Sony Akkarakaran et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 3, 2019

14602034 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2019)

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.
14/602,034 01/21/2015 Sony Akkarakaran 030284.09076/144137 2598
15142 7590 12/03/2019
Arent Fox, LLP and Qualcomm, Incorporated
1717 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-5344
EXAMINER
BEDNASH, JOSEPH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/03/2019 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
patentdocket@arentfox.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SONY AKKARAKARAN, PEYMAN RAZAGHI, and
SHARAD DEEPAK SAMBHWANI
Appeal 2018-008394
Application 14/602,034
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ERIC B. CHEN and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–10, 13–19, 22–27, and 30–34. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Qualcomm
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-008394
Application 14/602,034
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “physical layer configuration of wireless
communications.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method of providing a compressed mode
transmission gap in wireless communications, comprising:
receiving a downlink dedicated physical channel (DPCH)
having a slot-format and a spreading factor during a first
compression interval, wherein the downlink DPCH does not
include a compressed-mode transmission gap during the first
compression interval;
receiving the downlink DPCH having the same slot-
format and the same spreading factor during a second
compression interval, wherein the slot-format includes no pilot
signal and a TPC command is located at an end of each
transmitted slot;
determining that the downlink DPCH includes a
compressed-mode transmission gap during the second
compression interval, wherein a set of slots of the downlink
DPCH during the transmission gap are punctured;
decoding the downlink DPCH for the second
compression interval based on a set of remaining slots received
during the second compression interval;
estimating a downlink signal to interference ratio (SIR)
based on the downlink DPCH received during the second
compression interval, wherein estimating the downlink SIR
includes estimating the downlink SIR based on a value of a
TPC command received in a last slot of the transmission gap
having a fixed value for the TPC command set by the slot-
format;
comparing the estimated downlink SIR to an adjusted
SIR target, wherein the adjusted SIR target is increased based
Appeal 2018-008394
Application 14/602,034
3
on the determination that the second compression interval
includes a compressed mode transmission gap; and
generating an uplink TPC command based on whether
the estimated downlink SIR satisfies the adjusted SIR target.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Forslow et al. WO 2006/006895 A1 Jan. 19, 2006
MediaTek Inc., “DPCH Slot Format Optimization Performance Update,”
3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #73, Fukuoka, Japan, 20–24 May 2013
(hereinafter “D1”).
Ushirokawa et al. US 2003/0118057 A1 June 26, 2003
Baker et al. US 2007/0021139 A1 Jan. 25, 2007
MediaTek Inc., “Uplink compressed mode considerations,” 3GPP TSG
RAN WG1 Meeting #76, Prague, Czech Republic, 10–14 Feb. 2014
(hereinafter “D2”).
MediaTek Inc. et al., “Uplink Design for DCH Enhancements,” 3GPP
TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #75, Prague, Czech Republic, 10–14 Feb. 2014
(hereinafter “D3”).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4–10, 13–19, 22–27, and 30–34 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Final Act. 2–10.2
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8–10, 13, 14, 17–19, 22, 23, 26, 27, and 30–34 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Forslow, D1, Ushirokawa,
and Baker. Final Act. 4–10. 3

2 The formal statement of rejection omits claims 31–34, which variously
depend from independent claims 1, 10, 19, and 27. We treat this as a
typographical error and include claims 31–34.
3 The formal statement of rejection omits claims 31–34, which variously
depend from independent claims 1, 10, 19, and 27. We treat this as a
typographical error and include claims 31–34.
Appeal 2018-008394
Application 14/602,034
4
Claims 6, 15, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Forslow, D1, Ushirokawa, Baker, and D2. Final Act. 10–11.
Claims 7, 16, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Forslow, D1, Ushirokawa, Baker, and D3. Final Act. 11.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
OPINION
The Written Description Rejection of Claims 1, 4–10, 13–19, 22–27, and
30–34
The Examiner finds “a value of a TPC command received in a last slot
of the transmission gap having a fixed value for the TPC command set by
the slot-format,” as recited in claim 1, lacks written description support. See
Final Act. 2–3; see also Ans. 5–10 (“Based on this analysis, one of ordinary
skill in the art would not reasonably conclude the slot format specified or
‘set’ the ‘fixed value’ of the TPC command; but rather, the fixed value was
predetermined and inserted into the end of a punctured (missing) slot at the
end of a transmission gap by the slot mapping component.”).
Appellant presents the following principal argument:
“A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a slot
format including a special TPC command having a fixed value means that
the value of the TPC command is fixed by the slot format.” Appeal Br. 8–9
(citing Spec. ¶ 79); see also Reply Br. 2–4.
“[T]he test for sufficiency [of the written description] is whether the
disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled
in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of
Appeal 2018-008394
Application 14/602,034
5
the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
Appellant’s Specification discloses:
FIG. 9 illustrates a slot format 900, which may be used for
DL DPCH in compressed mode. A transmission gap may be
configured in slots Nfirst to Nlast. The slot format 900 may be a
pilot-free slot format. Each transmitted slot may include a data
portion 902 and a TPC command 904. The TPC commands 904
may be used for SIR estimates in addition to inner loop power
control. Accordingly, a pilot signal within each slot may not be
necessary. During the transmission gap, the network entity 14
may not transmit the data portion 902. The slot format 900 may
also include a special TPC command 906 within the transmission
gap. The special TPC command 906 may have a fixed value. For
example, the special TPC command 906 may have a fixed value
of 0. The UE 12 may estimate a downlink SIR or SINR based on
the special TPC command 906.
Spec. ¶ 79 (emphasis added).
Thus, Appellant’s Specification discloses a special TPC command
906 having a fixed value in the last slot of the transmission gap. See Spec.
¶ 79; see also Fig. 9.
We find these disclosures reasonably convey to those skilled in the art
that the inventors had possession of the claimed subject matter of “a value of
a TPC command received in a last slot of the transmission gap having a
fixed value for the TPC command set by the slot-format” (emphasis added),
as recited in claim 1, as of the filing date.
In reaching our conclusion, we interpret “set by the slot-format” to
include the arrangements described in the Specification at paragraph 79. Put
another way, we find the Specification discloses various alternative slot
formats for the last slot in the transmission gap such that the slot format sets
the value in the last slot of the transmission gap.
Appeal 2018-008394
Application 14/602,034
6
For the reasons explained above, we, therefore, do not sustain the
written description rejection of claim 1.
We also do not sustain the written description rejection of claims 4–
10, 13–19, 22–27, and 30–34 for the same reasons.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 4, 5, 8–10, 13, 14, 17–19, 22, 23,
26, 27, and 30 as obvious over Forslow, D1, Ushirokawa, and Bake
The Examiner finds the combined teachings of Forslow, D1,
Ushirokawa, and Baker teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 4–6. In
particular, the Examiner finds Forslow teaches most limitations of claim 1.
See Final Act. 4–6. The Examiner further finds D1 teaches “wherein the
slot-format includes no pilot signal and a TPC command is located at an end
of each transmitted slot,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 6 (citing D1
Section 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, Table 2.2.1.1, Fig. 2.2.1.1). The Examiner further
finds Ushirokawa and Baker, collectively, teach “wherein estimating the
downlink SIR includes estimating the downlink SIR based on a value of a
TPC command received in a last slot of the transmission gap having a fixed
value for the TPC command set by the slot-format,” as recited in claim 1.
Final Act. 6 (citing Ushirokawa Fig. 5, signal 101, ¶ 118, Baker ¶¶ 5, 77);
see also Ans. 10–11 (“Ushirokawa shows a pilot (signal with known or fixed
value) at the end of a transmission gap.”), 13 (“Ushirokawa discloses the
same thing appellant relies upon as disclosing the feature, albeit without
calling the signal a TPC command.”), 14 (“[B]ased on Baker’s disclosure
that signal to interference ratio can be estimated from a TPC command, a
suggestion realized by one of ordinary skill in the art when considering all of
the references would be to perform the estimation conventionally performed
with the pilots disclosed by Ushirokawa on a TPC command as disclosed by
Baker.”).
Appeal 2018-008394
Application 14/602,034
7
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief
(see Appeal Br. 9–15) and in the Reply Brief (see Reply Br. 4–7). In our
discussion, we place particular focus on the following principal arguments
presented by Appellant:
i. The Examiner fails to consider all claim limitations because
“the explicit interpretation on page 3 of the Final Office Action is
unreasonable because the interpretation intentionally excludes the feature of
‘the TPC command received in a last slot of the transmission gap having a
fixed value set by the slot format,’ as recited in independent claim l.” See
Appeal Br. 11.
ii. “[T]he values of the TPC commands of Forslow and 3GPP TS
25.211 are not fixed by the slot-format. Instead, the TPC commands have a
value selected to indicate a direction of the TPC command.” Appeal Br. 12.
iii. “Baker teaches estimation based on ‘received amplitudes of the
TPC field...’ rather than based on ‘a value of a TPC command received in a
last slot of the transmission gap having a fixed value for the TPC command
set by the slot-format.’” Appeal Br. 14.
iv. “Appellant respectfully submits that the Office Action has
provided no reasoning for modifying the coding of the TPC commands of
Forslow. Therefore, the combination of Forslow, D1, Baker, and
Ushirokawa would not include a TPC command having a fixed value set by
the slot-format and would not read on the independent claims.” Appeal Br.
14; see also Appeal Br. 15 (“[T]he value of the TPC commands would
indicate a direction rather than being fixed by the slot format.”).
v. “Appellant respectfully submits that when the claim is
considered as a whole, the TPC command field is also used in other slots to
convey TPC commands. Therefore, by fixing the value of the special TPC
Appeal 2018-008394
Application 14/602,034
8
command 906, the claimed subject matter provides the benefits of both a
pilot signal at the end of a transmission gap (e.g., ease of use for SIR
estimation for outer loop power control, see e.g., paragraph [0043]) and a
TPC command 904 at the end of each slot (e.g., for inner loop power
control, see e.g., paragraph [0079]) without changing the slot-format
between compression intervals. Thus, the Office Action has clearly erred by
asserting that a TPC command is the same as a pilot signal.” Appeal Br. 15.
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner. We
concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Appellant’s arguments raise the following issues: (1) does the cited
prior art teach “wherein the slot-format includes no pilot signal and a TPC
command is located at an end of each transmitted slot” as recited in claim 1;
and (2) does the cite prior art teach “wherein estimating the downlink SIR
includes estimating the downlink SIR based on a value of a TPC command
received in a last slot of the transmission gap having a fixed value for the
TPC command set by the slot-format,” as recited in claim 1.
We find D1 discloses “wherein the slot-format includes no pilot signal
and a TPC command is located at an end of each transmitted slot,” as recited
in claim 1. See D1, page 2, Figure 2.2.1.1 (depicting slot formats with no
pilot field and TPC symbols at the end of the slot); see also Final Act. 6. The
Examiner articulates a reasoning to combine the teachings of D1 with
Forslow that is rational on its face and supported by evidence drawn from
the record. See Final Act. 6 (“more efficient data transmission”). We do not
see any error in the Examiner’s reasoning, and adopt this reasoning as our
own. Thus, in reviewing issue (1) we do not see any reversible error.

Appeal 2018-008394
Application 14/602,034
9
We find Ushirokawa and Baker, collectively, teach “wherein
estimating the downlink SIR includes estimating the downlink SIR based on
a value of a TPC command received in a last slot of the transmission gap
having a fixed value for the TPC command set by the slot-format,” as recited
in claim 1. Ushirokawa discloses “the mobile station performs SIR
measurement using the pilot signal PL immediately after vacant period.”
Ushirokawa ¶ 118; see also Ushirokawa Figure 5 (pilot signal 101 after the
vacant period). Thus, we find Ushirokawa teaches “wherein estimating the
downlink SIR includes estimating the downlink SIR based on a value of a
[signal] received in a last slot of the transmission gap having a fixed value
for the [signal]” (claim 1). See Ushirokawa ¶ 118, Figure 5.
Regarding the signal being a “TPC command” (claim 1) and “a fixed
value for the TPC command set by the slot-format” (claim 1), we find this
further recited subject matter is taught by Baker. Baker discloses “[t]he
signal voltage, noise power and/or SIR are estimated by the measurement
means 155, for example from the received amplitudes of the TPC field, pilot
field and/or data fields.” Baker ¶ 77. Thus, we find Baker teaches SIR
estimates based on TPC or pilot signals. When this teaching is considered
together with Ushirokawa’s teachings, a skilled artisan would readily replace
Ushirokawa’s fixed value pilot with a fixed value TPC command. See Ans.
11 (“Ushirokawa shows a pilot (signal with known or fixed value) at the end
of a transmission gap.”), 14 (“perform the estimation conventionally
performed with the pilots disclosed by Ushirokawa on a TPC command as
disclosed by Baker”).
Regarding “a fixed value for the TPC command set by the slot-
format” (claim 1), as we explained above, a skilled artisan would have used
a fixed value for the TPC command because the TPC command is replacing
Appeal 2018-008394
Application 14/602,034
10
the fixed value pilot. As for being “set by the slot-format,” above, we
interpreted “set by the slot-format” to include the arrangement described in
Appellant’s Specification at paragraph 79 and depicted in Appellant’s Figure
9. When Ushirokawa (Figure 5, pilot signal 101) is modified to replace the
pilot signal with a fixed value TCP command, the result is the same
arrangement described in Appellant’s Specification at paragraph 79 and
depicted in Appellant’s Figure 9.
The Examiner articulates a reasoning to combine the teachings of
Ushirokawa and Baker with Forslow and D1 that is rational on its face and
supported by evidence drawn from the record. See Final Act. 6 (“[P]ut the
TPC command of D1 at the end of the transmission gap so the SIR could be
estimated as taught by Baker because the teaching lies in Ushirokawa that
estimates at the end of the transmission gap lead to improved power control .
. . estimate the SIR as taught by Baker because Baker suggests this can help
provide improved power control during soft handover.”). We do not see any
error in the Examiner’s reasoning, and adopt this reasoning as our own.
Thus, in reviewing issue (2) we do not see any reversible error.
Turning to the principal arguments presented by Appellant, these
arguments fail to show any reversible error.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (i), this argument does not show any
error because all limitations have been considered by the Examiner and by
the Board.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (ii), this argument does not show any
error because Ushirokawa and Baker, collectively, teach “a fixed value for
the TPC command set by the slot-format,” as recited in claim 1 and
explained above.
Appeal 2018-008394
Application 14/602,034
11
Regarding Appellant’s argument (iii), Baker discloses “[t]he signal
voltage, noise power and/or SIR are estimated by the measurement means
155, for example from the received amplitudes of the TPC field, pilot field
and/or data fields.” Baker ¶ 77. Claim 1 recites “estimating the downlink
SIR includes estimating the downlink SIR based on a value of a TPC
command received in a last slot of the transmission gap having a fixed value
for the TPC command set by the slot-format.” We appreciate the distinction
that Appellant attempts to make; however, we are not persuaded. In short,
the value of the TPC command is based on the amplitude of the signal. Thus,
we interpret claim 1’s “based on a value of a TPC command” as
encompassing an arrangement where the downlink SIR is estimated based
on an amplitude of the TPC signal.
Regarding Appellant’s arguments (iv) and (v), we find the Examiner
has provided sufficient reasoning for the conclusion of obviousness. See
Final Act. 6 (reasoning to combine the teachings of D1 with Forslow: “more
efficient data transmission”); see also Final Act. 6 (reasoning to combine the
teachings of Ushirokawa and Baker with Forslow and D1: “[P]ut the TPC
command of D1 at the end of the transmission gap so the SIR could be
estimated as taught by Baker because the teaching lies in Ushirokawa that
estimates at the end of the transmission gap lead to improved power control .
. . estimate the SIR as taught by Baker because Baker suggests this can help
provide improved power control during soft handover.”). As explained
above, the combination of the references teaches the claimed subject matter,
more particularly, the combination of the references teaches “wherein the
slot-format includes no pilot signal and a TPC command is located at an end
of each transmitted slot,” as recited in claim 1, and “wherein estimating the
downlink SIR includes estimating the downlink SIR based on a value of a
Appeal 2018-008394
Application 14/602,034
12
TPC command received in a last slot of the transmission gap having a fixed
value for the TPC command set by the slot-format,” as recited in claim 1.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, 8–10, 13, 14,
17–19, 22, 23, 26, 27, and 30, which are not separately argued with
particularity.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 6, 15, and 24 over Forslow, D1,
Ushirokawa, Baker, and D2
Claim 6 further recites “the downlink DPCH uses a 20 millisecond
transmission in the second compression interval regardless of an uplink
DPCH transmission mode.”
The Examiner finds D2 teaches the further recited subject matter of
claim 6. Final Act. 10–11 (citing D2 Section 3.3 (“UL transmission in
compressed mode (CM)”)).
Appellant presents the following principal argument: “FIG. 4 and D2
in general are silent regarding properties of a downlink transmission.”
Appeal Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 7–8.
In response, the Examiner explains:
D2 appears to illustrate a 10 ms uplink transmission in normal
mode, and a 20 ms uplink transmission in power limited mode,
but, in either case, the frame duration is always 20 milliseconds.
Thus it would appear that the reference of record D2 illustrates a
20 millisecond frame duration without any regard to the uplink
mode. Based on the finding of examiner that the same frame
duration is used for both the uplink and downlink, examiner finds
the express disclosure of a 20 ms uplink voice frame duration
regardless of the mode (normal or compressed) used for uplink
transmissions is an implicit disclosure of a 20ms downlink frame
duration regardless of the uplink transmission mode.
Ans. 19.
Appeal 2018-008394
Application 14/602,034
13
D2 discloses a 20 ms uplink frame, and also discloses various uplink
transmission modes. See D2, Figures 4 and 5. Thus, D2 discloses “an uplink
DPCH transmission mode,” as recited in claim 6.
However, on the record before us, the Examiner’s explanation does
not support a finding that given D2’s disclosure of various transmission
modes and a 20 ms uplink frame, a skilled artisan would understand that
“the downlink DPCH uses a 20 millisecond transmission in the second
compression interval regardless of an uplink DPCH transmission mode,” as
recited in claim 6. At best, the Examiner explains that D2 teaches that the
downlink DPCH uses a 20 ms frame in the second compression interval
regardless of an uplink DPCH transmission mode. See Ans. 19. However,
the Examiner does not explain why D2 teaches that the downlink DPCH
uses a 20 ms transmission in the second compression interval regardless of
an uplink DPCH transmission mode. The Examiner has not established that
the 20 ms frame equates to a 20 ms transmission.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and 24,
which recite the same subject matter as claim 6.4
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 7, 16, and 25 over Forslow, D1,
Ushirokawa, Baker, and D3
Appellant does not present separate arguments for claims 7, 16, and
25. See Appeal Br. 6–17; see also Reply Br. 2–8.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 16, and 25
for reasons given above when addressing claim 1.

4 Our decision does not determine that the claim is patentable. Rather, our
decision determines that the record before us does not establish that the
claim is unpatentable.
Appeal 2018-008394
Application 14/602,034
14
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed-in-part.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–10, 13–
19, 22–27,
30–34
112(a) Written
Description
1, 4–10, 13–
19, 22–27,
30–34
1, 4, 5, 8–
10, 13, 14,
17–19, 22,
23, 26, 27,
30–34
103 Forslow, D1,
Ushirokawa, Baker
1, 4, 5, 8–
10, 13, 14,
17–19, 22,
23, 26, 27,
30–34

6, 15, 24 103 Forslow, D1,
Ushirokawa,
Baker, D2
6, 15, 24
7, 16, 25 103 Forslow, D1,
Ushirokawa,
Baker, D3
7, 16, 25
Overall
Outcome
1, 4, 5, 7–
10, 13, 14,
16–19, 22,
23, 25–27,
30–34
6, 15, 24

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART