QUALCOMM INCORPORATED et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 14, 2021

2020004608 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 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.
14/654,660 06/22/2015 Chao Wei PQ025WO.US
(81679.0987)
8939
109682 7590 09/14/2021
Holland & Hart LLP/Qualcomm
P.O. Box 11583
Salt Lake City, UT 84147
EXAMINER
BAIG, ADNAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2021 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
patentdocket@hollandhart.com
qualcomm@hollandhart.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHAO WEI, XIPENG ZHU,
JILEI HOU and NENG WANG
____________

Appeal 2020-004608
Application 14/654,660
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
non-final rejection of claims 1–30, which constitute all of the claims pending
in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Qualcomm
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-004608
Application 14/654,660

2

THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention relates “generally to wireless
communication, and more specifically to discontinuous reception and/or
discontinuous transmission in wireless communication systems having
reconfigurable data transmission configurations.” Spec. ¶ 2.2
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter (with formatting added for clarity):
1. A method of wireless communication performed by a user
equipment (UE) in time-division duplex (TDD) communication
with an eNB, comprising:
receiving, from the eNB, a System Information Block
(SIB) comprising a first uplink-downlink (UL-DL) configuration
for TDD communication with the eNB;
receiving, from the eNB, a Radio Resource Control (RRC)
message comprising a second UL-DL configuration for TDD
communication with the eNB;
receiving a reconfiguration message to change the first
UL-DL configuration to the second UL-DL configuration;
switching to a discontinuous reception (DRX) mode; and
monitoring control information from the eNB during DRX
on periods, wherein a frequency of the DRX on periods is based
on a reference TDD UL-DL configuration, and wherein the
frequency of the DRX on periods is irrespective of the second
UL-DL configuration.

2 We refer to the Specification filed June 22, 2015 (“Spec.”); Non-Final
Office Action mailed Sept. 23, 2019 (“Non-Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed
Dec. 23, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed Mar. 30, 2020
(“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed June 1, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-004608
Application 14/654,660

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Name Reference Date
Gupta et al. (“Gupta”) US 2013/0003577 A1 Jan. 3, 2013
Wang et al. (“Wang ‘651”) US 2013/0044651 A1 Feb. 21, 2013
Yin et al. (“Yin”) US 2013/0194980 A1 Aug. 1, 2013
Heo et al. (“Heo”) US 2013/0242818 A1 Sept. 19, 2013
Wang et al. (“Wang”) WO 2012/134580 A1 Oct. 4, 2012
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 8, 10–12, 19, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Wang, Heo, and Yin. Non-Final Act. 5.
Claims 2–6, 9, 13–17, 20–25, and 27–30 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wang, Heo, Yin, and Wang ‘651. Non-
Final Act. 29.
Claims 7 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Wang, Heo, Yin, and Gupta. Non-Final Act. 36.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “a first uplink-downlink (UL-DL) configuration for
TDD communication with the eNB” and “a second UL-DL configuration for
TDD communication with the eNB,” and “wherein a frequency of the DRX
on periods is based on a reference TDD UL-DL configuration, and wherein
the frequency of the DRX on periods is irrespective of the second UL-DL
configuration.”
The Examiner relies on Wang’s current uplink-downlink ratio
configuration and new uplink-downlink ratio configuration to teach the
Appeal 2020-004608
Application 14/654,660

4
claimed “first uplink-downlink (UL-DL) configuration” and “second UL-DL
configuration,” respectively. Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Wang ¶¶ 23, 24, 27);
see also Ans. 4–5. The Examiner relies on Heo’s selectively powering the
receiver circuitry based on timers, with the definitions of the timer based on
different TDD configurations to teach that frequency of the DRX on periods
is based on a reference TDD UL-DL configuration. Id. at 7–8 (citing Heo
Fig. 14, ¶¶ 30, 42, 43, 89, 91); see also Ans. 6–7. Specifically, the Examiner
finds that Heo’s “optimized DRX timer values/definitions determined by the
eNB for the TDD configurations established for a given TAG” teach the
claimed “frequency of the DRX on periods is based on a reference TDD UL-
DL configuration.” Ans. 7; see also Non-Final Act. 8 (citing Heo ¶ 42).
Appellant argues that Heo teaches a system “where the frequency of
DRX on periods is dependent on TDD UL-DL configurations,” but not “a
single UE with two TDD UL-DL configurations, where a frequency of DRX
on periods is based on one of the configurations and not the other.” Appeal
Br. 5; see also id. at 6; Reply Br. 4. Specifically, Appellant argues that “Heo
never suggests a system in which ‘a frequency of the DRX on periods is
based on a reference TDD UL-DL configuration’ while also being
‘irrespective of the second UL-DL configuration,’ as recited in claim 1.”
Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 4.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred. As cited by the Examiner, Heo discloses that “one or more timers
associated with powering on or off receiver circuitry at UE 105 may be
defined based on configuration 3 and based on configuration 5.” Heo ¶ 42.
In these examples “separate sets of timers may be defined,” such that a “first
set of timers may be defined based on configuration 3 and a second set of
Appeal 2020-004608
Application 14/654,660

5
timers may be defined based on configuration 5.” Id. In other words, Heo
teaches using separate sets of timers for different configurations (i.e., one set
of timers for configuration 3, and a different set of timers for configuration
5).
Appellant does not explain why Heo’s one set of timers for
configuration 3, different from a set of timers for configuration 5, does not
teach a DRX timer based on a reference configuration and irrespective of the
second configuration. For example, Appellant does not explain why Heo’s
first set of timers for configuration 3 (i.e., different from a second set of
timers for configuration 5) does not teach DRX timers that are based on a
reference configuration (i.e., configuration 3) and irrespective of the second
configuration (i.e., configuration 5), as required by the claim.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, along with the rejections of independent claims 12, 19, and 26, and
dependent claims 2–11, 13–18, 20–25, and 27–30, which are not argued
separately. See Appeal Br. 8.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1–30.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 8, 10–12, 19,
26
103 Wang, Heo, Yin 1, 8, 10–12, 19,
26

2–6, 9, 13–17,
20–25, 27–30
103 Wang, Heo, Yin,
Wang ‘651
2–6, 9, 13–17,
20–25, 27–30

7, 18 103 Wang, Heo, Yin,
Gupta
7, 18
Appeal 2020-004608
Application 14/654,660

6
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome
1–30

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