QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 28, 2021

2020001503 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 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.
15/462,510 03/17/2017 Hung Ly QLXX.P1147US/1000197129 8720
15757 7590 05/28/2021
Qualcomm /Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
2200 Ross Avenue
Suite 3600
Dallas, TX 75201-7932
EXAMINER
SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/28/2021 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):
doipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.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 HUNG LY, HEECHOON LEE, KEIICHI KUBOTA, and
TINGFANG JI

Appeal 2020-001503
Application 15/462,510
Technology Center 2600

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER,
and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4 and 9–12. Appeal Br. 3. Claims 5–
8 and 13–16 have been indicated as including allowable subject matter. Final
Act. 2. Claims 17–30 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed Mar. 17, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed Mar. 21, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed Aug. 5,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed Nov. 25, 2019 (“Ans.”),
and Reply Brief, filed Dec. 18, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Qualcomm Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001503
Application 15/462,510
2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a
method and system for providing uplink (UL) based mobility operation of
user equipment (UE-115) in wireless network (100) via an uplink mobility
procedure facilitating movement of the UE while communicating with other
devices in the wireless network. Spec. ¶¶ 7, 49. Figure 5, reproduced below,
is useful for understanding the claimed subject matter:

Figure 5 illustrates UE (115) performing UL-based mobility procedure as it
is moving between various clusters and coverage zones (501–503) within
wireless network (100). Id. ¶¶ 50–52.

As depicted in Figure 5 above, upon obtaining UL based mobility
specific ID information from a pool of UL IDs generated for the uplink
mobility procedure, UE (115) uses the assigned ID to decode signals
received during the uplink mobility procedure. Spec. ¶¶ 52–54.
Appeal 2020-001503
Application 15/462,510
3
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for providing uplink based mobility
operation of user equipment (UE) operable in a wireless
network, the method comprising:
obtaining, by the UE, uplink-based (UL-based) mobility
specific identification (ID) information as part of an uplink
mobility procedure facilitating mobility of the UE in the
wireless network, wherein the UL-based mobility specific ID is
assigned to the UE from a pool of UL-based mobility specific
IDs generated for the uplink mobility procedure; and
utilizing, by the UE, the UL-based mobility specific ID
information for decoding signals transmitted to the UE in
operation of the uplink mobility procedure.

Claims App. (emphasis added).

III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following reference.3
Name Reference Date
Nair US 2011/0310822 A1 Dec. 22, 2011
Pelletier US 2012/0281566 A1 Nov. 8, 2012

IV. REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–4 and 9–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Pelletier and Nair. Final Act.
3–5.
V. ANALYSIS
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner errs in finding that the
combination of Pelletier and Nair teaches or suggests a UE obtaining UL-
based mobility specific ID information as part of an uplink mobility

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-001503
Application 15/462,510
4
procedure facilitating mobility of the UE in the wireless network, as recited
independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 3–4. In particular, Appellant argues that
Pelletier’s disclosure of wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) ID to
facilitate uplink transmissions does not teach ID information that is specific
to UL-based mobility obtained as part of an uplink mobility procedure;
instead Pelletier teaches that the WTRU ID is used for obtaining downlink
control information (DCI) directed to the WTRU. Id. at 4 (citing Pelletier
¶¶ 57, 58, 170).
More particularly, Appellant argues the following:
Interpreting an uplink mobility procedure to be met by any step
that relates to an uplink mobile communication requires at least
rewriting “mobility” as “mobile,” and for at least this reason is
not a proper broadest reasonable interpretation. One having
ordinary skill in the art would understand “mobility” in the
context of the present claims to refer to “movement of wireless
communication devices, such as UEs, while maintaining the
ability to support communication services” (Specification at
paragraph 5), consistent with the claim language “facilitating
mobility of the UE in the wireless network,” not merely uplink
mobile communications (e.g., uplink communications which
may be performed by a device at any one of a number of
locations). Accordingly, an uplink mobility procedure is not
merely “any step that relates to an uplink mobile
communication,” but a procedure “to facilitate maintaining the
ability to support communication services between the mobile
UE and the wireless communication network as the UE moves
within the coverage area of the wireless communication
network (e.g., enabling handover of the UE between access
nodes, establishing a connection between the mobile UE and an
access node selected to serve the UE, etc.),” paragraph 46.

Appeal Br. 4 (emphasis added).

Appeal 2020-001503
Application 15/462,510
5
In response, the Examiner finds the following:
Appellant has not claimed to be their own lexicographer herein
(i.e., no such explicit statement is provided) with respect to the
term “mobility procedure”, so the normal and customary
meaning attaches.[] First, within the understanding of one of
ordinary skill in the art (frankly even to lay people) mobile
phones are referred to as mobile phones whether or not they are
in motion at the moment one refers to them. The entire field of
mobile wireless communications is based on the concept that
the phone can move (i.e., has the capability to move while
communicating) and/or might be moving. The fact that a phone
is at the moment moving or stationary does not mean that the
procedures associated with the mobile phone aren’t mobile
phone/mobility procedures. Appellants are arguing an
interpretation that is not in sync with that of the understanding
of one of ordinary skill in the art. Appellants’ assert this
interpretation[,] but provide no evidence (with this brief or prior
to this brief) to support their interpretation.

Ans. 4.

Examiner notes that these are not very narrow words in
the claim: “mobility” “procedure” nor the term as a whole:
“uplink mobility procedure”. Any step that relates to an uplink
mobile communication falls within the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claimed term. Applicants have not
provided a specific definition outside of how one of ordinary
skill in the art would understand that term. Applicants’
specification speaks to examples of uplink mobility procedures
but the phrasing of that example is open ended and seems
consistent with examples that fall within the broadest
reasonable interpretation. “ ... mobility (e.g., movement of
wireless communication devices, such as UEs, while
maintaining the ability to support communication services).”
Pelletier’s description of using a WRTU identity for part of an
uplink grant as described in Pelletier at ¶¶57-61 would meet
this definition.

Ans. 4–5 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-001503
Application 15/462,510
6
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
As noted above, the disputed claim limitation recites a UE obtaining
UL-based mobility specific ID information as part of an uplink mobility
procedure. We begin our analysis by giving the phrase “uplink mobility
procedure” its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellant’s
disclosure.4 As explained in In re Morris:
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words 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); see also In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[C]laims must be interpreted as broadly as
their terms reasonably allow.”). Our reviewing court further states, “the
‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan
after reading the entire patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In particular, the Specification recites the
following:
Wireless communication systems aim to seek a balance
of efficient use of power resources, network flexibility, and
system performance. One area of interest is different

4 During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also In re Smith
Int'l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that such
interpretation is one “that corresponds with what and how the inventor
describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is
‘consistent with the specification’”).

Appeal 2020-001503
Application 15/462,510
7
approaches enabling mobility (e.g., movement of wireless
communication devices, such as UEs, while maintaining the
ability to support communication services) in wireless
networks. Some approaches to enabling mobility in wireless
networks have included downlink mobility, such as where the
base station transmits reference signals (RSs) and the UEs
perform cell search and measurements. Other approaches to
enabling mobility in wireless networks have included uplink
based mobility, such as where the UE sends RSs and the base
station performs UE search and measurements.

Spec. ¶ 5 (emphasis added).
Irrespective of a particular one of the mode states a UE
may be operating in, the UE may experience mobility within
the wireless communication network (i.e., move between
physical locations within the service area of the wireless
communication network). Accordingly, embodiments of the
present disclosure implement uplink mobility procedures in
accordance with the concepts herein to facilitate maintaining
the ability to support communication services between the
mobile UE and the wireless communication network as
the UE moves within the coverage area of the wireless
communication network (e.g., enabling handover of the UE
between access nodes, establishing a connection between the
mobile UE and an access node selected to serve the UE, etc.).
The uplink mobility procedures of embodiments of the present
disclosure operate to provide flexible power consumption for
the UEs, better and timely channel information, improved
networking connections, and/or better mobility tracking.
Additional benefits realized through uplink mobility procedures
implemented in accordance with the concepts herein include
network side positives such as better, reduced network resource
use (freeing up those resources for other items) and lower
handover failure rates.

Spec. ¶ 46 (emphasis added).
We do not agree with the Examiner that any step relating to an uplink
mobile communication falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of
Appeal 2020-001503
Application 15/462,510
8
“uplink mobility procedure.” Ans. 4–5. As noted in the afore-cited portions
of the Specification, “uplink mobility procedure” involves the UE’s ability
to communicate with other devices as the UE is moving within the wireless
network. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent
with the Specification, we concur with and adopt Appellant’s proposed
interpretation of “uplink mobility procedure” as a procedure performed by
the UE “to facilitate maintaining the ability to support communication
services between the mobile UE and the wireless communication network as
the UE moves within the coverage area of the wireless communication
network.” Appeal Br. 4. Consequently, the disputed claim limitation requires
a UE obtaining UL-based mobility specific ID information to facilitate its
communication with other devices as the UE moves within the wireless
communication network.
Pelletier relates to a WTRU performing a mobility procedure to select
cells for uplink and downlink transmissions. Pelletier ¶¶ 6, 10, 52–61. In
particular, Pelletier discloses the network assigning to an identified WTRU
dedicated SRS resources to assist the WTRU in scheduling decisions for
allocating uplink transmission resources. Id. ¶ 68.
We do not agree with the Examiner that Pelletier’s description of
using a WRTU ID as part of an uplink grant teaches or suggests the disputed
claim limitation, as construed above. Ans. 4–5. Although Pelletier discusses
the WTRU performing a mobility procedure for uplink transmission, such a
procedure is not concerned with supporting the WTRU’s connectivity as it
moves in the wireless network. As persuasively argued by Appellant,
Pelletier’s WTRU ID is used as part of the disclosed mobility procedure for
obtaining uplink/downlink control information directed to the WTRU, and
Appeal 2020-001503
Application 15/462,510
9
not to support the WTRU as it moves across the wireless network. Appeal
Br. 4–5. Because the Examiner fails to establish on the record before us the
combination of Pelletier and Nair teaches the “uplink mobility procedure” as
construed above, we agree with Appellant that the proposed combination
does not teach or suggest the disputed claim limitations. Id.
Because Appellant shows at least one reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, we do not reach
Appellant’s remaining arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Likewise, we do
not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2–4 and 9–12, which also
recite the disputed limitations.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1–4 and 9–12.
VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 9–12 103 Pelletier, Nair 1–4, 9–12

REVERSED