Ex Parte Sun et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 2018

14512133 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/512,133 10/10/2014 74365 7590 11/30/2018 Slater Matsil, LLP/HW/FW/HWC 17950 Preston Road, Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 75252 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Yishen Sun 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. HW 91007383US02 5505 EXAMINER DANIEL JR, WILLIE J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2462 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2018 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): uspatent@huawei.com docketing@slatermatsil.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YISHEN SUN and HAO BI Appeal2018-004852 Application 14/512,133 1 Technology Center 2400 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-26, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Futurewei Technologies, Inc. App. Br. 2. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed October 18, 2017; the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed April 6, 2018; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed February 14, 2018; Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed May 10, 2017; and original Specification ("Spec.") filed October 10, 2014. Appeal2018-004852 Application 14/512,133 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to a system and methods "for media access control transport blocks." Spec. ,r 2. In one embodiment, a communications controller "determine[ s] a plurality of user equipments (UEs) in a group ofUEs," sets a first media access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) "to indicate that the first MAC PDU is destined for multiple UEs in the group ofUEs and transmit[s], to the plurality ofUEs, the first MAC PDU." Spec. ,r 7; Abstract. In another embodiment, a method for receiving a MAC PDU by a UE includes "transmitting, by the UE to the communications controller, a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) response in accordance with the MAC PDU," and "transmitting, by the UE to the communications controller, a radio link control (RLC) message in accordance with [a] parsed MAC PDU." Spec. ,r 6. Claims 1, 16, and 26 are independent. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for transmitting a first media access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU), the method comprising: determining multiple user equipments (UEs) in a group ofUEs; determining that the first MAC PDU is destined for the multiple UEs in the group of UEs; setting the first MAC PDU to indicate that the first MAC PDU comprises a plurality of MAC service data units (SDU s) destined for the multiple UEs in the group of UEs and an element comprising a list of UE identifiers (UE IDs) for the multiple UEs; and transmitting, by a communications controller to the multiple UEs, the first MAC PDU. App. Br. 16-20 (Claims App.). 2 Appeal2018-004852 Application 14/512,133 Jiang et al. ("Jiang") Chun et al. ("Chun") Meylan Evidence Considered US 2013/0301582 Al Nov. 14, 2013 US 2011/0019604 Al Jan 27, 2011 US 2009/0156194 Al June 18, 2009 Examiner's Rejections (1) Claims 1-10, 12-15, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang and Chun. Final Act. 2-7. (2) Claims 11 and 16-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, Chun, and Meylan. Final Act. 8-13. ANALYSIS Claims 1-3. 5-14. 1 ~23. and 26 With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Jiang' s method for Semi-Persistent Scheduling (SPS) transmits a first media access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) to multiple user equipments (UEs ), as claimed. Final Act. 2-3. Specifically, the Examiner finds Jiang's method determines multiple UEs in a group of UEs by allocating an SPS group scheduling identity to the multiple UEs, and determines that a first MAC PDU is destined for the multiple UEs in the SPS group. Final Act. 2-3 ( citing Jiang ,r,r 39, 43, 63, 75, Figs. 1-3). The Examiner relies on both Jiang and Chun for teaching Appellants' claimed "setting the first MAC PDU to indicate that the first MAC PDU comprises a plurality of MAC service data units (SDU s) destined for the multiple UEs in the group of UEs and an element comprising a list of UE 3 Appeal2018-004852 Application 14/512,133 identifiers (UE IDs) for the multiple UEs." Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Jiang ,r,r 44, 63, 75, 78, 100; Chun ,r,r 45-50, 61, 63); Ans. 15-17. Appellants dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding Jiang and Chun. In particular, Appellants argue "Jiang and Chun, taken alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest a MAC PDU that comprisesÂ£! plurality of MAC SDUs destined for multiple UEs in a group ofUEs," "an element comprising a list of UE [I]Ds for the multiple UEs to which the plurality of MAC SDUs are destined," and "transmitting, by a communications controller to the multiple UEs, the first MAC PDU," as claimed. App. Br. 7-8; see also Reply Br. 3-5. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Rather, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 14--17. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For additional emphasis, we note Jiang's base station (a communications controller eNB or eNodeB) "groups UEs in connected state which it serves (i.e. subordinate UEs), and allocate[s] a SPS group scheduling identity for each group." See Jiang ,r,r 3, 69. Thereafter: The eNB sends a MAC PDU to a UE needing to perform SPS, wherein the MAC PDU includes SPS MAC CEs [(Control Elements)] belonging to UEs belonging to a same group with the UE, and the SPS MAC CEs are used.for instructing the UEs to perform a SPS activation, modification, or release .... [T]he MAC PDU may include SPS MAC CE(s) of one or more UEs that need to be SPS scheduled and belong to a same group, may also include data package(s) o.f the UE(s) needing to be SPS scheduled, and may also include data packages of other UEs belonging to the same group with the UE( s) needing to be SPS scheduled .... 4 Appeal2018-004852 Application 14/512,133 In one embodiment, the MAC PDU comprises at least one SPS MAC CE, and each SPS MAC CE of the at least one SPS MAC CE comprises, respectively, an identity of a UE needing to perform semi-persistent scheduling and an indication for instructing the UE needing to perform semi-persistent scheduling to perform the SPS operation .... [The UE' s] own data package includes its own SPS MAC CE or its own normal data package, such as a MAC CE or a MACSDU. ... The UE may determine whether there is a data package belonging to itself or not among received data according to a UE identity in a LCID [(Logical Channel Identity)]. Jiang ,r,r 75-76, 95, 100, 102 (emphases added). Thus, Jiang's MAC PDU comprises data units for multiple UEs in the SPS group, wherein the data units include "data package(s) of the UE(s) needing to be SPS scheduled," "data packages of other UEs belonging to the same group with the UE(s) needing to be SPS scheduled," UEs' "own normal data package, such as a MAC CE or a MAC SDU," and "SPS MAC CEs belonging to UEs belonging to a same group with the UE." See Jiang ,r,r 75-76, 100. As correctly recognized by the Examiner, Jiang therefore sets a MAC PDU to indicate that the "MAC PDU comprises a plurality of MAC service data units (SDU s) destined for the multiple UEs in the group of UEs" as recited in claim 1. Ans. 16. Additionally, Jiang's MAC PDU is transmitted "to the multiple UEs" as claimed, since "the SPS MAC CEs [in Jiang's MAC PDU] are used for instructing the UEs to perform a SPS activation, modification, or release." See Jiang ,r 75 (emphasis added); Ans. 16-17. Appellants also argue "the SPS MAC CEs of Jiang indicate multiple UEs that belong to a group, and not multiple UEs to which the MAC PDU or the MAC SDU are destined." App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3--4. However, this 5 Appeal2018-004852 Application 14/512,133 argument is not persuasive because claim 1 does not specify or impose any bounds on the term "destined." Therefore, Jiang's MAC PDU (for instructing UEs with a same SPS group scheduling identity to perform an SPS operation) and the MAC PDU's "data package(s) of the UE(s) needing to be SPS scheduled" are destined for those UEs, as required by claim 1. See Jiang ,r,r 75-76; Ans. 16. Appellants further argue "Jiang does not teach or suggest a MAC PDU comprising an element comprising a list of UE IDs for the multiple UEs to which multiple SDUs are destined." App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3. Appellants' argument is not persuasive because each of the SPS MAC CEs in Jiang's MAC PDU includes "a UE identity UE ID, which may be the C-RNTI of a UE or other identities that can uniquely identify the UE in the group." See Jiang ,r,r 63, 80, Fig. 4; Ans. 16. Thus, Jiang's MAC payload in the MAC PDU (see Fig. 4) includes "an element comprising a list of UE identifiers (UE IDs) for the multiple UEs" as recited in claim 1. For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, independent claim 26 argued for substantially the same reasons (App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 10-13), and dependent claims 2, 3, 5- 14, argued for their dependency on claim 1 (App. Br. 8, 11 ). With respect to independent claim 16, rejected based on Jiang, Chun, and Meylan, Appellants argue the references do not teach or suggest "receiving, by a UE from a communications controller, the MAC PDU, where the MAC PDU comprises a plurality of MAC SDUs destined for multiple UEs in a group of UEs and an element comprising a list of UE IDs for the multiple UEs." App. Br. 13; see also App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 13- 17. However, we agree with the Examiner that Jiang teaches and suggests 6 Appeal2018-004852 Application 14/512,133 such features for reasons discussed relative to claim 1. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 16, and dependent claims 17-23, argued for their dependency on claim 16 (App. Br. 13). Claim 4 Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and further recites "receiving, by the communications controller from a first UE, a radio link control (RLC) response; and determining whether to perform a retransmission of a selected MAC SDU of the plurality of MAC SDU s in accordance with the RLC response." The Examiner finds Jiang determines whether to perform a retransmission of a selected MAC SDU "in accordance with the RLC response ... where the system provides communication, and the system uses HARQ for retransmission for Ack." Ans. 19 (citing Jiang ,r,r 55, 63, 75, 78, 96, 105, Figs. 1-3); Final Act. 5. Appellants acknowledge Jiang discloses a HARQ feedback process including acknowledgement (ACK) sent by a UE upon successful data receipt, but argue "Jiang does not teach or suggest an RLC response" as claimed. App. Br. 8-9. We agree with Appellants. Jiang determines whether to retransmit an SPS MAC CE based on the existence of a HARQ ACK sent by the UE, where the ACK uses a PUCCH (Physical Uplink Control Channel) resource. See Jiang ,r,r 48-50, 55, 108. Jiang's ACK feedback in the PUCCH is not "a radio link control (RLC) response" as recited by claim 4, because an RLC response belongs to the Radio Link Control layer ( of L TE Protocol stack) that is different from L TE' s Physical Layer PHY ( comprising the PUCCH). Jiang does not teach or suggest determining whether to perform a retransmission of a selected MAC SDU of a plurality of MAC SDUs in 7 Appeal2018-004852 Application 14/512,133 accordance with an RLC response, as recited in claim 4. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 6-7. Chun does not cure this deficiency. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 8. Because the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support a rejection of obviousness, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4. Claims 15 and 25 Claim 15 depends from claim 1, and further recites "deactivating a first UE of the group ofUEs," "determining whether to remove the first UE from the group ofUEs," and "removing the first UE from the group ofUEs after determining to remove the first UE." Appellants acknowledge Jiang discloses grouping UEs, but argue "Jiang does not teach or suggest deactivating a UE" or "removing a UE from a group." App. Br. 9 (citing Jiang ,r,r 40, 69); Reply Br. 8-9. Appellants also argue although "Chun discloses a user equipment leaving a group, ... Chun does not teach or suggest another device removing the first UE from the group ofUEs after determining to remove the first UE." App. Br. 9 ( citing Chun ,r 4). Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. As the Examiner explains, Jiang discloses a group's members (UEs in a group) can change according to channel conditions of the UEs, whereby some UEs can be moved to another group. Ans. 19 (citing Jiang ,r,r 54, 63, 75, 78); see also Jiang ,r,r 70 ("The eNB may group the subordinate UEs according to at least one of the following items: downlink quality condition, service burst condition, service characteristic condition," and "a criterion for the eNB to group the subordinate UEs may be dividing UEs with similar downlink qualities into one group, and may also be dividing UEs with relatively intensive service 8 Appeal2018-004852 Application 14/512,133 bursts, or UEs with similar service characteristics into one group"), 72 ("if the eNB finds that UEs which have already been divided into one group can no longer be divided into a same group, the eNB may regroup the UEs"). Thus, Jiang discloses and suggests removing a UE from a group of UEs ( e.g., a group of "UEs with similar downlink qualities," see ,r 70) after determining to remove the UE (for example, because the UE's downlink quality has changed), as required by claim 15. See Jiang ,r 70; Ans. 19. Additionally, Chun discloses a user equipment can leave a group it previously joined, thereby suggesting deactivating a UE (a UE leaving the group or turning itself off), as claimed. See Chun ,r 4. Because the downlink quality of a deactivated UE (e.g., a tumed-offUE) changes, we agree with the Examiner that Jiang's eNB would remove such a UE from a group upon detection of the UE's changed downlink quality. See Jiang ,r,r 70, 72; Ans. 19. As Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 15, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 15. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 25 argued for the same reasons as claim 15. App. Br. 14, Reply Br. 19-20. Claim 24 Claim 24 depends from claim 16, and further recites "adding the UE to the group ofUEs; and activating the UE before receiving the MAC PDU and after adding the UE." Appellants argue "Jiang does not teach or suggest activating a UE at all, much less activating a UE after adding a UE" and "before receiving the MAC PDU." App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 18. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, noting that Jiang discloses "group[ing] UEs in connected state ... and allocate[ing] a SPS 9 Appeal2018-004852 Application 14/512,133 group scheduling identity for each group" and "[a]fter allocating the SPS group scheduling identity, the eNB may send information, such as the SPS group scheduling identity, UE information, and so on, to a UE by carrying in a RRC message" that may indicate a "reserved PUCCH resource" for the UE. See Jiang ,r,r 69, 71, 51, 54; Ans. 19. Informing the UE of a designated channel for communicating with the eNB is commensurate with "activating the UE" as claimed and with the broad description of "activating" in Appellants' Specification. See Spec. ,r,r 31-32. 3 Thus, Jiang teaches and suggests "adding the UE to the group of UEs; and activating the UE" as recited in claim 24. After activating the UE via the RRC message, Jiang's eNB sends the MAC PDU to the UE, thereby teaching "activating the UE before receiving the MAC PDU" as claimed. See Jiang ,r 75; Ans. 19. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the cited prior art of record teaches or renders obvious the method as recited in claim 24. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-26 under 3 Appellants' Specification provides "t ]he communications controller may send RRC configuration messages or MAC channel elements (CEs) to inform a UE of a grouping configuration, for example to instruct the UE to activate or deactivate listening to PDCCH for a specific downlink control information (DCI) information." Spec. ,r 31. Thus, "[a]ctivation of a UE causes the UE to start to listen to the PDCCH for the DCI of group communication." Spec. ,r 32. 10 Appeal2018-004852 Application 14/512,133 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103, but have demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. DECISION As such, we affirm the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-26 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. However, we reverse the Examiner's Final Rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 11