QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 4, 2020

14599775 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2020)

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.
14/599,775 01/19/2015 Aamod D. Khandekar 081352USC01 8228
15055 7590 06/04/2020
Patterson + Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
SKRIPNIKOV, ALEX
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2416
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2020 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):
PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AAMOD D. KHANDEKAR,
JUAN MONTOJO, and AVANEESH AGRAWAL
Appeal 2019-002086
Application 14/599,775
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–20 and 23. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies QUALCOMM Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002086
Application 14/599,775
2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to defining new control channels in legacy
wireless networks. Spec. Abstract.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A method for receiving control data over non-legacy control
channels in a wireless communication network, comprising:
receiving, by a wireless communications apparatus, non-
legacy control data over a set of non-legacy control data
resources, wherein the set of non-legacy control data resources
are defined within general data communication resources of a
legacy frame, and wherein the non­legacy control data
comprises at least one of an uplink or downlink resource
assignment assigned to the wireless communications apparatus
for transmitting general data communications thereover; and
decoding the non-legacy control data.
REFERENCE
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Ahmadi US 2008/0095195 A1 Apr. 24, 2008
Cai US 2009/0185632 A1 July 23, 2009
Ho-A-Chuck US 5,828,962 Oct. 27, 1998
Kobayashi US 6,721,564 B1 Apr. 13, 2004
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–12, 14–17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ahmadi and Cai.2 Final Act. 2–5.

2 Although claim 23 is also initially listed, see Final Act. 2, it is not
substantively analyzed under this rejection and instead is analyzed under its
own rejection as noted below. Id. at 2–5.
Appeal 2019-002086
Application 14/599,775
3
Claim 23 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Ahmadi, Cai, and Kobayashi. Final Act. 5.
Claims 3, 8, 13, and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Ahmadi, Cai, and Ho-A-Chuck. Final Act. 6.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Cai teaches or suggests “the
non-legacy control data comprises at least one of an uplink or downlink
resource assignment assigned to the wireless communications apparatus for
transmitting general data communications thereover,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “the non-legacy control data comprises at least one of
an uplink or downlink resource assignment assigned to the wireless
communications apparatus for transmitting general data communications
thereover.” Independent claims 6, 11, and 16 recite commensurate
limitations.
The Examiner finds that Cai “discloses the Frame Sync and Control
signal 200 defines the subframe structure of the entire frame,” including “the
directionality 202 of each subframe (i.e., whether the subframe is used for
downlink or uplink transmissions).” Ans. 3–4 (citing Cai ¶ 65, Fig. 2).
According to the Examiner, in Cai, the word “‘uplink’ refers to
transmissions from a Mobile Station (MS) to a Base Station (BS)” whereas
the word “‘downlink’ refers to transmission from BS to MS.” Id. at 4 (citing
Cai ¶ 19). Therefore, the Examiner determines that “a person of ordinary
skill in the art will understand that the Frame Sync and Control signal 200 is
a resource assignment because MS uses Frame Sync and Control signal 200
Appeal 2019-002086
Application 14/599,775
4
to determine when to use the resource (subframe) for transmission to the BS
(uplink) and when to expect transmissions from the BS (downlink).” Id.
Appellant argues that although “Frame Sync and Control signal 200
provides . . . information indicating . . . which of the subframes . . . are
uplink subframes and which are downlink subframes,” it fails to indicate
“which of these subframes . . . are assigned to the first wireless apparatus”
as opposed to being “assigned to a completely different second wireless
apparatus.” Appeal Br. 10.
We agree with Appellant. The Specification explains that “[t]he
resource allocation component 206 can assign one or more RBs to the
wireless device 302 and/or other legacy wireless devices.” Spec. ¶ 54. Even
if Cai taught a “special case” where there was only a single sender and a
single recipient, see Cai ¶ 19, the claims require that “the non-legacy control
data comprises . . . [the] resource assignment assigned to the wireless
communications apparatus,” not that the assignment can be inferred from the
control data. Therefore, the Examiner has not sufficiently shown how Cai’s
directionality teaches or suggests this limitation.
The Examiner does not rely upon the additional references Kobayashi
and Ho-A-Chuck to make up for the deficiency in Cai.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–
20 and 23.
Appeal 2019-002086
Application 14/599,775
5
DECISION
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–7, 9–12,
14–17, 19, 20
§ 103 Ahmadi, Cai 1, 2, 4–7, 9–12,
14–17, 19, 20
23 § 103 Ahmadi, Cai,
Kobayashi
23
3, 8, 13, 18 § 103 Ahmadi, Cai,
Ho-A-Chuck
3, 8, 13, 18
OVERALL 1–20, 23
REVERSED