Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 14, 20212021003036 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/664,630 07/31/2017 Sang Soo JEONG 0203-0488-3 9400 68103 7590 05/14/2021 Jefferson IP Law, LLP 1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420 Washington, DC 20036 EXAMINER HU, RUI MENG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2643 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/14/2021 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): usdocketing@jeffersonip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SANG SOO JEONG and SOENG HUN KIM ________________ Appeal 2021-003036 Application 15/664,630 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 23‒26, which are all the claims pending in this application. Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 20, and 22 are canceled. Appeal Br. 18‒22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 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 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-003036 Application 15/664,630 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to mobile communications, and in particular to a mobile device that reports a maximum transmission power to a base station to assist in schedule decision making. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows with emphases added: 1. A method performed by a terminal in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from a base station, first control information for configuring a first type power headroom (PH) report (PHR) format from among the first type PHR format and a second type PHR format, the first type PHR format including a PH field and a maximum transmission power (PCMAX) field, and the second type PHR format including a PH field without a PCMAX field; identifying a PHR triggering event; and transmitting, to the base station, the PHR based on the first type PHR format, wherein the PHR includes a first PH, a first PCMAX, a second PH, and a second PCMAX, in case that a simultaneous transmission of a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) and a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) is configured, wherein the first PH is associated with a transmit power for the PUSCH and the second PH is associated with a transmit power for the simultaneous transmission of the PUCCH and the PUSCH, and wherein the first PH is based on the first PCMAX and the second PH is based on the second PCMAX. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 23‒26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Final Act. 3‒4. Appeal 2021-003036 Application 15/664,630 3 Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 23‒26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Haim (US 2011/0105173 A1; May 5, 2011) and Kim (US 2012/0044882 A1; Feb. 23, 2012). Final Act. 4‒9. ANALYSIS Indefiniteness The Examiner concludes that claim 1 is indefinite because “a first type power headroom (PH) report (PHR) format from among the first type PHR format and a second type PHR format” is unclear. Final Act. 3‒4. In particular, the Examiner concludes as an issue of claim construction that it is unclear whether “a first type PHR format” refers to (1) “the first type PHR format” or (2) either “the first type PHR format” or “a second type PHR format.” Id. Appellant argues the Examiner errs because it would be clear to an ordinarily skilled artisan that claim 1 recites two possible PHR formats, a first type PHR format including a PH field and a PCMAX field and a second type PHR format including only a PH field. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that claim 1 recites receiving first control information for configuring the first type PHR format. Id. The additional recitation of a second type PHR format is another potential format that will not be used for configuring. Id. Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. We agree with Appellant that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the scope of the claim as written. The Examiner proposes a possible interpretation wherein “a first type PHR format” may be selected to be “a second type PHR format,” but this is inconsistent with the plain language of the claims. Instead, an Appeal 2021-003036 Application 15/664,630 4 ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the claim according to the first interpretation proposed by the Examiner—specifically, that “a first type PHR format” is to be used for the PHR. For these reasons, we agree with Appellant that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the metes and bounds of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the indefiniteness rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the indefiniteness rejection of independent claims 8, 12, and 19, which recite commensurate subject matter, or claims 4, 5, 7, 10, 14, 16, 18, 21, and 23‒ 26, which depend therefrom. Obviousness We have reviewed the Examiner’s obviousness rejection in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons regarding the obviousness rejection set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons regarding the obviousness rejection set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief.2 We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner regarding the obviousness rejection. We highlight the following additional points. Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 as obvious because neither Haim nor Kim teaches or suggests “receiving, from a base 2 See Icon Health and Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“As an initial matter, the PTAB was authorized to incorporate the Examiner’s findings.”); see also In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1564 n.13 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (upholding the PTAB’s findings, although it “did not expressly make any independent factual determinations or legal conclusions,” because it had expressly adopted the examiner’s findings). Appeal 2021-003036 Application 15/664,630 5 station, first control information for configuring a first type power headroom (PH) report (PHR) format from among the first type PHR format and a second type PHR format, the first type PHR format including a PH field and a maximum transmission power (PCMAX) field, and the second type PHR format including a PH field without a PCMAX field.” Appeal Br. 7‒13; Reply Br. 4‒5. In particular, Appellant argues the Examiner improperly parses the language of the claims, finding Haim teaches a second type PHR format and Kim teaches a first type PHR format. Reply Br. 5. Appellant argues that an inherent feature of the claimed invention lies in the case of configuring the use of a first type PHR format from among a first and a second type PHR format. Id. Appellant argues that a single reference must, therefore, teach both potential formats. Id. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Kim teaches receiving first control information for configuring a PHR according to a first type PHR format. Ans. 6‒7 (citing Kim, Fig. 8, pages 3‒5). The Examiner finds, and we agree, Haim teaches receiving first control information for configuring a PHR according to a second type PHR format. Id. at 6 (citing Haim ¶¶ 64, 66, 67, 70, 71). Appellant’s argument that a single reference must teach both formats is not persuasive. In particular, claim 1 recites “first control information for configuring a first type power headroom (PH) report (PHR) format.” The first type PHR format is configured “from among the first type PHR format and a second type PHR format.” We agree with the Examiner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand from the combined teachings of Haim and Kim that both a first type PHR format and a second type PHR format are potential formats for a PHR. Kim teaches configuring a PHR Appeal 2021-003036 Application 15/664,630 6 according to a first type PHR format and an ordinarily skilled artisan would, therefore, understand this to be from among the potential first and second formats. Notably, claim 1 does not recite receiving first control information for configuring a first or a second type PHR format. Instead, claim 1 recites receiving first control information for configuring a first type PHR format, and this is what Kim teaches. Thus, with the additional teachings of Haim, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the second type PHR format to be another potential option that could have been, but was not, selected for configuration. Appellant also argues the Examiner errs because neither Haim nor Kim teaches or suggests “wherein the PHR includes a first PH, a first PCMAX, a second PH, and a second PCMAX, in case that a simultaneous transmission of a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) and a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) is configured.” Appeal Br. 14‒16; Reply Br. 6‒9. In particular, Appellant argues that although Kim may teach a PHR including a first PH, a first PCMAX, a second PH, and a second PCMAX, Kim does not teach doing so “in case that a simultaneous transmission” of PUCCH and PUSCH is configured. Reply Br. 6. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Kim teaches PCMAX of a PCell and PCMAX of a SCell are included in a PHR, along with respective PHs. Ans. 8 (citing Kim Tables 1, 2 [Figs. 8 and 9 in US 2012/0044882 A1]). Kim teaches the UE “obtains a first type power headroom for each of the activated service cells and a maximum transmission power of the [UE] for each of the activated service cells from a physical layer.” Kim ¶ 108. Kim further teaches, “[i]n case of transmitting PUCCH and PUSCH simultaneously, the user equipment Appeal 2021-003036 Application 15/664,630 7 obtains a second type power headroom for a primary cell and a maximum transmission power of the user equipment for a second type power headroom.” Id. Kim teaches Figure 8 is a diagram for one example of these disclosed transmissions. Id. ¶ 110. Thus, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. We also note that Appellant’s Specification describes the construction of a PHR in essentially the same way. See Spec. ¶¶ 108‒118. For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of independent claims 8, 12, and 19 and dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 10, 14, 16, 18, 21, and 23‒26, for which Appellant relies on the same arguments. See Appeal Br. 16. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23‒26 112(b) Indefiniteness 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23‒26 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23‒26 103 Haim, Kim 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23‒26 Overall Outcome 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23‒26 Appeal 2021-003036 Application 15/664,630 8 CONCLUSION Because we have sustained at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, we affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 23‒26. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1). TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation