Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 1, 2021

2020003575 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2021)

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.
16/112,633 08/24/2018 Ravi Kuchibhotla SMM01751-US-CNT 1078
73635 7590 11/01/2021
Loppnow & Chapa [Motorola]
P.O. Box 7588
Libertyville, IL 60048
EXAMINER
CUNNINGHAM, KEVIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2021 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.mobility@motorola.com
docketing@loppchap.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RAVI KUCHIBHOTLA, ROBERT T. LOVE,
VIJAY NANGIA, RAVIKIRAN NORY and
AJIT NIMBALKER
____________________

Appeal 2020-003575
Application 16/112,6331
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4–11, and 13–18.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s invention is a method and apparatus for low latency
transmissions. A first set of time-frequency resources in a subframe can be

1 Appellant states that the real party in interest is Motorola Mobility LLC.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 3 and 12 stand objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base
claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
Appeal 2020-003575
Application 16/112,633

2
determined from a resource assignment. A second set of time-frequency
resources can be used for a second latency data transmission. A first latency
data transmission in the subframe can be decoded based on the determined
first and second set of time-frequency resources. The first latency
transmission can have a longer latency than the second latency transmission.
Abstract.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a resource assignment;
determining a first set of time-frequency resources in a subframe from
the resource assignment;
determining a second set of time-frequency resources in the subframe,
the second set of time-frequency resources used for a second latency data
transmission, and the second set of time-frequency resources overlapping
with at least a portion of the first set of time-frequency
resources; and
decoding a first latency data transmission in the subframe based on
the determined first and second set of time-frequency resources, where the
first latency transmission has a longer latency than the second latency
transmission,
wherein the subframe is a first subframe, and
wherein the method further comprises receiving higher layer signaling
in a subframe earlier than the first subframe, where the higher layer
comprises a layer higher than a physical layer, and where the higher layer
signaling indicates a set of orthogonal frequency multiplexed symbols
including time-frequency resources used for the second latency data
Appeal 2020-003575
Application 16/112,633

3
transmission where a marker signal may be transmitted.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Chen US 2016/0234857 A1 Aug. 11, 2016
Byun US 2018/0110062 A1

Apr. 19, 2018

Claims 1, 2, 4–11, and 13–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Chen and Byun.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed August 31, 2019), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
March 6, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 9,
2019) for their respective details.

ISSUES
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issues:
1. Does the combination of Chen and Byun teach or suggest higher
layer signaling indicating a set of orthogonal frequency multiplexed symbols
Appeal 2020-003575
Application 16/112,633

4
including time-frequency resources used for the second latency transmission
where a marker signal may be transmitted?
2. Does the combination of Chen and Byun teach or suggest receiving
higher layer signaling in a subframe earlier than the first subframe?
3. Does the Examiner articulate reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness over Chen and
Byun?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Our reviewing court has held that “[a] reference may be said to teach
away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led
in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re
Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “receiving higher layer signaling in
a subframe earlier than the first subframe, . . . and where the higher layer
signaling indicates a set of orthogonal frequency multiplexed symbols
including time-frequency resources used for the second latency data
transmission where a marker signal may be transmitted.”
Appellant makes three arguments for the patentability of claim 1 over
Chen and Byun. First, Appellant argues that Chen does not disclose
indicating time-frequency resources used for the claimed second latency
transmission where a marker signal may be transmitted. Appeal Br. 7.
Appeal 2020-003575
Application 16/112,633

5
Second, Appellant argues that the combination of Chen and Byun does not
teach receiving higher layer signaling in a subframe earlier than the first
subframe. Appeal Br. 11. Third, Appellant argues that the Examiner did not
supply required articulated reasoning why receiving higher layer signaling in
an earlier subframe would have been obvious. Appeal Br. 12.
Marker Signal
Appellant contends that Chen does not teach the claimed marker
signal and “only discloses a low latency indicator that indicates where and
when or the presence of low latency communications are occurring.” Appeal
Br. 7. Chen “discloses the indication of low latency operations in
neighboring cells may be signaled in the middle of subframe, at the end of a
Subframe, or in a subsequent subframe, or all three.” Appeal Br. 8, citing
Chen ¶ 38.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. First, we note that Appellant’s
Specification operationally defines the disclosed “marker signal” as
“indicat[ing] a presence of low latency data transmission in the subframe.”
Spec. ¶ 34. Next, we agree with the Examiner’s finding, as admitted by
Appellant, that Chen teaches an indication that discloses the frequency
resources used by low latency communication. Appeal Br. 8; Final Act. 3.
Chen teaches that “the receiving device may receive an indicator from a
transmitting device that informs the receiving device where and when low
latency communications are occurring . . . . “[T]he indication may disclose
the frequency resources that are used by the low latency communication and
which symbols are being used.” Chen ¶ 7. We thus agree with the Examiner
that Chen teaches an indicator that functions just as Appellant’s “marker
Appeal 2020-003575
Application 16/112,633

6
signal” functions, to indicate a presence of low latency data transmission in
the subframe.
Appellant further argues against the Examiner’s correspondence
between “indication” of Chen’s control channel 312 to the claimed “marker
signal.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant contends that Chen does not disclose
“indicating where a marker signal may be transmitted,” and that Chen only
discloses that an indicator “is included at some point after the low latency
transmission 315.” Id.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner
that control channel 312 of Chen “includes the indication of low latency
communication which is clearly in the ‘same set of resources’ as the low
latency communications.” Final Act. 6; Chen Fig. 3. “[A] control channel
312 at the beginning of slot 1, within the first data region 310-a may indicate
a low latency transmission 315 in slot 0.” Chen ¶ 72.
Higher layer signaling in an earlier subframe
Appellant argues that Byun does not teach receiving higher level
signaling in a Subframe earlier than the first Subframe. Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant asserts that Byun teaches “an indicator indicating whether there
exists or not transmission frequency band allocation information for sTTIs in
a next Subframe . . . may be included into the Downlink Control Information
(DCI) format of the current common PDCCH.” Id., citing Byun ¶ 130.
Appellant contends that Byun discloses that the indicator for a next
Subframe is provided using a physical channel, PDCCH, not using higher
level signaling, such as the RRC, that is higher than the physical layer. Id.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, that Byun teaches receiving higher layer signaling in a subframe
Appeal 2020-003575
Application 16/112,633

7
earlier than the first subframe. Final Act. 3. Byun teaches that “a base station
(eNB) notifies, using the RRC [Radio Resource Control], a terminal device
with a low latency service of allocation of a frequency resource for a sTTI.”
Byun ¶ 114. The Examiner further finds that Byun teaches that “RRC
signaling may be used to convey some of the information or items 1 to 11
[the information included in the Downlink Control Information (DCI)
format].” Byun ¶ 142.
Byun further teaches that information that is “not changed between
the subframes may be transmitted by the RRC.” Ans. 6; Byun ¶¶ 114, 148.
We agree with the Examiner that Byun thus suggests that information
transmitted by the RRC does not change often and is applicable to
subsequent subframes. Ans. 6. This applicability to subsequent subframes
suggests the claim requirement of higher level signaling in an earlier
subframe. Ans. 6–7. As mentioned supra, Byun teaches that RRC signaling
may be used to convey some of the information or any of the items 1–11 [of
DCI]. Ans. 7; Byun ¶ 142. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
this teaching in Byun corresponds to higher-level signaling indicating a set
of orthogonal frequency multiplexed symbols including time-frequency
resources used for the second latency transmission where a marker signal
may be transmitted, as claim 1 requires.
Motivation to Combine
Appellant argues that the Examiner did not supply the required
reasoning why modifying Chen in view of Byun would have been obvious.
Appeal Br. 13. Appellant contends that Chen teaches away from claimed
invention, in that Chen discloses the benefits of receiving indication of low
latency transmission after, rather than before, the low latency transmission
Appeal 2020-003575
Application 16/112,633

8
has occurred. Id. Appellant further asserts that the Examiner did not explain
why it would have been obvious to modify Chen to include the higher layer
signaling taught by Chen. Appeal Br. 16–17.
Appellant’s motivation argument is not persuasive. First, a conclusion
that a reference teaches away from combination requires the determination
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be discouraged from
following the path set forth in the reference, or would be led in a direction
divergent from the path taken by Appellant. See Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553.
Chen’s teaching of embodiments in which indication of low latency
transmission occurs subsequent to such transmission is not equivalent to
discouraging indication in an earlier subframe. Second, Appellant’s
contention that Chen teaches higher level signaling in a later subframe is
inconsistent with Chen Figure 3, where the indicator/marker signal is
transmitted in the same set of resources as the low latency transmissions.
Ans. 10.
Appellant’s argument that the Examiner did not provide a reason for
the obviousness of modifying Chen in view of Byun is not persuasive to
show Examiner error. The Examiner has identified the desirability of
modifying Chen to convey information such as an indicator indicating
resource allocation for sTTIs in a subsequent subframe, i.e., “to dynamically
allocate resources in sTTI and improve systems for low latency.” Final Act.
3; Ans. 5. As discussed supra, Byun teaches that higher level (i.e., RRC)
signaling may be used to convey some of the DCI information of Chen.
Byun further teaches that information that does not change between
subframes can be transmitted using RRC, thus suggesting the desirability of
Appeal 2020-003575
Application 16/112,633

9
higher level signaling that takes place in an earlier subframe. Ans. 10; Byun
¶¶ 142, 148.
We determine that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1 under
§ 103 over Chen and Byun. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1.
Claim 10
Independent claim 10 recites, in pertinent part, “wherein the
transceiver receives higher level signaling in a Subframe earlier than the first
subframe, where the higher layer comprises a layer higher than a physical
layer, and where the higher layer signaling indicates a set of orthogonal
frequency multiplexed symbols including time-frequency resources used for
the second latency data transmission where a marker signal may be
transmitted.”
Appellant presents the same arguments with respect to independent
claim 10 that were made with respect to independent claim 1, the rejection
of which we sustain supra. Appeal Br. 21–31. As we discussed with respect
to claim 1, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of
Chen and Byun teaches higher level signaling indicating a set of orthogonal
frequency multiplexed symbols including time-frequency resources used for
the second latency data transmission where a marker signal may be
transmitted. We further agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would
have been obvious to modify Chen in view of Byun to receive higher level
signaling in a subframe earlier than the first subframe. We determine that the
Examiner provided a rationale to combine Chen with Byun having a rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Appeal 2020-003575
Application 16/112,633

10
We determine that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 10
under § 103 over Chen and Byun. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 10.
Claims 2 and 4–9
Appellant argues for the patentability of claim 2 by repeating its
arguments made for independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 33–36. As analyzed
supra, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant further asserts that the combination of Chen and Byun does
not teach or suggest “determining the second set of time-frequency resources
based on the marker signal,” because the indicator of Chen allegedly “does
not indicate where itself may be transmitted.” Appeal Br. 36. We are not
persuaded by Appellant’s argument because we do not agree with
Appellant’s characterization of Chen. As discussed with reference to claim
1, Chen teaches that “the receiving device may receive an indicator from a
transmitting device that informs the receiving device where and when low
latency communications are occurring . . . . “[T]he indication may disclose
the frequency resources that are used by the low latency communication and
which symbols are being used.” Chen ¶ 7; Ans. 23, 25.
As we determine that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 2
under § 103 over Chen and Byun, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 2, as well as claims 4-9 dependent therefrom and not separately
argued.
Claims 11 and 13–18
Appellant argues for the patentability of claim 11 by repeating its
arguments made for independent claim 10. Appeal Br. 38–42. As analyzed
supra, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
Appeal 2020-003575
Application 16/112,633

11
Appellant further presents the same arguments made for dependent
claim 2. Appeal Br. 41. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, for
the reasons given supra with respect to claim 2. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 11, as well as claims 13–18 dependent
therefrom and not separately argued.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Chen and Byun suggests higher layer signaling
indicating a set of orthogonal frequency multiplexed symbols including
time-frequency resources used for the second latency transmission where a
marker signal may be transmitted.
2. The combination of Chen and Byun suggests receiving higher layer
signaling in a subframe earlier than the first subframe.
3. The Examiner articulates reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness over Chen and
Byun.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–11,
13–18
103 Chen, Byun 1, 2, 4–11,
13–18

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–11, and 13–18 is
affirmed.
Appeal 2020-003575
Application 16/112,633

12
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED