Zheng Liu et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 4, 2020

14385973 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2020)

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.
14/385,973 09/17/2014 Zheng Liu LUTZ 201900US01 1836
48116 7590 02/04/2020
FAY SHARPE/NOKIA
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
EXAMINER
PHAM, CHI H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2471
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2020 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):
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
docketing@faysharpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Zheng Liu and Qi Jiang
Appeal 2018-008989
Application 14/385,973
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JASON J. CHUNG, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, 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 rejecting claims 1–14 and 16–20. Claim 15 has been
canceled. See Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 15.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

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 Alcatel Lucent.
See Appeal Br. 1.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Sept. 17, 2014
(claiming benefit of CN 201210073146.X, filed Mar. 19, 2012); Appeal
Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed May 29, 2018; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”),
filed Sept. 20, 2018. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action
Appeal 2018-008989
Application 14/385,973

2
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates generally “to a physical uplink control channel
[(PUCCH)] and more particularly to a method of linking extended PUCCH
resources for ACK/NACK [(Acknowledgement/Negative
Acknowledgement)] implicitly to eCCEs [(enhanced Control Channel
Elements)] used by EPDCCH [(enhanced Physical Downlink Control
Channel)].” Spec. 1:5–7; see Spec. 1:10–6:12; Abstract. Claims 1, 6, 11,
14, and 17–20 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, in a base station of a communication
system, of linking PUCCH resources for ACK/NACK to eCCEs
used by one or more EPDCCH, one or more EPDCCH uses the
eCCEs for transmission, the method comprises:
numbering a plurality of PUCCH resources for
ACK/NACK, without confliction among user equipments served
by the base station wherein each of the plurality of extended
PUCCH resources corresponds to one user equipment;
numbering the eCCEs used by the one or more
EPDCCHs, wherein the numbering of the eCCEs corresponds
to an offset in PUCCH resources;
determining a linkage between the numbering of the
PUCCH resources and the numbering of the eCCEs;
sharing with one or more of the user equipments the
linkage and/or information associated with the numbering of
the extended PUCCH resources; and

(“Final Act.”), mailed Nov. 14, 2017; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed July 20,
2018.
Appeal 2018-008989
Application 14/385,973

3
transmitting number information associated with the
eCCEs to the one or more user equipments, wherein the number
information comprises the offset.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kim et al. (“Kim”) US 2014/0301329 A1 Oct. 9, 2014 (claiming
benefit of US 61/550,451,
filed Oct. 24, 2011)
REJECTION3
The Examiner rejects claims 1–14, and 16–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim. See Final Act. 2–21.
OPINION
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–14 and 16–20
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as independent
claims 6, 11, 14, and 17–20, and dependent claims 2–5, 7–10, 12, 13, and
16) over Kim. See Final Act. 2–21; Ans. 3–10. Appellant contends Kim
does not teach the disputed limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8–10;
Reply Br. 3–4. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia, that Kim does
not describe a base station performing numbering using an offset as recited
in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8–10; Reply Br. 3–4. Appellant states that:

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103, e.g., to rename 35 U.S.C.
§ 103’s subsections. Because the present application has an effective filing
date (March 19, 2012) prior to the AIA’s effective date for applications
(March 16, 2013), this decision refers 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2018-008989
Application 14/385,973

4
The Examiner . . . does not establish that the base station
in Kim performs the claimed features. In this regard, for
example, the Examiner asserts that Kim assigns the CCE index
for the E-PDCCH after the CCE indexes of the legacy
PDCCHs. However, even if the assertions of the Examiner are
accepted (although such assertions are not conceded by the
Applicant), the Examiner does not fairly establish that the
features of the claimed method are performed by the base
station. At most, it appears that Kim teaches that the base
station might, in circumstances where the User Equipment (UE)
does not monitor the region of the PDCCH, send data on a total
number of CCEs in the PDCCH. However, this is not a fair
citation to render obvious all the claimed features. As best
understood, meaningful functionality of the Kim disclosure is
performed by the User Equipment (UE). The Examiner has not
established that the base station in Kim performs the features of
numbering, determining, sharing and transmitting.
Reply Br. 3.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of Kim do
not teach or suggest “that the base station in Kim performs the features of
numbering, determining, sharing and transmitting” (Reply Br. 3) as required
by Appellant’s claim 1—“A method, in a base station of a communication
system” comprising “numbering a plurality of PUCCH resources for
ACK/NACK” “wherein the numbering of the eCCEs corresponds to an
offset in PUCCH resources” and “transmitting number information
associated with the eCCEs to the one or more user equipments, wherein the
number information comprises the offset” (Appeal Br. 24–25 (Claims App.)
(emphasis added)). See Appeal Br. 8–10; Reply Br. 3–4. The Examiner-
cited portions of Kim describe “a PUCCH resource index for ACK/NACK
transmission” (Kim ¶ 124) using an offset (see Kim ¶ 136) and configuring
“a PUCCH ACK/NACK resource for an E-PDCCH” (Kim ¶ 151). See Final
Act. 2–4; Ans. 3–10 (citing Kim ¶¶ 12–13, 124, 136–140, 142, 145, 146,
Appeal 2018-008989
Application 14/385,973

5
148, 149, and 151–154; Figs. 13–15). The cited portions of Kim, however,
also describe the user equipment (UE) determining the numbering of the
resources, not the base station. See Kim ¶¶ 13, 136–149. The Examiner
does not explain sufficiently how the cited portions of Kim at least suggest a
base station performing the disputed features.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that Kim renders obvious Appellant’s claim 1.
Independent claims 6, 11, 14, and 17–20 include limitations of
commensurate scope. Claims 2–5, 7–10, 12, 13, and 16 depend from and
stand with claims 1, 6, 11, and 14, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–14
and 16–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We, therefore, do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–14 and 16–20.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–14, 16–
20
103 Kim None 1–14, 16–
20

REVERSED