SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 3, 2021

2019006819 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 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. 15/304,686 10/17/2016 Yingyang LI 678-5427 PCT US 3070 66547 7590 05/03/2021 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. Paul J Farrell 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER PHAM, TITO Q ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2466 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/03/2021 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): pto@farrelliplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte YINGYANG LI, JINGXING FU, SHICHANG ZHANG, and CHENGJUN SUN ____________ Appeal 2019-006819 Application 15/304,686 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges. BAER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–20, which are all pending claims. Appeal Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-006819 Application 15/304,686 2 BACKGROUND A. The Invention Appellant’s invention is directed to “processing flexible duplex, so as to support, in a cell consist[ing] of a pair of carriers (e.g., FDD [frequency division duplex] cell), flexible uplink and downlink subframe distribution on the pair of carriers or one of the pair of carriers.” Spec. ¶ 9. Claims 1 and 20 are independent. Claim 20 is representative and reproduced below: 20. An apparatus for processing data in a flexible duplex cell including a flexible duplex-uplink (FD-UL) carrier and flexible duplex-downlink (FD-DL) carrier, the apparatus comprising: a processor; and a transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to receive configuration information of flexible duplex, wherein the configuration information of flexible duplex indicates that the FD-UL carrier includes at least one downlink subframe and the FD-DL carrier includes at least one uplink subframe, wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit and receive data on the FD-UL carrier and the FD-DL carrier based on uplink and downlink subframe distribution of the flexible duplex cell. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims Appendix). B. The Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1–8, 15, 16, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Choi (US 2012/0207038 A1; Aug. 16, 2012), Goldhamer (US 2015/0109932 A1; Apr. 23, 2015), and Freda (US 2014/0204854 A1; July 24, 2014). Final Act. 2. Appeal 2019-006819 Application 15/304,686 3 The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Choi, Goldhamer, Freda, and Chung (US 2012/0069793 A1; Mar. 22, 2012). Final Act. 8. The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Choi, Goldhamer, Freda, Chung, and Lei (US 2014/0153535 A1; June 5, 2014). Final Act. 9. The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Choi, Goldhamer, Freda, Chung, and Huawei, “UE Demodulation performance requirements for eIMTA,” 3GPP Draft, R40141689, April, 2014. Final Act. 10. The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Choi, Goldhamer, Freda, and Huawei. Final Act. 11. The Examiner rejects claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Choi, Goldhamer, Freda, and Sahlin (US 2015/0304096 A1; Oct. 22, 2015). Final Act. 11. The Examiner rejects claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Choi, Goldhamer, Freda, and Sorrentino (US 2015/0358920 A1; Dec. 10, 2015). Final Act. 12. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own, and add the following primarily for emphasis. Appeal 2019-006819 Application 15/304,686 4 A. Obviousness Rejection of Claim 20 Appellant argues that Goldhamer fails to teach or suggest the claimed “wherein the configuration information of flexible duplex indicates that the FD-UL carrier includes at least one downlink subframe” (Appeal Br. 4), because the cited portion of Goldhamer merely describe[s] that an excess capacity is identified in the uplink channel, and at a least a portion of the excess capacity is allocated for downlink communication by assigning a subset of the time-frequency resources in the second frequency range to the downlink communication. Appeal Br. 4, citing Goldhamer Abstract, ¶¶ 11, 42. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that “the BRI of the term ‘flexible duplex downlink carrier’ or ‘flexible duplex uplink carrier’ would be any carrier that could carry downlink and uplink traffic at some variable ratio.” Ans. 14. Appellant’s Brief does not point to the disclosure of an explicit definition of a “flexible duplex” carrier, and Appellant did not challenge the Examiner’s claim interpretation in a Reply Brief. Regarding the claimed “configuration information . . . downlink subframe,” the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Choi’s configuration examples illustrate that “there are more downlink subframes than uplink subframes (in a single frame) and vice versa,” indicating “a need to have more downlink subframes (or uplink subframes) than other cases/configuration[s].” Ans. 14, citing Choi ¶¶ 200–204, 207–208, Table 2. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that “Goldhamer discloses a problem of needing more downlink-centric bandwidth for video streaming, file sharing, and internet browsing” and “proposes a solution of Appeal 2019-006819 Application 15/304,686 5 moving/allocating excess/free capacity of uplink channel to downlink channel communication.” Ans. 14, citing Goldhamer ¶ 3, Abstract, ¶¶ 11, 42. We agree with the Examiner that the Goldhamer’s and Choi’s teachings when combined teach or suggest the claimed limitation (Ans. 15), and Appellant did not challenge the Examiner’s findings in a Reply Brief. Appellant argues that Freda fails to teach or suggest the claimed “wherein the configuration information of flexible duplex indicates the FD- DL carrier includes at least on uplink subframe,” because Freda merely describes that the PHICH [Physical Hybrid ARQ Indicator Channel] configurations may be changed or adjusted when the supplementary carrier is reconfigured from UL to DL, e.g., in order to adapt to the load (e.g., UL heavy or DL heavy) of the channel. Appeal Br. 5, citing Freda Fig. 3, ¶¶ 66, 70–73. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Freda teaches “in a[n] FDD mode, a supplement carrier can be configured to switch between uplink and downlink transmission to adapt to a load (UL heavy or DL heavy).” Ans. 15, citing Freda Fig. 3, ¶¶ 70–73. We agree with the Examiner that Freda’s teaching, when combined with Choi’s teachings discussed above, teaches or suggests the claimed limitation (Ans. 15), and Appellant did not challenge the Examiner’s findings in a Reply Brief. Appellant last contends that in Freda, a UL/DL supplementary carrier “is used dynamically as a UL or DL, and does not indicate that some or all of the DL dedicated subframes are configured to be UL subframes, as recited in Claim 20.” Appeal Br. 6, citing Freda Fig. 3. Appellant’s argument is not Appeal 2019-006819 Application 15/304,686 6 commensurate with the scope of the claim, as the claim does not recite that “subframes” may be “dedicated.” Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 20, as well as independent claim 1 commensurate in scope, and dependent claims 2–19 not argued separately. See App. Br. 7–9. CONCLUSION In summary: No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–8, 15, 16, 18, 20 103 Choi, Goldhamer, Freda 1–8, 15, 16, 18, 20 9, 10 103 Choi, Goldhamer, Freda, Chung 9, 10 11 103 Choi, Goldhamer, Freda, Chung, Lei 11 12, 13 103 Choi, Goldhamer, Freda, Chung, Huawei 12, 13 14 103 Choi, Goldhamer, Freda, Huawei 14 17 103 Choi, Goldhamer, Freda, Sahlin 17 19 103 Choi, Goldhamer, Freda, Sorrentino 19 Overall Outcome 1–20