Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (publ)

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 24, 2021

2020004565 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 24, 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. 15/783,863 10/13/2017 Zhiheng Guo 3000-306C 2428 27820 7590 12/24/2021 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. 106 Pinedale Springs Way Cary, NC 27511 EXAMINER SONG, REBECCA E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2414 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/24/2021 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): patents@wt-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ZHIHENG GUO, RUI FAN, XINGHUA SONG, and ERIK ERIKSSON Appeal 2020-004565 Application 15/783,863 Technology Center 2400 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, 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 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ). Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-004565 Application 15/783,863 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed invention is directed to reporting a fixed number of the acknowledgement (i.e., ACK)/non-acknowledgment (i.e., NACK) bits that can be determined based on (e.g., fixed to) the maximum bit number available in the reference downlink (i.e., DL) Time Division Duplex (i.e., TDD) configuration for one or more DL subframes allocated to the user equipment (i.e., UE). Spec. 12–13. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for use in a wireless communication device reporting acknowledgement (ACK) or non- acknowledgement (NACK) in dynamic time division duplex (TDD) configurations, the method comprising: receiving an indication of a reference uplink (UL) TDD configuration and a reference downlink (DL) TDD configuration; and reporting ACK or NACK bits with a fixed number of the ACK or NACK bits based on the reference DL TDD configuration at a timing based on the reference DL TDD configuration. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Nayeb Nazar US 2011/0243066 Al Oct. 6, 2011 Baldemair US 2012/0113907 Al May 10, 2012 Li US 2012/0281645 Al Nov. 8, 2012 Yin US 2014/0198733 Al July 17, 2014 3GPP TS 36.213 V11.1.0 (2012-12), 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Physical layer procedures (Release 11) (“3GPP”). Appeal 2020-004565 Application 15/783,863 3 REJECTIONS Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1–2, 4–6, 10–12, 14–16, 20 103(a) Yin, Nayeb Nazar 3, 13 103(a) Yin, Nayeb Nazar, Baldemair 7–8, 17–18 103(a) Yin, Nayeb Nazar, 3GPP 9, 19 103(a) Yin, Nayeb Nazar, Li OPINION To the extent consistent with our analysis below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the action from which this appeal is taken and the Answer and add the following for emphasis. Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 10–12, 14–16, and 20 Appellant argues that the combination of Yin and Nayeb Nazar does not teach or suggest the limitation of “reporting ACK or NACK bits with a fixed number of the ACK or NACK bits based on the reference DL TDD configuration at a timing based on the reference DL TDD configuration” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9–10. Appellant acknowledges that Yin teaches the use of Dynamic TDD and discusses that “the first reference UL- DL configuration may be used as the PDSCH timing reference. Accordingly, the PDSCH scheduling and PDSCH HARQ-ACK bits reporting may be based on the first reference UL-DL configuration.” Appeal Br. 10 (citing Yin, para. 55). However, Appellant argues that even if reporting HARQ-ACK includes bits, this does not teach how many bits to Appeal 2020-004565 Application 15/783,863 4 use at all, let alone a fixed number of the ACK or NACK bits as recited in claim 1. Id. Appellant notes that the Examiner relies on Nayeb Nazar for explicitly teaching the disputed limitation. Id. Specifically, the Examiner relies, according to Appellant, on the teaching of a “total number of ACK/NACK feedbacks equal to two times the number of DL subframes in a TDD configuration” to indicate that the total number of ACK/NACK feedback is fixed based on the downlink TDD configuration. Appeal Br. 10 (citing Final Act. 4). Appellant argues that some subframes that are marked as a DL subframe in the DL TDD configuration will not end up being a DL subframe. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant explains that if a subframe is indicated as both a UL (i.e., uplink) subframe and a DL subframe, it is configured as a “flexible” subframe. Id. According to Appellant these subframes can, for example, be configured as either for UL transmission or DL transmission depending on, for example, the radio traffic situation in a cell. Id. As such, Appellant argues that the DL TDD configuration is not enough information to determine the actual number of DL subframes. Id. Instead, in order to know the number of DL subframes, a reference or combination of references would need both a reference UL TDD configuration and a reference DL TDD configuration. Id. Appellant argues that because some of the subframes may be flexible subframes, it is not known whether these are DL subframes or UL subframes. Id. As such, according to Appellant, Nayeb Nazar does not teach use of a fixed number of the ACK or NACK bits and does not remedy the deficiency of Yin. Id. Appellant further argues that even if Nayeb Nazar does teach the use of a fixed number of the ACK or Appeal 2020-004565 Application 15/783,863 5 NACK bits, Nayeb Nazar still fails to teach that “this fixed number is based on the reference DL TDD configuration.” Id. We do not agree with Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Yin’s paragraph 55 teaches that 1) HARQ-ACK bits reporting is being made and 2) it is based on the first reference UL-DL configuration. Ans. 14 (citing Yin, para. 55). The Examiner further finds, that Yin’s paragraph 122 teaches that the first reference UL-DL configuration is a downlink reference TDD UL-DL configuration. Ans. 14 (citing Yin, para. 122). The Examiner explains that Yin teaches “HARQ-ACK bits reporting” that utilizes the number of HARQ-ACK bits in reporting. Ans. 14. The Examiner finds that without utilizing a number of bits, data cannot be transmitted in LTE/LTE-A system. Id. The Examiner explains that although Yin is silent on how many bits, Yin explicitly teaches that HARQ- ACK bits reporting is based on the DL reference TDD UL-DL configuration. Id. The Examiner concludes that Yin teaches that the ACK or NACK bits are reported with a certain number of ACK or NACK bits based on the first reference UL-DL configuration. Id. The Examiner finds that Nayeb Nazar teaches that the total number of ACK/NACK feedback is fixed to two times of the number of DL subframes in a TDD configuration. Ans. 15 (citing Nayeb Nazar, para. 137). The Examiner explains that contrary to Appellant’s argument, regardless of how Nayeb Nazar determines the number of subframes to be DL subframes, it does not change the fact that Nayeb Nazar teaches the total number of ACK/NACK feedback being equal to two times the number of DL subframes in a TDD configuration (para. 137), and thus fixed. Id. Appeal 2020-004565 Application 15/783,863 6 The Examiner further finds that Nayeb Nazar is silent on whether the TDD configuration is the reference DL TDD configuration, but this teaching is provided by Yin. Ans. 14. In particular, the Examiner finds Yin teaches that the UL-DL reference configurations are based on a default UL-DL configuration that is specified by an evolved Node B (i.e., eNB) for all UEs. Ans. 16 (citing Yin, paras. 56, 122). The Examiner further finds that Yin teaches or suggests a scenario that the first reference UL-DL configuration (i.e., reference DL TDD configuration) is the same as the second reference UL-DL configuration (i.e., reference UL TDD configuration). Id. The Examiner explains that in such a scenario, the TDD configuration of Nayeb Nazar, i.e., default TDD configuration, is the same as the reference DL TDD configuration as there would not be any flexible subframes to change the directionality of default TDD configuration. Id. (citing Yin, Fig. 7). The Examiner finds that the combination of Nayeb Nazar and Yin teaches or suggests that the TDD configuration is the reference DL TDD configuration, “and reporting ACK or NACK bits with a fixed number of the ACK or NACK bits based on the reference DL TDD configuration at a timing based on the reference DL TDD configuration” recited in claim 1. Ans. 16. Appellant further argues that Nayeb Nazar teaches away from the claimed features because Nayeb Nazar explicitly bases the number of bits on the number of DL subframes and when determining this number requires both the DL TDD configuration and the UL TDD configuration. Appeal Br. 11. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d Appeal 2020-004565 Application 15/783,863 7 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of [those] references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 425. “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). As discussed above, the combined teachings of Yin and Nayeb Nazar provides one scenario where the determination of number of ACK/NACK bits to be used is based on the number of DL subframes, which is based on the reference DL TDD configuration. See supra; Ans. 17. We further agree with the Examiner that Yin was relied upon for the teaching that HARQ- ACK bits reporting is based on the reference DL TDD configuration and Nayeb Nazar was relied upon for teaching that the total number of ACK/NACK feedback is fixed to two times the number of DL subframes in a TDD configuration. See id. Thus, the combined teachings of Yin and Nayeb Nazar teach the disputed limitation. We also do not agree with Appellant that Nayeb Nazar teaches away from the claimed features because the Examiner provided a scenario where both the DL TDD configuration and the UL TDD configuration are not needed. See supra. Appellant has not rebutted these findings as no Reply Brief was filed. Appeal 2020-004565 Application 15/783,863 8 Based on the record before us, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 2–20 not argued separately. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 under § 103 are AFFIRMED. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–6, 10–12, 14– 16, 20 103(a) Yin, Nayeb Nazar 1, 2, 4–6, 10–12, 14– 16, 20 3, 13 103(a) Yin, Nayeb Nazar, Baldemair 3, 13 7, 8, 17, 18 103(a) Yin, Nayeb Nazar, 3GPP 7, 8, 17, 18 9, 19 103(a) Yin, Nayeb Nazar, Li 9, 19 Overall Outcome 1–20 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