Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 29, 2021

2020000571 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 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. 15/224,149 07/29/2016 Mattias Frenne 1009-1785 / P37489 US3 1587 102721 7590 04/29/2021 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson 1255 Crescent Green Suite 200 Cary, NC 27518 EXAMINER RAHMAN, SHAH M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2413 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/29/2021 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): official@mbhiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MATTIAS FRENNE, DANIEL LARSSON, and LARS LINDBOM ____________________ Appeal 2020-000571 Application 15/224,149 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before MARC S. HOFF, JOHN A. EVANS, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appellant’s invention is a method for scheduling a downlink broadcast transmission using Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH). The base station is also configured to provide an Orthogonal Frequency 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant states that the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget Ericsson (publ). Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-000571 Application 15/224,149 2 Division Multiplexed (OFDM) PDSCH to a wireless terminal, which monitors enhanced Physical Downlink Control Channel (ePDCCH) for receiving downlink control data. By applying such a symbol, a wireless terminal that monitors ePDCCH and a wireless terminal that monitors PDCCH may receive the same downlink broadcast transmission on PDSCH. Spec., Abstr. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method in a base station for scheduling a downlink broadcast transmission using a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) wherein an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) PDSCH start symbol identifier is used for identifying a start of said broadcast transmission, said base station being comprised in a wireless communications network, the method comprising: selecting an OFDM PDSCH start symbol for the start of the broadcast transmission, wherein the OFDM PDSCH start symbol is based only on a system bandwidth. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Haghighat US 2012/0106465 A1 May 3, 2012 Ahn US 2014/0133433 A1 May 15, 2014 Lee US 2014/0362758 A1 Dec. 11, 2014 Fujitsu, On RRC signaling for PDSCH starting position indication, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 (15 Oct 2010) Appeal 2020-000571 Application 15/224,149 3 Claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11–16, 18–21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Haghighat and Fujitsu. Final Act. 3. Claims 3, 10, 17, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Haghighat, Fujitsu, and Lee. Final Act. 16. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Haghighat, Fujitsu, and Ahn. Final Act. 18. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed June 24, 2019), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Nov. 1, 2019), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Sept. 3, 2019) for their respective details. ISSUE Does the combination of Haghighat and Fujitsu teach or suggest selecting an OFDM PDSCH start symbol based only on a system bandwidth? ANALYSIS 1, 2, 4–9, 11–16, 18–21, 23, and 24 Representative claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “selecting an OFDM PDSCH start symbol for the start of the broadcast transmission, wherein the OFDM PDSCH start symbol is based only on a system bandwidth.” The other independent claims (8, 15, and 20) recite analogous limitations. The Examiner finds that Haghighat does not teach the selection of an OFDM PDSCH start symbol based only on a system bandwidth, and cites to Fujitsu for a teaching of this limitation. Final Act. 5. Fujitsu teaches that Appeal 2020-000571 Application 15/224,149 4 [i]ndication of PDSCH starting position needs at least 2 bits (4 code-points) in RRC1 signaling. One of the 4 code- points may not be used if PDSCH starting position is {1,2,3} or {2,3,4} –th OFDM symbol where the OFDM symbol appearing at the beginning of DL Subframe is 0th OFDM symbol. Note: Whether {1,2,3} or {2,3,4} depends on the DL system bandwidth. Fujitsu, section 2, para. 3. The Examiner finds that “Fujitsu teaches that the choice of which set of OFDM symbols from which the PDSCH starting symbol is taken depends on system bandwidth.” Ans. 6. The Examiner next finds that “system bandwidth” is the only parameter disclosed by Fujitsu for selection of the set of “OFDM symbols numbers each of which is a possible PDSCH starting symbol number.” Id. Appellant argues, and we agree, that Fujitsu “actually discloses that system bandwidth is used only to determine which set of OFDM symbols from which the PDSCH starting symbol should be taken.” Reply Br. 3. “[T]he particular PDSCH symbol in the chosen set [i.e., either {1,2,3} or {2,3,4}] that will be the actual start symbol still needs to be determined, even after the bandwidth is used to limit the possibilities.” Id. We do not find within Fujitsu any teaching of the procedure used to make the ultimate selection of a single PDSCH “starting position.” In essence, we agree with Appellant that “there is some other, unstated basis used by the network for determining the actual PDSCH start symbol from the chosen set.” Id. As neither Haghighat nor Fujitsu teach or suggest selecting an OFDM PDSCH start symbol [singular] for the start of the broadcast transmission, wherein that symbol is based only on a system 1 Radio Resource Control Appeal 2020-000571 Application 15/224,149 5 bandwidth, we conclude that the Examiner erred in setting forth the prima facie obviousness of claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11–16, 18–21, 23, and 24. We do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of Haghighat and Fujitsu. Claims 3, 10, 17, and 22 Each of these claims depends from an independent claim rejected by the Examiner over Haghighat and Fujitsu. As analyzed supra, we do not sustain the rejection of those independent claims. The Examiner does not find that Lee contains a teaching or suggestion to remedy the deficiencies we have noted in the combination of Haghighat and Fujitsu. Therefore, we do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 3, 10, 17, and 22, for the same reasons given with respect to claims 1, 8, 15, and 20, supra. Claim 25 Claim 25 depends from independent claim 1. As analyzed supra, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. The Examiner does not find that Ahn contains a teaching or suggestion to remedy the deficiencies we have noted in the combination of Haghighat and Fujitsu. Therefore, we do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 25, for the same reasons given with respect to claim 1, supra. CONCLUSION The combination of Haghighat and Fujitsu does not teach or suggest selecting an OFDM PDSCH start symbol based only on a system bandwidth. Appeal 2020-000571 Application 15/224,149 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–9, 11– 16, 18–21, 23, 24 103 Haghighat, Fujitsu 1, 2, 4–9, 11– 16, 18–21, 23, 24 3, 10, 17, 22 103 Haghighat, Fujitsu, Lee 3, 10, 17, 22 25 103 Haghighat, Fujitsu, Ahn 25 Overall Outcome 1–25 The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–25 is reversed. REVERSED