Ex Parte SHIIZAKI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 5, 2018

15015702 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 15/015,702 02/04/2016 61650 7590 11/07/2018 MYERS WOLIN, LLC 100 HEADQUARTERS PLAZA West Tower, Floor 7 MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960-6834 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA 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. FJSC 5184A 2301 EXAMINER REDDIV ALAM, SRINIV ASAR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2477 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/07/2018 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 Appeal2018-002283 Application 15/015,702 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 1-7, 9-11, 13-17, and 19-24. Claims 8, 12, and 18 are canceled. Appeal Br. 32, 342. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Appellant is the applicant, Fujitsu Limited, identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 We herein refer to the Specification, filed Feb. 4, 2016 ("Spec."); Final Office Action, mailed Dec. 16, 2016 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief, filed Jul. 17. 2017 ("Appeal Br."); Examiner's Answer, mailed Nov. 1, 2017 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief, filed Dec. 28, 2017 ("Reply Br."). Appeal2018-002283 Application 15/015,702 Invention The Specification discloses a wireless base station that includes: ( 1) "a wireless transceiver configured to transmit to a wireless terminal a downlink frame including a downlink control information" (DCI) and "to receive an uplink frame from the wireless terminal" and (2) "a processor circuit coupled to the wireless transceiver and configured to determine uplink control information from the uplink frame." Abstract. Exemplary Claims (key limitations emphasized) 1. A wireless base station, comprising: a wireless transceiver, the wireless transceiver configured to transmit a radio signal to a wireless terminal, the radio signal comprising a downlink frame including a downlink control information, the downlink control information includes a first offset determined by a field in the downlink control information and a second offset, the second offset configured by a higher layer parameter, wherein the wireless transceiver is further configured to receive a radio signal comprising an uplink frame from the wireless terminal; and a processor circuit coupled to the wireless transceiver and configured to determine uplink control information from the uplink frame, the uplink control information being offset from a location in the uplink frame by the first and second offset. 13. The wireless base station of claim 1, wherein the location of the uplink control information for the wireless terminal n~i/coJH is given by: (1,fio) _ N(1) nPUCCH - nccE + PUCCH + npuccH_offset ' where nccE is a minimum number of L TE [long term evolution] control channel elements ( CCE) used for sending of corresponding resource allocation control signal; 2 Appeal2018-002283 Application 15/015,702 npueeH_offiet is the first offset determined by the field in the downlink control information; Po is an antenna port; and N~~ccH is the second offset configured by the higher layer parameter. Appeal Br., Claims Appendix, 31, 33. Rejection3 The Examiner rejects claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-17, and 19-24 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. 9-24. CLAIMS 1-7, 9-11, 14, 15, 17, and 20-24 Examiner's Determinations and Appellant's Contentions 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, N1~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. The Examiner finds that Ahn's application of the offset in the resource index equation teaches or suggests the downlink control information includes a first offset determined by a field in the downlink control information and a second offset, the second offset configured by a 3 The Examiner previously rejected the claims on grounds of non-statutory obviousness-type double-patenting. Final Act. 3-9; Ans. 24. This rejection is no longer before us because of the terminal disclaimer filed by Appellant on December 18, 2017, and accepted by the Office on January 7, 2018. 3 Appeal2018-002283 Application 15/015,702 higher layer parameter. See Final Act. 10-12 (citing, e.g., Ahn ,r,r 43--44, 55, Eq. 1 ); see also Ans. 25-28. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "Ahn nowhere asserts a first offset and a second offset." Appeal Br. 11. In particular, Appellant argues that although "N~VccH is a signaling value transferred from an upper layer ... Ahn ... does not 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 11-12. Appellant argues that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Ahn as teaching an offset may be applied to the CCE index or by using a different value for N~VccH which means only one offset is used." Id. at 12; see also Reply Br. 4--5. Analysis 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, Ahn's equation (1) (1) (1) . nPuccH = nccE + N PUCCH = 0 + nccE + N PUCCH (Ahn Eq. 1) while the S "fi . , . (1,fio) N(1) 0 N(1) peel 1cat10n S equat10n nPUCCH = nccE + PUCCH = + nccE + PUCCH 4 Appeal2018-002283 Application 15/015,702 (Spec. Eq. 1). Moreover, despite Appellant's contentions (Appeal Br. 13), the Specification does not particularly define "a field in the downlink control information." Thus, Ahn's term nccE represents a first offset, given a broad, but reasonable interpretation of the claimed a first offset determined by a field in the downlink control information. Appellant's arguments that "Ahn ... does not treat N~~ccH as an offset in equation 1" (Appeal Br. 12) and that the Examiner impermissibly relies on hindsight reasoning in determining this term teaches a second offset (Reply Br. 5) are unpersuasive. Whether Ahn explicitly identifies N~~ccH as an offset in name is irrelevant given that Ahn's equation 1 uses this term, in practice, to offset the additional term nccE and implicit constant 0. See Ahn Eq. 1. 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 2-7, 9-11, 14, 15, 17, and 20-24 are similar to those made with respect to claim 1 or are unpersuasively conclusory. See id. at 15-30; Reply Br. 7-8. Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claims 2-7, 9- 11, 14, 15, 17, and20-24. CLAIMS 13, 16, and 19 Examiner's Determinations and Appellant's Contentions In rejecting claim 13 as obvious, the Examiner finds Ahn's equation 1 and Ahn's disclosure that an "offset [that] may be applied by being added in Equation 1" (Ahn ,r 59) teach or suggest adding the term npuccH_offset, "the 5 Appeal2018-002283 Application 15/015,702 first offset determined by the field in the downlink control information" (Appeal Br. 15 (citing Ahn Eq. 1, ,r,r 43--45, 59---66)). Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Ahn's equation does not include the term npueeH_offiet posited by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 16. Analysis We agree with Appellant the Examiner erred. As discussed above, Ahn teaches or suggests the recitations of claim 1 because the disputed 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. Claim 13, however, 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, 66. Therefore, the Examiner's findings fail to show that Ahn teaches or suggests the claimed npueeH_offiet offset recited in the equation of claim 13. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claim 13, and claims 16 and 19, which include similar recitations and are similarly rejected. 6 Appeal2018-002283 Application 15/015,702 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-11, 14, 15, 17, and 20-24. We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 13, 16, and 19. 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