Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (publ)Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 14, 20212019005897 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 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. 14/271,753 05/07/2014 Robert BALDEMAIR 0110-533-DIV/ P031953US04 3742 113648 7590 06/14/2021 Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC 754 Warrenton Road Suite 113-314 Fredericksburg, VA 22406 EXAMINER DANIEL JR, WILLIE J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2462 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/14/2021 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): Mailroom@ppblaw.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ROBERT BALDEMAIR, DIRK GERSTENBERGER, DANIEL LARSSON, and HENNING WIEMANN ____________ Appeal 2019-005897 Application 14/271,753 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, LARRY J. HUME, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–16, 18, 19, 21–25, 27, 28, 30–34, and 36, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON (PUBL) as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-005897 Application 14/271,753 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The claimed invention relates to “power headroom reporting in radio communications systems.” Spec. ¶ 1. Power headroom reporting and report handling are discussed in the context of a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH), on which a user equipment (UE) has no valid uplink grant, and a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) on which a UE has no transmission. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to directly calculate one or more parameters which are used to calculate power headroom. Accordingly, exemplary embodiments provide for predetermined, known values to be used by the UE to calculate the power headroom, and by the eNodeB to understand the meaning of a received power headroom report. Spec. Abstr. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method for power headroom reporting in a radiocommunication system for a component carrier on which a user equipment (UE) has no current transmission on the Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH), the method comprising: calculating, by said UE, a power headroom for said component carrier on which said UE has no transmission on the PUCCH, using: (a) a first predetermined value for hc(nCQI,nHARQ), which represents an amount by which power is adapted to the number of control information bits that are transmitted on said PUCCH on said component carrier when the UE has a transmission on the PUCCH, (b) a second predetermined value for ΔF_PUCCHc (F), which represents a relative performance difference between PUCCH format 1a and said PUCCH on said component carrier when the UE has a transmission on the PUCCH, and (c) a third predetermined value for δPUCCHc(i-km), which represents transmit power control command associated with Appeal 2019-005897 Application 14/271,753 3 said PUCCH on said component carrier when the UE has a transmission on the PUCCH; the first, second, and third predetermined value being known to the UE and an eNodeB to which the UE is connected, wherein the UE is unable to determine actual values of hc(nCQI,nHARQ), ΔF_PUCCHc, and δPUCCHc(i-km) while having no transmission on the PUCCH; and transmitting, by said UE, a power headroom report based on said calculated power headroom. Appeal Br. 17–18 (Claims Appendix). References and Rejection2 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–16, 18, 19, 21–25, 27, 28, 30–34, 36 103 Shin (US 2011/0038271 Al, Feb. 17, 2011), Heo (US 2010/0296470 Al, Nov. 25, 2010) 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated June 4, 2018 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated Feb. 4, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated May 31, 2019 (“Ans.”); and (4) Reply Brief dated July 31, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2019-005897 Application 14/271,753 4 ANALYSIS3 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred in determining the cited portions of Shin and Heo collectively teach: calculating, by said UE, a power headroom for said component carrier on which said UE has no transmission on the PUCCH, using: . . . (c) a third predetermined value for δPUCCHc(i-km), which represents transmit power control command associated with said PUCCH on said component carrier when the UE has a transmission on the PUCCH; the . . . third predetermined value being known to the UE and an eNodeB to which the UE is connected, wherein the UE is unable to determine actual values of . . . δPUCCHc(i-km) while having no transmission on the PUCCH; as recited in independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8–11; Reply Br. 2. First, the Examiner cites numerous paragraphs from Shin for teaching the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 2–4; Ans. 11. While the cited paragraphs include some key words from the disputed limitation, it is unclear how or why they teach the disputed limitation. In particular, the Examiner cites paragraphs 154, 156, and 157 for teaching “calculating, by said UE, a power headroom for said component carrier on which said UE has no transmission on the PUCCH.” See Final Act. 2; Ans. 11. However, as pointed out by Appellant (Appeal Br. 8), the cited portions of Shin explain “[t]he WTRU may send a PH report based on PUSCH transmission 3 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not address the additional arguments. Appeal 2019-005897 Application 14/271,753 5 only, when there is no simultaneous PUSCH/PUCCH transmission or no PUCCH transmission on an UL CC” (Shin ¶ 154 (emphasis added))—the opposite of “calculating, by said UE, a power headroom for said component carrier on which said UE has no transmission on the PUCCH, using . . . a third predetermined value for δPUCCHc(i-km), which represents transmit power control command associated with said PUCCH on said component carrier when the UE has a transmission on the PUCCH.” Further, while the cited Shin portions reference δPUSCH(i-KPUSCH,k), they describe that term as follows: If accumulation is enabled such that Ɵ(i,k)=f(i-1,k)+ δPUSCH(i- KPUSCH,k), the WTRU may reset accumulation such that f(i,k)=0 if PUSCH transmission is switched from one CC to another CC. Similarly, the WTRU may reset accumulation such that g(i,k)=0 if PUCCH transmission is switched from one CC to another CC. Shin ¶ 38. It is unclear how the above description teaches: calculating, by said UE, a power headroom for said component carrier on which said UE has no transmission on the PUCCH, using: . . . (c) a third predetermined value for δPUCCHc(i-km), which represents transmit power control command associated with said PUCCH on said component carrier when the UE has a transmission on the PUCCH; the . . . third predetermined value being known to the UE and an eNodeB to which the UE is connected, wherein the UE is unable to determine actual values of . . . δPUCCHc(i-km) while having no transmission on the PUCCH; as required by claim 1. Second, the Examiner finds “[a]s further alternative support in the same field of endeavor, Heo discloses the feature(s).” Final Act. 4–5; see also Ans. 11–12. Similar to the Shin situation, while the cited Heo portions Appeal 2019-005897 Application 14/271,753 6 include some key words from the disputed limitation, it is unclear why Heo, either individually, or in combination with Shin, teach the disputed limitation. In particular, the Examiner does not respond to Appellant’s argument that the cited Heo portions do not teach δPUCCHc(i-km) (Appeal Br. 10–11). Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s rejection is inadequate because it is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Examiner’s burden of proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence); see also In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.”). Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 3–7, 9, 10, 12–16, 18, 19, 21–25, 27, 28, 30–34, and 36 for similar reasons. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–16, 18, 19, 21–25, 27, 28, 30–34, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2019-005897 Application 14/271,753 7 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–16, 18, 19, 21– 25, 27, 28, 30–34, 36 103 Shin, Heo 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–16, 18, 19, 21– 25, 27, 28, 30–34, 36 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation