QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 18, 2021

2020003179 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 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.
15/713,593 09/22/2017 Tao LUO 129025-0141UT01/170760 4125
123305 7590 08/18/2021
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP/Qualcomm
525 B Street, Suite 2200
San Diego, CA 92101
EXAMINER
LEE, ANDREW CHUNG CHEUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2411
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/18/2021 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@procopio.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TAO LUO,
MAKESH PRAVIN JOHN WILSON,
SUMEETH NAGARAJA, and
SONY AKKARAKARAN

Appeal 2020-003179
Application 15/713,593
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 5–12, 14–21, 23, and 25–31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1
appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Qualcomm
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2020-003179
Application 15/713,593

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 5–12, 14–21, 23, and 25–31 in the
Final Office Action under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Parkvall et
al. ((US 2017/0331577 A1, published Nov. 16, 2017) (“Parkvall”) and Lin et
al. (US 2018/0049169 A1, published Feb. 15, 2018) (“Lin”)). Final Act. 2.
The rejection is repeated in the Answer. Ans. 3.
There are four independent claims on appeal, claims 1, 10, 19, and 28.
Claim 1 is directed to a method, claims 10 and 19 to user equipment, and
claim 28 to a base station. Claims 10 and 19 recite substantially the same
limitations as claim, although varying how the method is deployed on the
user equipment. Claim 28, however, has a different scope than claims 1, 10,
and 19, and we have considered it separately.
Claim 1 is selected as representative of claims 10 and 19, and the
claims which depend from them. Claim 1 is reproduced below, annotated
with bracketed numbers for reference to the specific limitations in the claim.
Claim 28 is also reproduced below.
1. A method of wireless communication by a user equipment
(UE), comprising:
[1] receiving, at the UE, a downlink assignment or an
uplink grant comprising an indication of assigned resources,
from a base station, for communicating with the base station;
[2] determining, at the UE, [2a] based at least in part on
the indication of the assigned resources received from the base
station in the downlink assignment or the uplink grant, [2b] a
numerology from among a plurality of numerologies, [2c]
wherein the plurality of numerologies comprises [2ci] a first
numerology having at least a first subcarrier spacing or a first
symbol duration and [2cii] a second numerology having a
second subcarrier spacing or a second symbol duration;
Appeal 2020-003179
Application 15/713,593

3
[3] determining, at the UE, one or more indices for the
assigned resources based on the numerology determined from
among the plurality of numerologies;
[4] generating, at the UE, [4a] a sequence based on the
one or more indices [4b] that are determined by the UE based
on the numerology [4c] that is determined by the UE from
among the plurality of numerologies; and
[5] communicating with the base station based on the
sequence.

28. A base station for wireless communication, comprising:
a memory; and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to
cause the base station to:
determine a numerology from among a plurality of
numerologies, wherein the plurality of numerologies comprises
a first numerology having a first subcarrier spacing or a first
symbol duration and a second numerology having a second
subcarrier spacing or a second symbol duration,
assign a resource for use by a user equipment,
signal the an indication of the numerology to the user
equipment, determined from among the plurality of
numerologies, in a downlink assignment or an uplink grant,
and
communicate with the user equipment over the assigned
resource based on the numerology signaled to the user
equipment in the indication.

DISCUSSION
Claim 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method of wireless communication. As
explained in the Specification, “[w]ireless communication systems are
widely deployed to provide various telecommunication services such as
telephony, video, data, messaging, and broadcasts.” Spec. 3. The method
comprises step [1] of receiving an indication of assigned resources,
determining, in step [2] a numerology based on the assigned resources, and
Appeal 2020-003179
Application 15/713,593

4
determining, in step [3], indices for the assigned resources of step [1] based
on the numerology of step [2]. A sequence is generated in step [4] based on
the indices. Communicating with the base station is performed in step [5].
The Examiner found that Parkvall describes steps [1]–[3] and [5] of
claim 1, but not step [4] of “generating, at the UE, [4a] a sequence based on
the one or more indices [4b] that are determined by the UE based on the
numerology [4c] that is determined by the UE from among the plurality of
numerologies.” Final Act. 2–5. For this step of the claim, the Examiner cited
Lin. Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner found it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify Parkvall with Lin to provide “a method
and apparatus for determining numerology bandwidth in a wireless
communication system.” Final Act. 6.
In step [1] of claim 1, a downlink assignment or uplink grant, is
received at the user equipment, UE, “comprising an indication of assigned
resources, from a base station, for communicating with the base station.”
There is no express definition of “assigned resources” in the
Specification. However, based on the disclosure in the Specification,2 we
interpret the “assigned resources” to comprise the subcarriers (the sidebands
of the carrier waveforms), symbol (waveform) duration, and resource blocks
comprising the subcarriers (Spec. ¶ 44) received by the UE from the base

2 During patent examination proceedings, claim terms are given “the
broadest reasonable meaning . . . in their ordinary usage as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
the written description contained in the applicant's specification.” In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appeal 2020-003179
Application 15/713,593

5
station. The following disclosure from the Specification is consistent with
this interpretation:
Networks that support 5G communication may support
different numerologies (e.g., at least one of a subcarrier
spacing or a symbol duration associated with the assigned
resources) across and even within a subframe or symbol. For
example, two different subframes may have different subcarrier
spacing, symbols within a subframe may have different
subcarrier spacing, and resource blocks within a symbol may
have different subcarrier spacing.
Spec. ¶ 7 (emphasis added).

The UE may also be configured to determine a numerology
comprising at least one of a subcarrier spacing or a symbol
duration associated with the assigned resources.
Spec. ¶ 8.
In another aspect, base stations and/or UEs may be assigned
resources (e.g., RBs [resource blocks]) of different
numerologies.
Spec. ¶ 105.
The Examiner found step [1] of claim 1 to be disclosed by Parkvall,
identifying various disclosures from Parkvall (¶¶ 10, 432, 33, 443–445, 527,
528, 643–645, 653–656) as describing the recited step. Ans. 4. The
Examiner did not specifically articulate which of these disclosures describes
“assigned resources,” and the term did not appear in any of the disclosures in
Parkvall cited by the Examiner.
Step [2] of claim 1 comprises determining the numerology (subcarrier
spacings) “based at least in part on the indication of the assigned resources
received from the base station in the downlink assignment or the uplink
grant.” In other words, the numerology is determined from the subcarriers
and resource blocks of the assigned resources. “Numerology” is a term used
Appeal 2020-003179
Application 15/713,593

6
in wireless technology to refer to, inter alia, the specific subcarrier spacing
and resource blocks. See Spec. ¶¶ 58–62; Parkvall ¶ 1875.
The Examiner found that step [2] of claim 1 is described by Parkvall,
citing ¶¶ 653–656,744, 746, 747, 750–761, 1874–1877. See Ans. 4–5.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding that Parkvall
describes step [2] of the claim. Appellant argues that there is no mention in
Parkvall “of an indication of assigned resources received in a downlink
assignment or uplink grant whatsoever.” Appeal Br. 13 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant also argues that “Parkvall does not disclose or even suggest that
the [] UE can determine a numerology based on such an indication received
in a downlink assignment or uplink grant.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Appellant
contends that, in the paragraphs cited by the Examiner, Parkvall describes
blind detection of numerology. Id. Further, Appellant argues that the
Examiner cited the “access configuration index” as the assigned resources,
but this index “has nothing whatsoever to do with downlink assignments,
uplink grants, or indications of assigned resources as set forth in the present
claims.” Id. at 14.
We begin by looking at the disclosure in Parkvall, said by the
Examiner to describe the recited downlink assignment and uplink grant.
Paragraphs 653–656 of Parkvall, cited by the Examiner, describe an uplink,
but do not disclose an “indication of assigned resources” as recited in step
[1] of claim 1. For example, the Examiner cites the following disclosure
from paragraph 653 of Parkvall:
For scheduled uplink data transmissions, HARQ [Hybrid
automatic repeat request] feedback is not explicitly
communicated but is dynamically handled by allocating uplink
grants with the same process ID and a new data indicator (NDI)
which is used to request retransmissions.
Appeal 2020-003179
Application 15/713,593

7
Parkvall ¶ 653.
Although this paragraph refers to an “uplink grant,” there is no
discussion of the content of the uplink or that it comprises an indication of
assigned resources. The Examiner did not explain adequately how this
disclosure is a teaching of assigned resources.
Paragraph 656, also cited by the Examiner, discloses:
In case of III bundling or persistent uplink scheduling,
the UE also includes the process ID in the uplink transmission
in an UCI inside of the uplink dPDCH [physical data channel].
A special HARQ feedback report (similar to the polled
feedback message used for downlink HARQ) is sent as a MAC
control element on the downlink dPDCH.
Parkvall ¶ 656.
This paragraph describes a “process ID in the uplink transmission,”
but there is no express description in this paragraph, of “assigned resources”
that comprise a subcarrier as we interpret the term to require. Id. The
Examiner did not explain sufficiently how the process ID in paragraph 656
or the dPDCH of paragraph 653 discloses or suggests “assigned resources.”
The Examiner also cites to ¶¶ 744, 746, 747, and 750–761. These
paragraphs are in the section of Parkvall titled “2.3.3 Physical Channels,
Downlink.” Thus, Parkvall describes a “downlink” as required by the claim.
The section summary states,
The physical anchor channel (PACH) is used for AIT
distribution. The PACH design supports blind detection of used
numerologies.
Parkvall ¶ 742.
In the paragraphs that follow, Parkvall discusses subcarriers and
numerology in the context of using different transmission formats to
accommodate different payload sizes. Parkvall ¶ 746. Parkvall also discloses
Appeal 2020-003179
Application 15/713,593

8
that the UE “blindly detects the transmission format (number of subframes
NsfPACH) and derives the payload size from the detected number of
subframes.” Parkvall ¶ 747. Parkvall further discloses that because “the UE
may not have a-priori information about which numerology is used for
PACH transmission, it needs to detect the numerology blindly.” Parkvall
¶ 750. The Examiner did not explain adequately how detecting transmission
format and numerology “blindly” corresponds to the claimed requirement of
step [2] of claim 1 of determining numerology “at the UE, [2a] based at least
in part on the indication of the assigned resources received from the base
station in the downlink assignment or the uplink grant.”
We have looked at the additional disclosures in paragraphs 751–761
of Parkvall cited by the Examiner, but without sufficient guidance from the
Examiner on how the limitation of step [2] is disclosed in these paragraphs,
we cannot on their face determine whether the limitation is met. These
paragraphs fall into the sections titled “Physical Downlink Control Channel
(PDCCH)” and “Payload Sizes.” The former section states that the PDCCH
“carries downlink control information” which comprises downlink control
information, “scheduling information for PDCH, both uplink and downlink,”
and “reference signals for demodulation, the user identity (either explicitly
or implicitly, e.g., CRC mask) and CRC for validation.” Parkvall ¶ 752. On
its face, this paragraph does not describe assigned resources as part of the
downlink or the uplink, let alone determining numerology from the assigned
resources.
In the section titled “Payload Sizes,” Parkvall describes resources
comprising carriers (¶ 756: “Resources belonging to a single CCE are kept
as a contiguous, localized, set of subcarriers, including demodulation
Appeal 2020-003179
Application 15/713,593

9
reference signals.”), but does not describe using this information to
determine numerology as recited in the claim (“determining . . . [2a] based at
least in part on the indication of the assigned resources received from the
base station in the downlink assignment or the uplink grant, [2b] a
numerology”). Rather, as indicated above, the numerology is described as
being determined “blindly” by Parkvall, and the Examiner did not explain
sufficiently how blind detection is performing step [2] of the claim 1. The
Examiner also did not find that the resources in paragraph 756 corresponds
to the claimed resources.
The Examiner also cited Parkvall ¶¶ 1874–1877 as disclosing step [2]
of the claim. Ans. 5. Paragraph 1874 discloses,
Wireless device 1000, in various embodiments, is
adapted to carry out any of a variety of combinations of the
features and techniques described herein. In some
embodiments, for example, processing circuitry 1020, e.g.,
using antenna 1005 and radio front-end circuitry 1010, is
configured to receive a downlink signal comprising an uplink
access configuration index, use the uplink access configuration
index to identify an uplink access configuration from among a
predetermined plurality of uplink access configurations, and
transmit to the wireless communications network according to
the identified uplink access configuration. As discussed in
Section 3.2.2 above, this uplink access configuration index is a
pointer into a table of uplink access configurations. This pointer
may be retrieved, for example, from an SSI, as described above,
while the uplink access configurations are received as an AIT.
Parkvall ¶ 1874.
Parkvall refers to “a downlink signal comprising an uplink access
configuration index.” Id. Parkvall explains that the “uplink access
configuration index is a pointer into a table of uplink access configurations”
which may “be retrieved, for example, from an SSI, as described above,
Appeal 2020-003179
Application 15/713,593

10
while the uplink access configurations are received as an AIT.” Id. “AIT”
stands for access information table. Parkvall ¶ 110. Parkvall discloses access
information, but, on its face, it is not clear that any of this content
corresponds to an indication of an assigned resource comprising subcarriers
as we interpret the claim to require. Paragraphs 976, 983, and 990 describe
the content of an AIT. For example, Parkvall discloses in paragraph 976:
The access information includes the random access
parameters. These parameters include selected parts of the MIB,
SIB1 and SIB2 information elements defined in LTE (e.g.,
PLMN Id, CSG, Q-RxLevelMin, Frequencybandindicator and
Prach-configCommon). The exact content of the access
information may depend on the effects of network slicing.
Parkvall ¶ 976. See also Table 14 described at Parkvall ¶ 983.
To the extent that the Examiner found that the “access configuration
index” is assigned resources used to determine numerology, we cannot
discern, from the Examiner’s limited explanation of the mapping of the
claim limitation to this disclosure, whether such information includes
assigned resources as we have interpreted that term and how such
information is subsequently used to determine numerology as required by
step [2] of the claim. See also Ans. 32–33. We, therefore, agree with
Appellant that the Examiner did not demonstrate adequately that step [2] is
described by Parkvall (Appeal Br. 13–15), particularly because the
explanation is deficient in explaining how the “mapping” to different
sections of Parkvall teaches or suggests the claim limitations.
We next look at step [3] of claim 1 to determine whether this step is
disclosed or suggested by Parkvall. Step [3] recites “determining, at the UE,
one or more indices for the assigned resources based on the numerology
determined from among the plurality of numerologies.” Because the index is
Appeal 2020-003179
Application 15/713,593

11
for the assigned resources, the skilled worker would interpret the index to be
of the subcarriers and resource blocks (RB) that make up the numerology,
the latter which is determined in step [2].
The Specification gives an example of this determination:
FIG. 5 illustrates a diagram 500 of a first example of indices
determination. FIG. 5 illustrates the RB index numbering for
different numerologies (f, 2f, 4f, etc.) or subcarrier spacings.
The numerology f may include 16 total RBs over the
bandwidth, and the RB indices may range from 0 to 15. The
numerology 2f may include 8 total RBs over the bandwidth,
and the RB indices may range from 0 to 7. The numerology 4f
may include 4 total RBs over the bandwidth, and the RB
indices may range from 0 to 3.
Spec. ¶ 60.
Figure 5 of the Specification is reproduced below (annotated with the
terms “numerology” and “16 RB”):

Figure 5 “illustrates a diagram 500 of a first example of indices
determination” of the RB index numbering for different numerologies (f, 2f,
Appeal 2020-003179
Application 15/713,593

12
4f, etc.) or subcarrier spacings. Spec. ¶ 60. The columns are different
numerologies and each numerology is comprised of the resource blocks. The
symbol duration is shown at the bottom of the diagram.
To meet step [3] of the claim, the Examiner cited, from Parkvall,
paragraphs 385, 443–445, 549, 563–565, 732–739, 1874–1875. Ans. 5, 35.
The Examiner cites to several instances where Parkvall disclosed an index:
Hence, some kind of reference or index is preferably used to
refer to a reference signal, e.g., a MRS index or a C-RS index.
Such an index may be passed between RAN nodes as well as
between a RAN node and a UE.
Parkvall ¶ 385.
UE capability pointer/index: This is a pointer/index that
the UE sends to the network. This pointer identifies all possible
UE capabilities and other relevant information for that
particular UE, and even for the UE capabilities relevant to a
specific network vendor.
Parkvall ¶ 444.
Although paragraphs 385 and 333 refer to an “index,” the index of
step [3] is based on the assigned resources and therefore is of resource
blocks and subcarriers as illustrated in Figure 5 of the Specification. The
Examiner offered no explanation of how the “index” is of “assigned
resources.” The Examiner also did not identify sufficiently how the
“reference signal” or the “UE capabilities” represent resource blocks and
subcarriers from the assigned resources of a downlink assignment or uplink
grant as required by rejected claim 1.
The Examiner also did not explain adequately the relevance of
paragraphs 563–565 of Parkvall to the claim, and we cannot discern it.
These paragraphs described the “Dynamic Search Space” of the UE. It is not
clear how this disclosure relates to any of the limitations in the claim.
Appeal 2020-003179
Application 15/713,593

13
Paragraphs 732–739, cited by the Examiner, are in the section of
Parkvall titled “Numerology.” The Examiner did not identify sufficiently in
this section a teaching or suggestion of determining indices, based at least in
part on the indication of the assigned resources received from the base
station in the downlink assignment or the uplink grant.
In sum, the Examiner did not provide an adequate explanation as to
how the disclosure cited in Parkvall meets the limitations of steps [1], [2] of
[3] of claim. Merely identifying sections of Parkvall, without more, is not
enough in this instance to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that
Parkvall describes or suggests the limitations of the claim.
The Examiner cited Lin to meet the limitations of step [4] of the claim
of claim 1. Because Parkvall is deficient in steps [1]–[3], and Lin is not
described by the Examiner as meeting these steps, we have not given further
consideration to Lin.
For the foregoing reasons, the obviousness of claim 1 is reversed.
Independent claims 10 and 19 comprise substantially the same limitations as
claim 1 and therefore are reversed, as well. Dependent claims 2, 3, 5–9, 11,
12, 14–18, 20, 21, 23, and 25–27 incorporate all the limitations of these
independent claims and are reversed for the same reasons.

Claim 28
Claim 28 has a different scope from claims 1, 10, and 19. For
example, claim 28 is directed to a base station. Claim 28, in contrast to claim
1, does not appear to require that the numerology is determined from the
indication of assigned resources (instead, the claim refers to a signal), does
not require an index, and does not require that an indication of assigned
Appeal 2020-003179
Application 15/713,593

14
resources is present in the downlink assignment or uplink grant. Appellant
did not argue this claim separately with particularity, but rather only
distinguished the limitations in claims 1, 10 and 19 from the cited prior art.
Consequently, as the scope of claim 28 differs from these claims, and
Appellant did not identify a defect in the Examiner’s findings, the rejection
of claim 28, and dependent claims 29 and 30 is affirmed for the reasons
given by the Examiner. Final Act. 25–27.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–12,
14–21, 23,
25–31
103 Parkvall, Lin 28–30 1–3, 5–12,
14–21, 23,
25–27, 31

TIME PERIOD
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 IN PART