7590 12/28/2018 MYERS WOLIN, LLC 100 HEADQUARTERS PLAZA West Tower, Floor 7 MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960-6834 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kotara Shiizaki 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. FCNT 5184 7877 EXAMINER REDDIV ALAM, SRINIV ASAR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2477 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/28/2018 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): patent@myerswolin.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KOT ARO SHIIZAKI and AKIRA ITO 1 Appeal 2018-003171 Application 14/487 ,664 Technology Center 2400 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JASON V. MORGAN, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 7-11, 13, 15-18, 20-25, 27-32, and 34. Claims 5, 6, 12, 14, 19, 26, 33, and 35 are canceled. Appeal Br. 31-36. This appeal is related to Appeal Number 2018-002283 (Application Number 15/015,702), decided November 7, 2018. Appeal Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Appellant is the applicant and real party in interest, Fujitsu Limited. Appeal Br. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2018-003171 Application 14/487,664 Invention Appellant discloses a wireless communication system that includes "a wireless terminal configured to receive a downlink frame including data and a downlink control signal ... and transmit an uplink frame including an uplink control signal." Abstract. Exemplary Claims (key limitations emphasized) 1. A wireless communication system comprising: a wireless base station; and a wireless terminal configured to receive from the wireless base station a downlink frame including coded data and a downlink control signal for decoding the coded data, the downlink control signal being mapped to a first downlink control resource element of at least one downlink control resource elements in the downlink frame, and to transmit an uplink frame including an uplink control signal containing information indicative of success or lack of success in decoding the coded data, the uplink control signal being mapped to a first uplink control resource element of at least one uplink control resource element in the uplink frame, the first uplink control resource element being placed at a location in the uplink frame that is determined by shifting from a location of a second uplink control resource element of the uplink control resource elements by at least a first offset which indicates a number of uplink control resource elements and a second offset, the second uplink control resource element location being determined based on a location of the first downlink control resource element in the downlink frame, the first offset being determined by a field in the downlink control signal, and the second offset configured by a higher layer parameter. 2 Appeal 2018-003171 Application 14/487,664 34. The wireless terminal according to claim 15, wherein the wireless terminal is a long term evolution (L TE) capable wireless terminal and the location of the first uplink control resource element n~1Jea;}H is given by: (1,fio) _ N(1) nPUCCH - nccE + PUCCH + npuccH_offset ' where nccE is a minimum number of L TE control channel elements ( CCE) used for sending of a corresponding resource allocation control signal; npuccH_offset is the first offset amount expressed in CCE units determined by the field in the resource allocation control signal; PO is an antenna port; and N~~ccH is the second offset configured by the higher layer parameter. Rejection The Examiner rejects 1--4, 7-11, 13, 15-18, 20-25, 27-32, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (US 2015/0092723 Al; published Apr. 2, 2015) ("Ahn"). Final Act. 3-21. CLAIMS 1--4, 7-11, 13, 15-18, 20-25, AND 27-32 Examiner's Determinations and Conclusions Ahn teaches reserving additional resources by applying an offset in the PUCCH (physical uplink control channel) resource index equation (1) (1) " (1) nPuccH = nccE + NPuccH, where nPuccH represents a PUCCH resource index for transmitting ACK/NACK, N~~ccH represents a signaling value transferred from an upper layer, and neeÂ£ represents the smallest value of CCE indexes used for PDCCH transmission." Ahn ,r 44; see also id. Eq. 1, i155. 3 Appeal 2018-003171 Application 14/487,664 In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds Ahn's application of the offset in the resource index equation teaches or suggests a first offset which indicates a number of uplink control resource elements and a second offset, the first offset being determined by a field in the downlink control signal, and the second offset configured by a higher layer parameter. Final Act. 4--5 (citing, e.g., Ahn ,r,r 43--44, Eq. 1); see also Ans. 22-24. Appellant's Contentions and Our Analysis With respect the claim 1, we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's determinations as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken, and we concur with the Examiner's conclusions in light thereof. We have considered Appellant's arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for emphasis. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "Ahn nowhere asserts a first offset and a second offset." Appeal Br. 12. In particular, Appellant argues that although "N~VccH is a signaling value transferred from an upper layer ... Ahn ... does not appear to treat N~VccH as an offset in equation 1, but rather admits that the additional resources may be reserved by making N~VccH an offset." Id. at 12-13 (citing Ahn ,r,r 43--44). Appellant argues that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Ahn as teaching an offset [that] may be applied to the CCE index or . .. using a different value for N~VccH which means only one offset is used." Appeal Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 4--6. 4 Appeal 2018-003171 Application 14/487,664 Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. Ahn's equation is nearly identical to the Specification's disclosed formula for placement of a d l"nk 1 Â· c Â· (1,Po) N(l) own 1 contro m1ormat10n resource: nPuccH = nccE + puccH, where "Po is an antenna port, nccE is a minimum CCE number used for sending of the corresponding DCI ... , and N~~ccH is a parameter notified by an upper layer." Spec. ,r 147; see also id. ,r 144, Eq. 1; Appeal Br. 5 (citing, e.g., Spec. ,r 147). Both Ahn and the disclosed embodiments include the value neeÂ£. Compare Ahn Eq. 1, ,r 44 with Spec. Eq. 1, ,r 147. In both cases, neeE provides an offset from the implicit constant 0. That is, in Ahn's equation (1) (1) (1) . . nPuccH = nccE + N PUCCH = 0 + nccE + N PUCCH (Ahn Eq. 1) while m the S "fi . , . (1,fio) N(1) 0 N(1) peel 1cat10n S equat10n nPUCCH = nccE + PUCCH = + nccE + PUCCH (Spec. Eq. 1). Moreover, despite Appellant's contentions (Appeal Br. 12- 13), the Specification does not particularly define "a field in the downlink control information." Thus, Ahn's term neeE represents a first offset, given a broad, but reasonable interpretation of the claimed a first offset determined by afield in the downlink control information. Moreover, Ahn's term neeE, in representing the smallest value of control channel elements indexes used for PDCCH transmission (Ahn ,r 44) teaches or suggests the first offset indicates a number of uplink control resource elements. Appellant argues that "Ahn ... does not treat N~VccH as an offset in equation 1" (Appeal Br. 3) and that the Examiner impermissibly relies on hindsight reasoning in determining this term teaches a second offset (Reply Br. 4--5) are unpersuasive. Whether Ahn explicitly identifies N~VccH as an offset in name is irrelevant given that Ahn's equation 1 uses this term, in 5 Appeal 2018-003171 Application 14/487,664 practice, to offset the additional term nccE and implicit constant 0. See Ahn Eq. 1. Thus, Ahn's term N~VccH teaches or suggests a second offset configured by a higher layer parameter. Appellant's remaining arguments with respect to claim 1 are conclusory and, therefore, unpersuasive. See Appeal Br. 14--15. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1. Appellant's arguments with respect to claims 2--4, 7-11, 13, 15-18, 20-25, and 27-32 are similar to those made with respect to claim 1 or are unpersuasively conclusory. See id. at 15-28; Reply Br. 7. Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of these claims. CLAIM34 Examiner's Determinations and Conclusions In rejecting claim 34 as obvious, the Examiner finds Ahn's equation 1 and Ahn's disclosure of "index modification information/n pucch_orrset being an absolute or relative offset for the PUCCH index ... the offset being applied by being added in Equation 1" (Final Act. 21 ( citing Ahn Eq. 1, ,r,r 43, 59, 66)) teaches or suggests adding the term npuccH_offset, "the offset expressed in CCE units determined by the field in the resource allocation control signal" (Final Act. 20). See also Ans. 32-34. Appellant's Contentions and Our Analysis Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Ahn merely discloses n~~ccH = nccE + N~VccH, which Appellant argues differs from the claimed (1,fio) _ N(1) nPUCCH - nccE + PUCCH + npuccH_offsetÂ· Appeal Br. 24. We agree with Appellant the Examiner erred. As discussed above, Ahn teaches or suggests the recitations of claim 1 because the disputed 6 Appeal 2018-003171 Application 14/487,664 recitations, the claimed first and second offsets, when reasonably interpreted in light of the Specification, are broad enough to encompass the terms neeE and N~VccH in Ahn's equation. In contrast, claim 34 explicitly defines the first and second offsets as being offset from, rather than including, the term neeÂ£. Moreover, rather than teaching or suggesting an additional offset term, the cited portions of Ahn merely describe using Ahn's equation to apply an offset. See Ahn ,r,r 55, 59, 66. Therefore, the Examiner's findings fail to show that Ahn teaches or suggests the claimed npueeH_offset offset recited in the equation of claim 34. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 7-11, 13, 15-18, 20-25, and 27-32. We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 34. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 7