Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2017

13356210 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/356,210 01/23/2012 Goudong Zhang I-2-0661US03 8121
24374 7590 03/31/2017
VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C.
DEPT. ICC
UNITED PLAZA
30 SOUTH 17TH STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
EXAMINER
SABOURI, MAZDA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2017 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):
eoffice @ volpe-koenig. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GOUDONG ZHANG, STEPHEN E. TERRY, and
STEPHEN G. DICK
Appeal 2016-003767
Application 13/356,210
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8, 11, and 12. Claims 3 and 7
have been canceled. See App. Br. 11—14. Claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn.
Id. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is InterDigital
Technology Corporation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-003767
Application 13/356,210
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to implementing an enhanced
uplink dedicated channel (EU-DCH) inter-Node-B serving cell change in a
multi-cell wireless communication system, such as a frequency division
duplex (FDD) or time division duplex (TDD) system. Spec. 12. Claim 1,
which is representative, reads as follows:
1. A wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising:
a receiver configured to receive first scheduling
information from a first serving cell and to not receive the first
scheduling information from non-serving cells;
a transmitter configured to transmit enhanced uplink data
as medium access control (MAC) protocol data units (PDUs)
using a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process to at
least the first serving cell based on the received first scheduling
information; wherein each of the MAC PDUs includes a
transmission sequence number;
wherein the transmitted enhanced uplink data uses radio
link control (RLC) PDUs and a sequence number;
wherein the receiver is further configured to receive a
radio resource control (RRC) message indicating a change to a
second serving cell for enhanced uplink; wherein the receiver is
further configured to receive second scheduling information
from the second serving cell and not from non-serving cells;
wherein the change to the second serving cell is an inter-Node-B
cell change; and
wherein the transmitter is further configured in response
to the change to the second serving cell, to retransmit
unacknowledged MAC PDUs transmitted prior to the change to
the second serving cell to at least the second serving cell; wherein
the transmission sequence numbers of each of the retransmitted
MAC PDUs is unchanged from the respective originally
transmitted MAC PDUs;
2
Appeal 2016-003767
Application 13/356,210
wherein the transmitter is further configured to transmit a
message indicating completion of the inter-Node-B cell change;
wherein the HARQ process is not reset in response to the
change to the second serving cell.
Rejection
Claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Applicants Admitted
Prior Art (US Application No. 13/356,210, Background section; filed Jan.
23, 2012) (“AAPA”) and Soderstrom et al. (US 2004/0146033 Al;
published July 29, 2004) (“Soderstrom”). Final Act. 3—7.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of AAPA and
Soderstrom teaches or suggests the limitations recited in claim 1 ?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the
reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2—7; Ans. 2—6. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants do not separately argue claims 1,2, 4—6, 8, 11, and 12.
See App. Br. 8—11; Reply Br. 2-4. We select claim 1 as representative.
3
Appeal 2016-003767
Application 13/356,210
Accordingly, claims 2, 4—6, 8, 11, and 12 stand or fall with claim 1. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 1
Contention 1
Appellants contend the combination of AAPA and Soderstrom fails to
teach or suggest “wherein each of the MAC PDUs includes a transmission
sequence number” and a “transmitter is further configured in response to the
change to the second serving cell, to retransmit unacknowledged MAC
PDUs transmitted prior to the change to the second serving cell to at least
the second serving cell,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8—10; Reply Br. 2—
3.
Regarding the disputed limitations, the Examiner finds AAPA teaches
“transmissions (~PDUs) from a WTRU are processed at the MAC layer, and
that the MAC layer is processed on the network side at the Node-B.” Ans. 3
(citing AAPA H 5, 6). The Examiner also finds “[t]hose same PDUs are
processed at the RLC layer by the RNC [Radio Network Controller].”
Ans. 3 (citing AAPA || 5, 6). The Examiner further finds:
AAPA further teaches in paragraph 6 that “Node B MAC
entity would be responsible for scheduling and assignment of
physical resources, and the re-ordering function would be
incorporated in the system for in-sequence delivery to the RNC. ”
In order to ensure this ‘in-sequence’ delivery by the Node-B to
the RNC, there would need to be sequence numbering at the
MAC layer at which the Node-B processes the PDUs. The same
sequence numbering is used by the PDUs when processed at the
RLC layer by the RNC.
Ans. 3^4. Moreover, the Examiner finds AAPA teaches that “the source
Node-B (which as noted above, processes PDUs at the MAC layer) using
4
Appeal 2016-003767
Application 13/356,210
sequence numbering for PDUs received from the WTRU prior to serving
cell change.” Ans. 4 (citing AAPA, Fig. 2; 110). Based on these findings,
the Examiner concludes AAPA teaches or suggests the disputed limitations.
Ans. 4.
Appellants contend the applied references fail to teach or suggest the
disputed limitations because AAPA is silent regarding the use of MAC
PDUs. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2—3. According to Appellants, the cited
paragraphs of AAPA, instead, “refer to the use of RLC [radio link control
(App. Br. 8)] PDUs and SNs of RLC PDUs.” App. Br. 9 (citing Spec., Fig.
2; 114, 5, 7, 10, 11); Reply Br. 2.
We find AAPA teaches that “there could be several independent
uplink transmissions processed between a wireless transmit/receive unit
(WTRU) and a universal terrestrial radio access network (UTRAN) within a
common time interval” and that one example of these independent
transmissions includes a MAC layer hybrid automatic repeat request
(HARQ) operation. AAPA 1 5. Further, AAPA teaches that the NodeB
includes a MAC entity for scheduling and assignment of physical resources.
AAPA 1 6; Fig. 1. Appellants provide no explanation for why transmissions
between the WTRU and the NodeB, as taught by AAPA, are not the
transmission of “MAC PDUs,” as recited. As such, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred.
Contention 2
Appellants further contend the combination of AAPA and Soderstrom
does not teach or suggest “a receiver configured to receive first scheduling
information from a first serving cell and to not receive the first scheduling
5
Appeal 2016-003767
Application 13/356,210
information from non-serving cells,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10;
Reply Br. 3. Appellants contend AAPA does not teach or suggest that the
WTRU does not receive the first scheduling information from non-serving
cells but, instead, teaches “[t]he Node B MAC entity would be responsible
for scheduling and assignment of physical resources, and the re-ordering
function would be incorporated in the system for in-sequence delivery to the
RNC.” App. Br. 10 (citing Spec. 16); see also Reply Br. 3.
We do not find Appellants’ contention persuasive. The Examiner
finds AAPA teaches that the WTRU receives scheduling information from
the wireless network to which the WTRU is currently connected. Ans. 4
(citing AAPA 14). AAPA, therefore, teaches or suggests that the WTRU
receives first scheduling information from a first serving cell. We agree
with the Examiner (Ans. 5) that AAPA does not teach that the WTRU
receives scheduling information from a non-serving cell. See AAPA || 3—
12. Because the scheduling information is received by the WTRU from the
first serving cell and AAPA does not teach that the WTRU receives
scheduling information from a non-serving cell, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in finding AAPA teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders
obvious the disputed limitation.
Contention 3
Appellants further contend the combination of AAPA and Soderstrom
does not teach or suggest “wherein the transmission sequence numbers of
each retransmitted MAC PDUs is unchanged from the respective originally
transmitted MAC PDUs,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10—11. Appellants
contend:
6
Appeal 2016-003767
Application 13/356,210
The final action refers to Sonderstrom et al. as teaching that
feature. However, Sonderstrom et al. is not referring to
retransmitted MAC PDUs, but is referring to the ARQ
mechanism used by the RLC layer. See Sonderstrom et al.
paragraph [0024] “The RLC sub-layer provides ARQ
functionality closely coupled with the radio transmission
technique used.” As a result, Sonderstrom et al. does not disclose
that the transmission sequence numbers of the retransmitted
MAC PDUs are unchanged. As shown in Figure 4, of the present
application, the RNC includes the RLC entity, so the RLC ARQ
of Sonderstrom et al. is not the same as the MAC HARQ of the
present application.
App. Br. 10-11.
We do not find Appellants’ contention persuasive. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425—
26 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here,
the Examiner finds “AAPA teaches the PDUs having sequence numbering
not just at the RLC layer, but also at the MAC layer.” Ans. 5. The
Examiner finds Soderstrom teaches “having the ARQ process (~HARQ
process as taught by AAPA . . .) handled on the network side by an RNC
such that during a handover between two Node Bs (-inter NodeB serving
cell change as taught by AAPA), the RNC and the ARQ process it handles
remains unchanged.” Ans. 5—6 (citing AAPA | 5; Soderstrom 149)
(internal citations omitted). The Examiner, therefore, relies on the combined
teachings of AAPA and Soderstrom for teaching or suggesting the disputed
limitation. Appellants’ contention fails to address the combined teachings of
the references and, therefore, is unpersuasive of error.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1; and claims 2, 4—6, 8, 11, and 12, which fall therewith.
7
Appeal 2016-003767
Application 13/356,210
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8, 11, and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8