Motorola Mobility LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2021

2020005613 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 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.
15/922,323 03/15/2018 Ziad Ahmad SMM02251-US-NP 9490
73635 7590 12/30/2021
Loppnow & Chapa [Motorola]
P.O. Box 7588
Libertyville, IL 60048
EXAMINER
MAK, PETER K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2413
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2021 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 ZIAD AHMAD, HYEJUNG JUNG and
VIJAY NANGIA
___________

Appeal 2020-005613
Application 15/922,323
Technology Center 2400

____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JASON V. MORGAN and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Appeal Brief 4–8. Claims 1 and 16 are
independent. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s
determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 13, 2020), the
Reply Brief (filed July 27, 2020), the Final Action (mailed October 28,
2019) and the Answer (mailed May 26, 2020), for the respective details.

2 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. 1.42(a). (“The word
‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint
Appeal 2020-005613
Application 15/922,323
2

We reverse.
Introduction
According to Appellant:
The present disclosure is directed to a method and apparatus
having synchronization signal sequence structure for low
complexity cell detection, and more particularly, a
synchronization signal sequence structure, where each one of an
established set of synchronization signal sequences includes a
first and a second subsequence formed from a respective
preselected sequence or a complex conjugate of the preselected
sequence.
Specification 1:5–10.
By including multiple different sub-sequences in each of the
plurality of synchronization signal sequences, where each of the
sub-sequences for the different synchronization signals are
alternatively formed using a particular sequence or its related
complex conjugate, the complexity of cell detection can be
reduced.
Specification 2:14–19.

inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45,
or 1.46.”). Appellant identifies “Motorola Mobility LLC, a Delaware
corporation, and subsidiary of Lenovo Group Ltd., a Chinese corporation” as
the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 2.

Appeal 2020-005613
Application 15/922,323
3

Representative Claim3 (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method in a user equipment, the method comprising:
establishing a set of a plurality of synchronization signal sequences,
where each of the synchronization signal sequences from the set is to be used in
connection with a different one of potential respective communication targets,
and where each one of the plurality of synchronization signal sequences
comprises
at least a first sub-sequence, which includes either a first
preselected sequence or a complex conjugate of the first preselected
sequence, and a second sub-sequence, which includes either a second
preselected sequence or a complex conjugate of the second
preselected sequence,
where the second preselected sequence is different than the first
preselected sequence, and is different than the complex conjugate of the
first preselected sequence, and
where a length of the first sub-sequence and a length of the second
sub-sequence are smaller than a length of the synchronization signal
sequence, and the length of the first sub-sequence is the same as the
length of the second sub-sequence;

3 Appellant does not argue independent claims 1 or 16 individually. See
Appeal Brief 4. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as
representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“When multiple claims
subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by
appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group or subgroup
and may decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the
group or subgroup on the basis of the selected claim alone.”).
Appeal 2020-005613
Application 15/922,323
4

receiving a signal including a synchronization signal, where the
synchronization signal comprises one of the synchronization signal sequences
from the set of the plurality of synchronization signal sequences; and
detecting a particular one of the synchronization signal sequences of the
set of the plurality of synchronization signal sequences for use in identifying a
particular one of the potential respective communication targets.
References
Name4 Reference Date
Agee US 2008/0232238 A1 September 25, 2008
Sartori US 2015/0124579 A1 May 7, 2015
Pu US 2016/0183170 A1 June 23, 2016
Kim US 2018/0294910 A1 October 11, 2018
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 16–18, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim. Final Action 2–10.
Claims 4 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kim and Sartori. Final Action 11–12.
Claims 7–10 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kim and Pu. Final Action 12–16.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Kim and Agee. Final Action 16–17.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection
Appellant contends:
The Examiner has rejected claims 1–3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 16–18 and
20 under 35 U.S.C. §102, as being anticipated by Kim et al., US
Published Patent Application No. 2018/0294910. However, in

4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.

Appeal 2020-005613
Application 15/922,323
5

applying the reference to the noted claims, at least some of the
elements of the claims cannot be accounted for in the teachings of
the relied upon reference.
Appeal Brief 4.
Figure 9 is reproduced below:

Appeal 2020-005613
Application 15/922,323
6

Figure 9 shows “a flow diagram for receiving and detecting a synchronization
signal in a user equipment having a synchronization signal sequence structure
supporting low complexity cell detection.” Specification 6:7–9.
At 902, a set of a plurality of synchronization signal sequences is
established, which is to be used in connection with a communication
target. Each one of the plurality of synchronization signal sequences
904 comprises at least a first sub-sequence, which includes either a
first preselected sequence or a complex conjugate of the first
preselected sequence, and a second sub-sequence, which includes
either a second preselected sequence or a complex conjugate of the
second preselected sequence 906. The second preselected sequence
is different than the first preselected sequence, and is different than
the complex conjugate of the first preselected sequence 908. Further,
a length of the first sub-sequence and a length of the second sub-
sequence are smaller than a length of the synchronization signal
sequence 910. A signal including a synchronization signal is then
received 912, where the synchronization signal comprises one of the
synchronization signal sequences from the set of the plurality of
synchronization signal sequences, and the synchronization signal is
then detected 914.
Specification 14:19–15:2.
The Examiner explains in the Answer that Kim “describes a method for
transmitting an SSS” wherein the “BS [base station] generates K first sequences
of length Mk (i.e., the first preselected sequence) and K second sequences (or
scrambling sequences) of length Mk. (i.e., the second preselected sequence[)] is a
scrambling sequence” and therefore “the second preselected sequence is
different than the first preselected sequence.” Answer 6 (citing Kim ¶¶ 317–18).
Appellant contends that “the Examiner focuses on two identified
sequences, which are multiplied together to form a sub-sequence of the SSS.
However, the two sequences themselves are not individually, separate sub-
sequences of the SSS. It is their product which forms one particular sub-
sequence.” Appeal Brief 6; see Reply Brief 2. “‘For a prior art reference to
Appeal 2020-005613
Application 15/922,323
7

anticipate in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102, every element of the claimed
invention must be identically shown in a single reference.’” In re Bond, 910
F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quoting Diversitech Corp. v. Century Steps,
Inc., 850 F.2d 675, 677 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Here, we find Appellant’s
argument persuasive of Examiner error.
Figure 19 of Kim is reproduced below:

Figure 19 “is a view illustrating another method for transmitting an SSS
[secondary synchronization signal] in a specific subframe in the NB-IoT
[narrowband internet of things] system” (Kim ¶ 317).

Referring to FIG. 19, the BS generates K first sequences of length
Mk and K second sequences (or scrambling sequences) of length Mk.
The lengths of the first sequences gk(n) and the second sequences
sin) generated by the BS may be set to be equal. The BS may
generate sub-sequences (or third sequences) by multiplying gk(n) by
sk(n) element-wise, for transmission in OFDM [orthogonal
frequency division multiplexing] symbols. Herein, the BS may
insert ‘0s’ in remaining RE [resource element] areas, when the sub-
Appeal 2020-005613
Application 15/922,323
8

sequences are generated according to the amount of data
transmittable in each OFDM symbol.
Kim ¶ 318 (emphasis added).
We agree with Appellant in regard to both independent claims 1 and
16 that:
the teachings of [Kim] fail to account for each and every feature
of the claims, where the relationship in the first and second sub-
sequences which are used to form each of a plurality of
synchronization signal sequences as part of the established set,
each have two sub-sequences that are separately derived from
members of two respective complex conjugate pairs, which are
different from each other.
Appeal Brief 6–7 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record, and reverse the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of both independent claims 1 and 16, as
well as, dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18 and 20.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 4,
7–10, 13, 15 and 19 for the same reasons stated above. Neither Sartori, Pu nor
Agee address the noted deficiency of Kim.

Appeal 2020-005613
Application 15/922,323
9

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 6, 11,
12, 14, 16–18,
20
102 Kim 1–3, 5, 6,
11, 12, 14,
16–18, 20
4, 19 103 Kim, Sartori 4, 19
7–10, 13 103 Kim, Pu 7–10, 13
15 103 Kim, Agee 15
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED