Zheng Liu et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 4, 202014385973 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2020) 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. 14/385,973 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation