PATENT
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Applicant
`
`Application No.
`
`:
`
`:
`
`Tetsuya Yamamoto
`
`15/467,827
`
`Filed
`
`For
`
`: March 23, 2017
`
`:
`
`COMMUNICATION DEVICE AND COMMUNICATION
`
`METHOD
`
`Examiner
`
`Art Unit
`
`Docket No.
`
`Date
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`Alan Louis Lindenbaum
`
`2466
`
`731456.430C1
`
`April 13, 2020
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Commissioner for Patents:
`
`REPLY BRIEF
`
`This Reply brief is in furtherance of the Notice of Appeal filed on August 19,
`
`2019 and the Appeal Brief filed on December 6, 2019 and is in response to new issues raised by
`
`the Examiner’s Answer mailed on February 12, 2020.
`
`The Examiner sets forth his answer on pages 10—18 of the Examiner’s Answer.
`
`1. Claims 12,131 21 and 22 are definite under 35 US. C. 112(1)):
`
`The Examiner asserts on pages 11 of the Examiner’s Answer:
`
`Applicant's use of the term “fixed” in the claims essentially means
`“temporarily permanent.” Accordingly,
`the terms “dynamically changed” and
`“fixed,” recited in claims 12,13, 21 and 22 of the present Application to describe
`two different modes of operation where the parameters are actually both obtained
`dynamically from DCI, and relied upon by the Applicant to support patentability,
`are indefinite.
`
`(page 11 of the Examiner’s Answer)
`
`Appellant respectfully disagrees.
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/467,827
`Reply to Examiner’s Answer dated on February 12, 2020
`
`Claim 12 recites two modes of operation; (i) when the communication device is
`
`configured in the coverage enhancement mode, and (ii) when the communication device is not
`
`configured in the coverage enhancement mode.
`
`In the first, claim 12 recites that (i) “the
`
`combination used for generating the DMRS is fixed and not dynamically changed by the DCI.”
`
`In the second, claim 12 recites that (ii) “the combination used for generating the DMRS is
`
`dynamically changed by the DCI.” Claim 12 also recites “a receiver, which,
`
`in operation,
`
`receives downlink control information (DCI).”
`
`Appellant respectfully submits that the time period in which the combination is (i)
`
`“fixed and not dynamically changed by the DCI” is definite and is “when the communication
`
`device is configured in the coverage enhancement mode.” The time period in which the
`
`combination is
`
`(ii) “dynamically changed by the DCI” is definite and is “when the
`77
`communication device is not configured in the coverage enhancement mode. Communication
`
`device configuration dictates when and whether the combination is or is not dynamically
`
`changed by the DCI.
`
`Appellant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner’s apparent assertion that claim
`
`12 recites two modes of operation that operate the same way. Claim 12 specifically recites
`
`bifurcation based on the mode in which the communication device operates. When the
`
`communication device is configured in the coverage enhancement mode, the combination is
`
`fixed and the DCI does not act
`
`to dynamically change the combination. When the
`
`communication device is not configured in the coverage enhancement mode, the combination is
`
`changed dynamically by the DCI.
`
`Appellant submits that
`
`there is no conflict,
`
`inherent or otherwise, between
`
`receiving a DCI as the receiver of claim 12 does in operation and dynamically changing the
`
`combination by the DCI or refraining from dynamically changing the combination by the DCI
`
`and having the combination be fixed. As claim 12 recites, the communication device has a
`
`receiver that in operation receives the DCI and when the communication device is configured in
`
`the coverage enhancement mode, the combination is fixed and not changed dynamically by the
`
`DCI and when the communication device is not configured in the coverage enhancement mode,
`
`the combination is dynamically changed by the DCI.
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/467,827
`Reply to Examiner’s Answer dated on February 12, 2020
`
`In addition, Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s assertion that claim 12
`
`“describe[s] two different modes of operation where the parameters are actually both obtained
`
`dynamically from DCI.” The language of claim 12 is clear in that in one mode the combination
`
`is fixed and not dynamically changed by the DCI and in another mode the combination is
`
`dynamically changed by the DCI.
`
`Appellant submits that, as provided in the “Summary of Claimed Subject Matter”
`
`of claim 12 in Appeal Brief filed on December 6, 2019, claim 12 is fully supported by the
`
`application specification.
`
`Claim 12 is definite under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
`
`Although not identical in scope or language as claim 12, Appellant submits that in
`
`view of the foregoing remarks, it will be apparent that claim 21 is definite under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§112(b). Further, as remarked in the appeal brief filed on December 6, 2019, claims 13 and 22
`
`are definite under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
`
`2.
`
`Claim 12 is galenZable in View 0: Paz'ukoski and Takeda.‘
`
`The Examiner cites paragraphs [0034],
`
`[0046],
`
`[0047] and [0058]—[0062] of
`
`Pajukoski as disclosing the elements of claim 1 with the exception that the Examiner asserts that
`
`“Takeda discloses the cyclic shift indicator for DMRS being contained in LTE DCI.”
`
`The Examiner asserts that “Applicant asserts that the difference in the modes is
`
`only that Pajukoski allegedly does not disclose that one of the modes is labelled as ‘coverage
`777
`
`enhancement mode
`
`and “the configuration of Pajukoski is dynamic in exactly the same way
`
`that the configuration of Applicant's invention is dynamic” (page 17 of the Examiner’s Answer).
`
`(page 17 of the Examiner’s Answer).
`
`Appellant respectfully disagrees and submits the reason Pajukoski does not
`
`disclose or suggest “whether the combination used for generating the DMRS is dynamically
`
`changed or not depends on whether the communication device is configured in a coverage
`
`enhancement mode, when the communication device is configured in the coverage enhancement
`
`mode, in which the PUSCH is allowed to be transmitted with repetitions spanning a plurality of
`
`subframes, the combination used for generating the DMRS is fixed and not dynamically changed
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/467,827
`Reply to Examiner’s Answer dated on February 12, 2020
`
`by the DCI, and when the communication device is not configured in the coverage enhancement
`
`mode, the combination used for generating the DMRS is dynamically changed by the DCI” as
`
`recited in claim 12 is not mere semantics.
`
`Pajukoski discloses that “support for machine type communication (MTC)
`
`has
`
`attracted attention” and “one aspect of interest is coverage enhancement” (1][0034]). However,
`
`Pajukoski does not disclose that whether the combination used for generating the DMRS is
`
`dynamically changed or not depends on whether the communication device is configured in a
`
`mode, coverage enhancement or otherwise. Further, Pajukoski does not disclose the bifurcated
`
`operation recited in claim 12.
`
`Pajukoski discloses
`
`a dynamically-configurable transmission period during
`
`coverage improvement (1][0058]—[0062]). However, Pajukoski does not disclose that whether
`
`the combination (of a cyclic shift and an orthogonal sequence) is dynamically changed or not
`
`depends on whether a device is configured in a mode, where when the device is configured in the
`
`mode, the combination is fixed and not dynamically changed by control information, and when
`
`the device is not configured in the mode, the combination is dynamically changed by the control
`
`information. The disclosure of the dynamic configuration of the transmission period during
`
`coverage improvement of Pajukoski is not tantamount to the bifurcation recited in claim 12.
`
`The Examiner asserts:
`
`[A]s discussed above, paragraphs [0034] and [0058] of Pajukoski do
`disclose that the coverage mode in which repetition transmission is performed by
`spreading using orthogonal block coding is called ‘coverage enhancement.’
`
`Pajukoski discloses, in paragraphs [0058]-[0060], that due to spreading in
`coverage enhancement, a data rate [MCS scheme] is unchanged [not dynamically
`changed], and Pajukoski discloses,
`in paragraph [0061], that an overlay cover
`code between is repeated in subframes, while MCS values may be predetermined
`[not dynamically changed], and Pajukoski discloses, in paragraph [0062], that for
`coverage enhancement mode, a DMRS CSI field [downlink control information]
`is used for VSF-OFCDM spreading code rather than cyclic shift
`indicator
`information (consequently, the CSI is not present in the DCI and the DMRS is
`[not dynamically changed]), and that same MCS is used [not dynamically
`changed] for a duration of the transmission period. The reception of the DMRS
`CSI field discloses that a DCI (downlink control information) field is received
`during coverage enhancement mode. The DMRS CSI field being used for a VSF-
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/467,827
`Reply to Examiner’s Answer dated on February 12, 2020
`
`OFCDM spreading code discloses that the DCI does not change a DMRS because
`a new CSI (Cyclic Shift Information) is not present.
`(pages 17 and 18 of the Examiner’s Answer).
`
`Appellant submits that Pajukoski discloses that “[t]ransmission period or length
`
`mapping to MCS values may be predetermined or configured via radio resource control
`
`signalling” (11[0061]). Pajukoski does not disclose that the MCS values in and of themselves are
`
`predetermined as asserted by the Examiner. Per Pajukoski the mapping of the transmission
`
`period or length to the MCS values is predetermined. The mapping is the relationship between
`
`the period or length and the MCS values and is not the MCS values themselves. Pajukoski
`
`discloses that the mapping is predetermined not that the modulation and coding scheme is
`
`predetermined as asserted by the Examiner. The Examiner asserts that “the same MCS is used
`
`[not dynamically changed] for a duration of the transmission period.” As explained above,
`
`Pajukoski discloses that the “mapping” of transmission period/length to MCS values may be
`
`predetermined or configured via signaling. Pajukoski does not disclose that the MCS values
`
`themselves are predetermined.
`
`Appellant submits that Pajukoski discloses that “the selected sequence branch
`
`within the currently applied VSF [variable spreading factor]-tree may be indicated by a DM RS
`
`CSI field and a user device may derive the spreading sequence used by reading cyclic shift
`
`indicator indicating the VSF-tree sequence branch up to the sequence length corresponding to the
`
`MCS-indicated duration of a transmission period” (11[0062]).
`
`The Examiner interprets the
`
`disclosure of Pajukoski as providing that the CSI is not present in the DCI and the DMRS is not
`
`dynamically changed. Appellant disagrees and submits that Pajukoski discloses that a DM RS
`
`CSI field indicates a sequence branch. Pajukoski does not disclose that the “DMRS is not
`
`dynamically changed” as asserted by the Examiner.
`
`The Examiner concludes that: “[t]he reception of the DMRS CSI field discloses
`
`that a DCI (downlink control information) field is received during coverage enhancement mode”
`
`and “[t]he DMRS CSI field being used for a VSF-OFCDM spreading code discloses that the DCI
`
`does not change a DMRS because a new CSI (Cyclic Shift Information) is not present.”
`
`Appellant submits that this conclusion reads Pajukoski as disclosing subject matter that is absent
`
`from Pajukoski.
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/467,827
`Reply to Examiner’s Answer dated on February 12, 2020
`
`Appellant respectfully submits that Pajukoski is silent on the bifurcation recited in
`
`claim 12 based on whether the coverage enhancement mode is configured. While dynamic
`
`configuration of the transmission period and use of the transmission period to derive parameters
`
`is provided by Pajukoski, Pajukoski is silent on disclosing determining “whether the combination
`
`used for generating the DMRS is dynamically changed or not depends on whether the
`
`communication device is configured in a coverage enhancement mode” as recited in claim 12.
`
`Pajukoski is silent on linking dynamic change of the combination with coverage enhancement
`
`mode configuration or lack thereof of the communication device. Pajukoski does not disclose
`
`“when the communication device is configured in the coverage enhancement mode, in which the
`
`PUSCH is allowed to be transmitted with repetitions spanning a plurality of subframes, the
`
`combination used for generating the DMRS is fixed and not dynamically changed by the DCI,
`
`and when the communication device is not configured in the coverage enhancement mode, the
`
`combination used for generating the DMRS is dynamically changed by the DCI” as recited in
`
`claim 12.
`
`Takeda, which the Examiner asserts “discloses the cyclic shift
`
`indicator for
`
`DMRS being contained in LTE DCI,” does not cure the deficiencies of Pajukoski. Appellant
`
`submits that claim 12 is patentable in view of Pajukoski and Takeda. Although not identical in
`
`scope or language as claim 12, Appellant submits that in view of the foregoing remarks, it will
`
`be apparent that claim 21 is patentable in view of Pajukoski and Takeda.
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/467,827
`Reply to Examiner’s Answer dated on February 12, 2020
`
`The Director is authorized to charge any fees that are due by way of this filing, or
`
`credit any overpayment, to our Deposit Account No. 19-1090.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Seed Intellectual Property Law Group LLP
`
`/Baha A. Obeidat/
`
`Baha A. Obeidat
`
`Registration No. 66,827
`
`BAOzdjs
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`Phone: (206) 622-4900
`Fax:
`(206) 682-6031
`
`721676571
`
`