Ex Parte Yang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 2018

14238597 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/238,597 02/12/2014 48116 7590 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 04/03/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Tao Yang 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. LUTZ 201786US01 1905 EXAMINER CHOWDHURY, HAR UN UR R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2473 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/03/2018 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): docketing@faysharpe.com ipsnarocp@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TAO YANG and SEAU SIAN LIM Appeal2017-010872 Application 14/238,597 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH and ADAM J. PYONIN Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a). Appeal Brief 8-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to a: [M]ethod, in a user equipment of a carrier aggregation transmission-based radio communication network, of controlling uplink transmission of the user equipment over a plurality of secondary cells in a group of secondary cells, the user equipment being configured with a group of primary cells and at least one group of secondary cells, the group of secondary cells belonging to the at least one group of secondary cells, and the group of Appeal2017-010872 Application 14/238,597 primary cells and the at least one group of secondary cells each being configured with a time alignment timer, wherein the method comprises the step of: terminating the uplink transmission over at least one activated secondary cell in the group of secondary cells when the time alignment timer of the group of primary cells expires. Specification i-f3. Illustrative Claim 1. A method, in a user equipment of a carrier aggregation transmission-based radio communication network, of controlling uplink transmission of the user equipment over a plurality of secondary cells in a group of secondary cells, the user equipment being configured with a primary cell group and at least one secondary cell group, the group of secondary cells belonging to the at least one secondary cell group, and the primary cell group and the at least one secondary cell group each being configured with a time alignment timer, wherein the method comprises: terminating the uplink transmission over at least one activated secondary cell in the group of secondary cells when the time alignment timer of the primary cell group expires. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1 and 6 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Wu (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0028185 Al; published January 21, 2013). Final Action 4--5. Claims 2, 3 and 5 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu and Bostrom (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0281680 Al; published November 8, 2012). Final Action 5-7. Claims 4, 7, 11, 12, and 14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu, Sebire (US Patent Application 2 Appeal2017-010872 Application 14/238,597 Publication 2014/0161117 Al; published June 12, 2014) and Yi (WO 2012/134071 A3; published October 4, 2012). Final Action 7-15. Claims 8-10 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu, Bostrom and Yi. Final Action 15-20. Claims 13 and 15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu, Sebire, Yi and Bostrom. Final Action 20-23. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 1, 2017), the Reply Brief (filed August 23, 2017), the Answer (mailed June 27, 2017) and the Final Action (mailed September 21, 2016) for the respective details. Anticipation Rejection Appellants contend Wu does not "teach 'terminating the uplink transmission over at least one activated secondary cell in the group of secondary cells when the time alignment timer of the primary cell group expires,' as recited in claim 1. The Office Action, at pages 4-5, contends that Wu teaches these features. This contention is respectfully traversed." Appeal Brief 8. The Examiner finds Wu anticipates both independent claim 1 and dependent claim 6. Final Action 4--5 (citing Wu, paragraphs 46-53); Answer 23 (additionally citing Wu, paragraphs 11, 43 and 45). Appellants contend the cited Wu paragraphs only disclose clearing HARQ (Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request) buffers and fail to disclose when the uplink transmission, based upon the cell group, is terminated. Appeal Brief 8. We do not find Appellants' argument persuasive of Examiner error. It is evident 3 Appeal2017-010872 Application 14/238,597 that Wu establishes a relationship between the two cell groups. Wu discloses in paragraph 11: That is, there is only one timing advance (TA) group, wherein the UL timings of the cells in the TA group are the same. The UE adjusts the UL timing for the UL transmission according to a DL timing of the PCell [(Primary Cell)]. However, deployment of eNBs is restricted due to that the UL timings must be same. Thus, different UL timings are allowed for different cells in the L TE- A system support later versions of the 3GPP standard, to release the restriction. That is, multiple TA groups are possible. Thus, there is still one UL timing for cells of a TA group, while UL timings of different TA groups can be different. In a TA group a cell whose DL timing is used by the UE for adjusting a UL timing of cells in the TA group is called a timing reference cell of the TA group. Cells in a TA group have UL to which the same timing advance applies. Further, Wu discloses that "when a time alignment timer of a TA group expires, the UE clears (i.e., flushes) all HARQ buffers of the UE." Wu, paragraph 12; Answer 22-23 ("Therefore, clearing of all HARQ buffers ultimately terminates UL transmission over the secondary cell."). Wu also recites that "the UE can further determine that a time alignment timer of the TA group TAG 1 expires, when the time alignment timer of the TA group TAG2 expires." Wu paragraph 53. Subsequently, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 6. Obviousness Rejections Appellants argue, in regard to claim 2, that in Bostrom, "the SRS may be disabled by the eNB as long as connectivity to the UE is maintained. But, this does not suggest de-configuring a configuration of sounding reference signal transmission when a time alignment timer of a primary cell group expires." Appeal Brief 9-10 (emphasis omitted). Claim 2 only requires "the 4 Appeal2017-010872 Application 14/238,597 uplink transmission comprises sounding reference signal transmission." We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive because the Examiner cites to Bostrom merely to teach a sounding reference signal transmission as claimed and relied upon Wu to disclose the time alignment aspect of the invention. See Final Action 5---6. We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 2. Appellants argue, in regard to claim 3, that Bostrom "does not fairly suggest automatically de-configuring a configuration of sounding reference signal transmission of a plurality of secondary cells in a group of secondary cells when a time alignment timer of the primary cell group expires." Appeal Brief 11 (emphasis omitted). Claim 3 recites "wherein the terminating comprises: - automatically de- configuring a configuration of sounding reference signal transmission of the plurality of secondary cells in the group of secondary cells." We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive because the Examiner cites to Bostrom merely to teach the "transmission of SRS on the UL SCC is enabled if the UL SCC is synchronized, when SRS is configured for the UL SCC. Otherwise, transmission of SRS on the UL SCC is prohibited until the UL SCC is UL synchronized." Final Action 6 (citing Bostrom paragraph 21 ). The Examiner relied upon Wu to disclose the time alignment aspect of the invention. Final Action 6-7. We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 3. Appellants argue in regard to claim 4, "The applied references do not teach 'receiving a first RRC message from a base station, the first RRC message being used for de-configuring a configuration of sounding 5 Appeal2017-010872 Application 14/238,597 reference signal transmission of the plurality of secondary cells in the group of secondary cells,' as recited in claim 4." Appeal Brief 11-12. Appellants contend Sebire discloses "first or second solutions [which] involve separate treatment of each group" and "neither of Sebire's solutions teach any link between a timing alignment timer corresponding to a primary cell group and deactivating a secondary cell." Appeal Brief 12. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive because they are not commensurate with the scope of claim 4. Claim 4 does not recite additional limitations drawn to "a timing ... corresponding to a primary cell group and deactivating a secondary cell." Appeal Brief 12. Further, the Examiner relied upon the combination of Sebire, Wu, and Yi, which Appellants fail to address. See Final Action 8-9. We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 4. Appellants argue in regard to claim 8, that Bostrom's "enabling transmission of the SRS in response to a determination of valid timing information does not suggest reconfiguring a configuration of a sounding reference signal transmission when a time alignment timer of the primary cell group restarts counting" and "Bostrom do not suggest that a second RRC message would be received that is used for reconfiguring the configuration of the sounding reference signal transmission of the de- configured secondary cells in the group of secondary cells when the time alignment timer of the primary cell group restarts counting." Appeal Brief 13. We do not find Appellants arguments persuasive because the Examiner relied upon several other references (Wu and Yi) and not just Bostrom to address the limitations of claim 8, and Appellants do now show the Examiner's combination is in error. Final Action 15-17. We also sustain 6 Appeal2017-010872 Application 14/238,597 the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 9 for similar reasons as discussed above for claim 8. See Final Action 18, 19; Appeal Brief 14--15. Appellants argue, in regard to claim 11, the Examiner's obviousness rejection is erroneous because Sebire fails to disclose "transmitting a first RRC message to the user equipment when the time alignment timer of the primary cell group expires, the first RRC message being used for de- configuring a configuration of sounding reference signal transmission of the plurality of secondary cells in the group of secondary cells,' as recited in claim 11." Appeal Brief 15. Appellants cites to Sebire, paragraphs 67---68 and 95, to support their arguments. Appeal Brief 15. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive because the Examiner cited additional paragraphs of Sebire, such as paragraphs 1, 31-37, and 50; the Examiner also relied upon additional references, Wu and Yi, to address claim 11 's limitations. Final Action 10-13. We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 11. Appellants argue, in regard to claim 13, the Examiner's obviousness rejection is erroneous because the Examiner's reliance upon Bostrom is flawed. Appeal Brief 16-17. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive because the Examiner cited additional references - Wu, Sebire, and Yi - to address claim 13 's limitations. Final Action 20-22. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13. Appellants argue, in regard to claims 14 and 15, the Examiner's obviousness rejections are erroneous because the Examiner's reliance upon Sebire is flawed. Appeal Brief 17-18. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive because the Examiner cited additional references - Wu, Bostrom, and Yi - to address claim 15 's limitations (See Final Action 7 Appeal2017-010872 Application 14/238,597 22-23) and an additional reference, Wu, to address claim 14's limitations (See Final Action 13-15). We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 14 and 15. We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 5, 7, 10 and 12 not separately argued. DECISION The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 rejections of claims 1-15 are affirmed. 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 ). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(v). AFFIRMED 8