Motorola Mobility LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 16, 2022

2020005138 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2022)

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. 15/717,921 09/27/2017 Hossein Bagheri SMM02157-US-NP2 8810 73635 7590 03/16/2022 Loppnow & Chapa [Motorola] P.O. Box 7588 Libertyville, IL 60048 EXAMINER CHU, WUTCHUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2468 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/16/2022 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): docketing.mobility@motorola.com docketing@loppchap.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HOSSEIN BAGHERI, RAVIKIRAN NORY, and VIJAY NANGIA ____________ Appeal 2020-005138 Application 15/717,921 Technology Center 2400 _______________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC B. CHEN, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellant filed a Request for Rehearing (“Request”) under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) for reconsideration of our Decision on Appeal, mailed on December 29, 2021 (“Decision”). In that Decision, we affirmed the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-4, 8, 9, and 11-171 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and § 103. We have considered Appellant’s arguments presented in the Request for Rehearing (“Req. Reh’g”), but we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We have provided herein additional 1 Claims 5-7, 10, and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten to incorporate all the limitations of base claims. Final Act. 17. Appeal 2020-005138 Application 15/717,921 2 explanations, but decline to change our decision in view of Appellant’s arguments. ANALYSIS The applicable standard for a Request for Rehearing is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1), which provides in relevant part, “[t]he request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board.” Appellant requests a rehearing based on the characterization that the Board overlooked Appellant’s arguments that Chen does not disclose the last wherein clauses of Appellant’s claim 1, including: wherein determining the first reference transmit time interval comprises determining the first reference transmit time interval of the first transmit time interval length to be the transmit time interval in which the indication is received, and wherein determining the second reference transmit time interval comprises determining the second reference transmit time interval of the second transmit time interval length to be the transmit time interval in which the indication is received. Request 3-6 (emphasis added). Appellant contends that Appellant’s arguments were presented on (1) pages 14 and 19 of the Appeal Brief to explain that Chen does not disclose “determining the first reference transmit time interval of the first transmit time interval length to be the transmit time interval in which the indication is received”; (2) pages 11 and 16 of the Appeal Brief to explain that Chen does not disclose “determining the second reference transmit time interval of the second transmit time interval length to be the transmit time interval in which the indication is received”; and (3) “the entire Reply Brief” to explain that Appeal 2020-005138 Application 15/717,921 3 Chen does not disclose these disputed limitations. Id. at 4. In addition, Appellant emphasizes the importance of the phrase “to be” in these disputed limitations, but provided no explanation as to why such a phrase is important or is different from the same “first reference transmit time interval of the first transmit time interval length” or “second reference transmit time interval of the second transmit time interval length” as being determined “based on the transmit time interval in which the indication is received” recited in Appellant’s claim 1. Id. We do not agree with Appellant. To the extent that Appellant’s claims 1 and 14 can be understood, the Board has not overlooked any points or arguments originally raised by Appellant. The Board considered Appellant’s previous arguments, but nevertheless found the Examiner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. For example, on pages 9-10 of the Decision, we agreed with the Examiner’s findings that: The CSI reporting trigger, correspond to claimed the indication received, can be 1) legacy CSI reporting trigger or 2) ULL CSI reporting trigger. UE determines a TTI based on the CSI reporting trigger: 1) ULL CSI reporting trigger associated with a communication having a first TTI (e.g., 70-90 microseconds TTI CSI process, in para. [0078 & 0029]), corresponds to claimed first reference TTI and its first TTI length; and 2) legacy CSI reporting trigger associated with [a communication having] a second TTI (e.g., a legacy LTE 1 ms TTI CSI as shown in para. [0078 & 0080]), corresponds to claimed second reference TTI and its second TTI length. Ans. 5 (citing Chen ¶¶ 29, 78, 80) (emphasis omitted). When Chen’s CSI generating component 808 of CSI management component 661, shown in Figure 8, determines a transmit time interval (TTI) Appeal 2020-005138 Application 15/717,921 4 associated with a channel or communication for which CSI is to be reported based on the CSI reporting trigger: (1) ULL CSI reporting trigger associated with a communication having a first TTI (e.g., an ultra-low latency (ULL) 70-90 microseconds TTI CSI process), or alternatively, (2) legacy CSI reporting associated with a communication having a second TTI (e.g., a legacy LTE 1 millisecond TTI CSI process) (see Chen ¶ 70), we explained in our Decision that Chen is said to disclose: (1) “determining a first reference transmit time interval of a first transmit time interval length based on the transmit time interval in which the indication is received” and (2) “determining a second reference transmit time interval of a second transmit time interval length based on the transmit time interval in which the indication is received” as recited in Appellant’s claims 1 and 14 (emphasis added). Decision 9; Ans. 5. Because Chen’s ULL CSI reporting trigger associated with a communication having a first TTI (e.g., ULL 70-90 microseconds TTI CSI process), we agree with the Examiner that Chen discloses the disputed limitation: “determining the first reference transmit time interval of the first transmit time interval length to be the transmit time interval [e.g., ULL 70- 90 microseconds TTI CSI process] in which the indication is received.” Ans. 8 citing (Chen ¶ 70). In the context of Chen, there is no meaningful distinction between whether the recited “first reference transmit time interval” is determined “based on” or “to be” the transmit time interval (e.g., ULL 70-90 microseconds) because the transmit time interval would still be between 70-90 microseconds for ULL communication. Likewise, because Chen’s legacy CSI reporting associated with a communication having a second TTI (e.g., 1 millisecond), we also agree Appeal 2020-005138 Application 15/717,921 5 with the Examiner that Chen discloses the disputed limitation: “determining the second reference transmit time interval of the second transmit time interval length to be the transmit time interval [e.g., 1 millisecond] in which the indication is received.” Ans. 10 citing (Chen ¶ 70). CONCLUSION For these reasons, Appellant has failed to identify any issue we overlooked in determining that the Examiner did not err as to the issue before us in the appeal. DECISION Outcome of Decision on Rehearing: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Denied Granted 1, 2, 8, 9, 12-15 102 Chen 1, 2, 8, 9, 12-15 3, 16 103 Chen, Yang 3, 16 4, 11, 17 103 Chen, Nogami 4, 11, 17 Overall Outcome 1-4, 8, 9, 11-17 Final Outcome of Appeal after Rehearing: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 8, 9, 12-15 102 Chen 1, 2, 8, 9, 12-15 3, 16 103 Chen, Yang 3, 16 4, 11, 17 103 Chen, Nogami 4, 11, 17 Appeal 2020-005138 Application 15/717,921 6 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed Overall Outcome 1-4, 8, 9, 11-17 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) (2013). REHEARING DENIED