Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (publ)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 14, 2021

2019005897 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 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.
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