UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/467,827
`
`03/23/2017
`
`TETSUYA YAMAMOTO
`
`731456.430C1
`
`2872
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panason1e (PIPCA)
`701 5th Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`LINDENBAUM' ALAN LOUIS
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2466
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`02/ 1 2/2020
`
`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):
`US PTOeACtion @ SeedIP .Com
`
`pairlinkdktg @ seedip .eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`www,uspto,gov
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Application Number: 15/467,827
`
`Filing Date: 23 Mar 2017
`
`Appellant(s): YAMAMOTO et a1.
`
`Baha A. Obeidat, Reg. No. 66,827
`
`For Appellant
`
`EXAMINER’S ANSWER
`
`This is in response to the appeal brief filed December 6, 2019.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/467,827
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 3
`
`(1) Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal
`
`Every ground of rejection set forth in the Office action dated April 17, 2019 from which the
`
`appeal is taken is being maintained by the examiner except for the grounds of rejection (if any) listed
`
`under the subheading ”WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS." New grounds of rejection (if any) are provided
`
`under the subheading ”NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION.”
`
`The following ground(s) of rejection are applicable to the appealed claims.
`
`1.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`(b) CONCLUSION—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out
`and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the
`invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph:
`The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 12, 13, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second
`
`paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
`
`which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 12 and 21 recite ”receiving a DCI
`
`and generating a DMRS for a PUSCH using a
`
`combination of a cyclic shift and an orthogonal sequence”; but claims 12 and 21 also recite ”the
`
`combination used for generating the DMRS is fixed and not dynamically changed by the DC
`
`In
`
`The terms
`
`”fixed” and ”not dynamically changed” are indefinite because no time period is associated with them.
`
`Further, the term ”fixed” is not disclosed at all in Applicant’s original Specification, so it is not possible to
`
`discern an associated time period during which the values are unchanged. Without an associated time
`
`period, the time periods associated with the terms are interpreted to be indefinite, in which case they
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/467,827
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 4
`
`would conflict with the limitation of ”generating a DMRS for a PUSCH using a combination of a cyclic
`
`shift and an orthogonal sequence.” Accordingly, the claims are indefinite.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 13 and 22 further recite that the DMRS is fixed by the DCI. However, Applicant’s
`
`Specification discloses how a DRMS may be changed by a DCI in a coverage enhancement mode, which
`
`contradicts the limitation in claims 12 and 21 that the DMRS is not dynamically changed by the DCI in a
`
`coverage enhancement mode.
`
`5.
`
`For the purposes of Examiner, the limitation ”not dynamically changed by the DCI” is interpreted
`
`to mean that the combination remains unchanged/fixed for an arbitrary limited duration.
`
`6.
`
`In order to overcome this rejection, Applicant is advised to remove the term ”fixed” from the
`
`claims and define a period of time in which claimed values are not changed, using language that would
`
`be supported by Applicant’s original Specification.
`
`7.
`
`Dependent claims 14-20 and 23-29 are rejected because they depend from claims 12 and 21.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`8.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections
`
`set forth in this Office action:
`
`A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is
`not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention
`and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the
`claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention
`was made.
`
`9.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere C0,, 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966),
`
`that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are
`
`summarized as follows:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/467,827
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 5
`
`1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`
`2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
`
`nonobviousness.
`
`10.
`
`Claims 12-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pajukoski et al. (US
`
`2014/0254536) in view of Takeda et al. (US 2015/0036651).
`
`11.
`
`Regarding claim 12, Pajukoski discloses a communication device (Pajukoski, paragraph [0003],
`
`lines 1-3, MTC communication) comprising:
`
`12.
`
`a receiver, which, in operation, receives downlink control information (DCI) transmitted from a
`
`base station (Pajukoski, Fig. 1, eNodeB communicates with UE; paragraph [0046], lines 1-5, uplink
`
`resources signaled to a user device by RRC signaling or broadcasting);
`
`13.
`
`circuitry (Pajukoski, paragraph [0080], circuits), which, in operation that generates a
`
`demodulation reference signal (DMRS) for a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (Pajukoski,
`
`paragraph [0039], lines 1-3, DMRS for PUSCH; paragraph [0047], allocation may comprise DMRS SCI field
`
`indicating a spreading code and a cyclic shift orthogonal cover code used for generating a DMRS; user
`
`device may transmit on the PUSCH) using a combination of a cyclic shift and an orthogonal sequence
`
`(Pajukoski, paragraph [0047], lines 1-12, DMRS Cyclic Shift Indicator (CSI), indicating a spreading code
`
`and a cyclic shift orthogonal cover code (DM RS OCC); paragraph [0048], code division multiplexing); and
`
`14.
`
`a transmitter, which, in operation, transmits, to the base station, the PUSCH and the generated
`
`DMRS (Pajukoski, paragraph [0039], lines 1-3 DMRS for PUSCH transmitted in the uplink; paragraph
`
`[0047]),
`
`15.
`
`wherein: 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/467,827
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 6
`
`(Pajukoski, paragraphs [0058]-[0060], due to spreading in coverage enhancement, data rate is
`
`unchanged; paragraph [0061], overlay cover code between repeated subframes, MCS values may be
`
`predetermined; paragraph [0062], for coverage enhancement, DMRS CSI field is used for VSF-OFCDM
`
`spreading code rather than a cyclic shift indicator, and same MCS is used for a duration of the
`
`transmission period);
`
`16.
`
`when the communication device is configured in the coverage enhancement mode (Pajukoski,
`
`paragraph [0034], lines 1-5, MTC coverage enhancement), in which the PUSCH is allowed to be
`
`transmitted with repetitions spanning a plurality of subframes (Pajukoski, paragraph [0037], lines 1-9,
`
`subframe bundling, where a single transmission block repeated over 4 consecutive sub-frames), the
`
`combination used for generating the DMRS is fixed and not dynamically changed by the DCI (Pajukoski,
`
`paragraphs [0058]-[0060], due to spreading in coverage enhancement, data rate is unchanged;
`
`paragraph [0061], overlay cover code between repeated subframes, MCS values may be predetermined;
`
`paragraph [0062], for coverage enhancement, DMRS CSI field is used for VSF-OFCDM spreading code
`
`rather than a cyclic shift indicator, and same MCS is used for a duration of the transmission period), and
`
`17.
`
`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 (Pajukoski, paragraph
`
`[0046], lines 1-5, uplink resources signaled to a user device by RRC signaling or broadcasting; paragraph
`
`[0047], lines 1-12, DM RS Cyclic Shift Indicator (CSI), indicating a spreading code and a cyclic shift
`
`orthogonal cover code (DM RS OCC)).
`
`18.
`
`Pajukoski does not explicitly disclose, but Takeda discloses the cyclic shift indicator for DMRS
`
`being contained in LTE DCI (Takeda; paragraph [0072], DCI format 0/4 includes CS or DMRS).
`
`It would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to use Takeda’s
`
`narrow band for the MTC communication in the invention of Pajukoski. The motivation to combine the
`
`references would have been to use known methods for performing MTC communication.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/467,827
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 7
`
`19.
`
`Regarding claim 13, Pajukoski in view of Takeda discloses the communication device according
`
`to claim 12, wherein when the communication device is configured in the coverage enhancement mode
`
`(Pajukoski, paragraph [0034], lines 1-5, MTC coverage enhancement), the combination used for
`
`generating the DM RS is fixed by the DCI (Pajukoski, ; paragraph [0046], lines 1-5, uplink resources
`
`signaled to a user device by RRC signaling or broadcasting; paragraph [0047], lines 1-12, DM RS Cyclic
`
`Shift Indicator (CSI), indicating a cyclic shift orthogonal cover code (DM RS OCC); after being notified to
`
`the user device, information about cyclic shift and OCC for DM RS is used by the user device without
`
`being changed).
`
`20.
`
`Regarding claim 14, Pajukoski in view of Takeda discloses the communication device according
`
`to claim 12, wherein when the communication device is configured in the coverage enhancement mode
`
`(Pajukoski, paragraph [0034], lines 1-5, MTC coverage enhancement), the combination used for
`
`generating the DM RS is determined in advance between the communication device and the base station
`
`(Pajukoski, ; paragraph [0046], lines 1-5, uplink resources signaled to a user device by RRC signaling or
`
`broadcasting; paragraph [0047], lines 1-12, DMRS Cyclic Shift Indicator (CSI), indicating a cyclic shift
`
`orthogonal cover code (DM RS OCC); information about cyclic shift and OCC for DMRS is notified to the
`
`user device in advance of being used by the user device).
`
`21.
`
`Regarding claim 15, Pajukoski in view of Takeda discloses the communication device according
`
`to claim 12, wherein when the communication device is configured in the coverage enhancement mode
`
`(Pajukoski, paragraph [0034], lines 1-5, MTC coverage enhancement), said transmitter, in operation,
`
`transmits the PUSCH and the DMRS (Pajukoski, paragraph [0039], lines 1-3, DM RS for PUSCH).
`
`22.
`
`Takeda discloses that MTC communication occurs in a narrow band (Takeda, paragraph [0028],
`
`MTC communication in narrow band).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, at the time of the invention, to use a narrow band for the MTC communication in the invention of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/467,827
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 8
`
`Pajukoski. The motivation to combine the references would have been to use known methods for
`
`performing MTC communication.
`
`23.
`
`Regarding claim 16, Pajukoski in view of Takeda discloses the communication device according
`
`to claim 12, wherein said transmitter, in operation, transmits the PUSCH and the DM RS (Pajukoski,
`
`paragraph [0039], lines 1-3, DMRS for PUSCH)
`
`24.
`
`Takeda discloses using a frequency hopping in a narrow band (Takeda, paragraph [0028], MTC
`
`communication in narrow band; paragraph [0039], hopping resources allocation).
`
`It would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to use a narrow band and
`
`frequency hopping for the MTC communication in the invention of Pajukoski. The motivation to
`
`combine the references would have been to use known methods for performing MTC communication.
`
`25.
`
`Regarding claim 17, Pajukoski in view of Takeda discloses the communication device according
`
`to claim 12, wherein when the communication device is configured in the coverage enhancement mode
`
`(Pajukoski, paragraph [0034], lines 1-5, MTC coverage enhancement), said circuitry, in operation,
`
`multiplies the PUSCH transmitted with repetitions spanning the plurality of subframes by one code
`
`sequence out of a plurality of code sequences (Pajukoski, paragraph [0047], lines 1-12, DMRS Cyclic Shift
`
`Indicator (CSI), indicating a cyclic shift orthogonal cover code (DM RS OCC); paragraph [0061], spreading
`
`extended over multiple subframes by applying a cover code between repeated subframes).
`
`26.
`
`Regarding claim 18, Pajukoski in view of Takeda discloses the communication device according
`
`to claim 17, wherein said one code sequence is determined using a field for indicating the combination
`
`used for the DMRS in the DCI (Pajukoski, paragraph [0053], lines 1-18, DM RS CSI field).
`
`27.
`
`Regarding claim 19, Pajukoski in view of Takeda discloses the communication device according
`
`to claim 18, wherein the plurality of code sequences are respectively associated with a plurality of
`
`values (Pajukoski, paragraph [0053], lines 1-18, CDM-based MTC format derived from MCS field value).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/467,827
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 9
`
`28.
`
`Regarding claim 20, Pajukoski in view of Takeda discloses the communication device according
`
`to claim 19, wherein the plurality of values indicated by bits constituting the field are respectively
`
`associated with a plurality of combinations of the code sequences, cyclic shifts, and orthogonal
`
`sequences (Pajukoski, paragraph [0053], lines 1-18, CDM-based MTC format derived from MCS field
`
`value; paragraph [0054], field value indicated by bits).
`
`29.
`
`Claims 21-29 are rejected under substantially the same rationale as claims 12-20.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/467,827
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`(2) Response to Argument
`
`Page 10
`
`30.
`
`Claims 12I 13I 21 and 22 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112]b[; the claimed terms ”dynamically
`
`changed” and ”fixed” are indefinite because Applicant’s arguments have inconsistently defined those
`
`terms to have multiple different meanings and because they are not defined in Applicant’s Specification.
`
`a.
`
`The claimed terms ”dynamically changed” and ”fixed” are not defined in Applicant’s
`
`original SpecificationI and Applicant applies varying definitions to those term in Applicant’s
`
`arguments.
`
`31.
`
`Although the terms ”dynamically changed” and ”fixed,” are recited in claims 12, 13, 21 and 22
`
`and are relied upon by the Applicant to support patentability, those terms are not defined in Applicant’s
`
`Specification. The term ”fixed” is not even present anywhere in Applicant’s original Specification; and
`
`the only use of the term ”dynamic” is the phrase ”not dynamically changed” in paragraph [0078] of
`
`Applicant’s original Specification. However, the term ”dynamically changed” as used in the claims,
`
`without the word ”not”, is not present at all in Applicant’s Specification, and is not defined anywhere.
`
`According to the only discussion relevant to those terms, in paragraph [0078] of Applicant’s
`
`Specification, the term ”n_ot dynamically changed” means, referring to a cyclic shift and an Orthogonal
`
`Cover Code (OCC), that parameters are determined in advance and not indicated to the terminal.
`
`However, paragraphs [0079] and [0081] of Applicant’s Specification contradict paragraph [0078]’s
`
`meaning for ”n_ot dynamically changed,” by stating the ”The base station 100 indicates, to the terminal
`
`200, the cyclic shift and the OCC used by the terminal 200 for the DM RS in advance,” (see paragraph
`
`[0081]). Accordingly, this indication of a cyclic shift and OCC M dynamically change those
`
`parameters.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/467,827
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 11
`
`32.
`
`What Applicant’s Specification actually describes is the cyclic shift and OCC are intermittently
`
`changed by receiving new values for those parameters in Downlink Control Information (DCI).
`
`Applicant’s describes multiple modes of operation:
`
`(1) Non-enhancement mode; and (2) MTC coverage
`
`enhancement mode; in which the time intervals between intermittently changing the cyclic shift and
`
`OCC are different. But, importantly, the cyclic shift and OCC parameters still do change (dynamically).
`
`33.
`
`The commonly understood meaning for the term ”fixed” means permanent. The term
`
`”dynamically changed” means not permanent. The cyclic shift and OCC parameters of Applicant’s
`
`invention are not permanent in any mode of operation; and the cyclic shift and OCC parameters used in
`
`every mode of Applicant’s invention are generated [changed dynamically] based on Downlink Control
`
`Information (DCI). 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.
`
`b.
`
`Applicant applies varying definitions to those term in Applicant’s arguments.
`
`i.
`
`Applicant’s first definitions for the claimed terms ”dynamically changed” and
`
`'fixed,” define both of their meanings to be changing at an distinct time intervals linked
`
`to the timing of Applicant’s claimed modes of operation.
`
`34.
`
`Beginning on page 6 of the Appeal Brief filed on December 6, 2019, Applicant summarizes the
`
`subject matter of the present claims. On page 8, lines 12-20 (the third and fourth paragraphs of the
`
`page) Applicant discusses a first attempt at a definition for the terms ”dynamic” and ”fixed,” which are
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/467,827
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 12
`
`recited in claims 12, 13, 21 and 22. Applicant discusses how paragraphs [0061] and [0077]—[0080] of
`
`Applicant’s Specification disclose that Applicant’s invention has two distinct modes of operation:
`
`(1)
`
`Non-enhancement mode; and (2) MTC coverage enhancement mode. Applicant’s Specification further
`
`discusses two distinct types of information that may be periodically included in DCI (Downlink Control
`
`Information) based on two modes of operation for Applicant’s invention, (1) a cyclic shift and OCC
`
`(Orthogonal Cover Code); and (2) MSCI (Multiple-subframe Spreading Code Indicator). Applicant’s
`
`Specification further discusses that two different amounts with which a DM RS is intermittently
`
`determined by a cyclic shift and OCC: (1) multiple different cyclic shifts and OCCs are used a subframe in
`
`Non-enhancement mode (see paragraph [0073]); and (2) a cyclic shifts and OCC are repeated (repetition
`
`transmsion) for a period of multiple subframes in MTC coverage enhancement mode (see paragraphs
`
`[0061] and [0079).
`
`Importantly, a period of multiple-subframe is NOT permanent or ”fixed,” rather it is
`
`dynamically changed at a lower frequency than multiple times per subframe.
`
`35.
`
`To Summarize the modes of operation:
`
`c.
`
`(1) Non-enhancement mode of operation — during a first mode of operation which
`
`Applicant labels as ”a mode other than the MTC coverage enhancement mode:”
`
`ii.
`
`Repetition transmission is not performed - multiple different cyclic shifts and
`
`OCCs are used a subframe
`
`iii.
`
`DCI (Downlink Control Information) DOES periodically specify a cyclic shift and
`
`OCC (Orthogonal Cover Code) (see paragraph [0061] of Applicant’s Specification) (see
`
`also page 8, lines 18-20 of Applicant’s Appeal Brief).
`
`iv.
`
`A DMRS (Demodulation Reference Signal) is intermittently generated (changed)
`
`multiple times in a subframe based on the cyclic shift and OCC contained in the DCI (see
`
`paragraphs [0061]-[0062] and [0073] of Applicant’s Specification) (see also page 8, lines
`
`10-18 of Applicant’s Appeal Brief).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/467,827
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 13
`
`d.
`
`(2) MTC coverage enhancement mode - during a second mode of operation which
`
`Applicant labels as ”MTC coverage enhancementz”
`
`v.
`
`Repetition transmission is performed in which a PUSCH uses multiple-subframe
`
`spreading to use cyclic shift and OCC for a period of multiple subframes
`
`vi.
`
`A cyclic shift and OCC (Orthogonal Cover Code) are determined by DCI and then
`
`”not dynamically changed” until multiple subframes have passed (see paragraphs [0061]
`
`and [0078] of Applicant’s Specification) (see also page 8, lines 18-20 of Applicant’s
`
`Appeal Brief).
`
`vii.
`
`A DCI (Downlink Control Information) field does NOT include a cyclic shift and
`
`g for a period of multiple subframes - instead they are replaced in the DCI by MSCI
`
`information that indicates one multiple-subframe spreading code sequence
`
`36.
`
`According to Applicant’s arguments on page 8 of the Applicant’s Appeal Brief and Applicant’s
`
`explanation in paragraph [0078] of the Specification, the term ”fixed” is defined only by the way it is
`
`used in Applicant’s claims 12, 13 21 and 22, so that it means that a ”fixed” DMRS is unchanged for a time
`
`period multiple of subframes in which Applicant’s invention is in the ”MTC coverage enhancement
`
`
`mode.” To put it another way, the ”fixed” DMRS IS changed prior to the interval of time that the MTC
`
`coverage enhancement mode begins and again after a number of subframes have passed; and is not
`
`changed during a period of time in between. Similarly, the term ”dynamically changed” is also defined
`
`only by the way it is used in Applicant’s claims 12, 13 21 and 22, so that it means that a ”dynamically
`
`changed” DM RS is changed multiple times in a subframe, whenever DCI fields include a cyclic shift and
`
`OCC, during mode in which Applicant’s invention is NOT in the ”MTC coverage enhancement mode.”
`
`However, even in Applicant’s non-enhancement mode, there are time intervals in between each
`
`reception of a new cyclic shift and OCC in the DCI. To put it another way, the ”dynamically changed”
`
`DMRS also |S changed whenever the DCI fields include a cyclic shift and OCC during the non-
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/467,827
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 14
`
`enhancement mode; and is not changed (i.e. fixed) during a period of time in between successive
`
`receptions of a cyclic shift and OCC within a subframe. Applicant reinforces this definition in the
`
`Arguments presented on page 12 of the Appeal Brief, stating ”the terms ’fixed’ and "not dynamically
`
`changed" are linked to the duration that the cemrnunication device being ”configured in the
`
`caverage enhancement mode.”
`
`37.
`
`However, Applicant’s definitions of those terms are circular. Applicant’s ”MTC coverage
`
`enhancement mode,” with ”not dynamically changed” and ”fixed” cyclic shift and OCC, is merely a label
`
`for a period of time in-between the times when Applicant’s cyclic shift and OCC are dynamically
`
`changed. The terms ”not dynamically changed” and ”fixed,” as used in Applicant’s claims, are both
`
`temporary. Accordingly, claims 12, 13, 21 and 22 are indefinite because a person or ordinary skill in the
`
`art, at the time of the invention, would not be able to ascertain the meaning of the terms ”fixed” and
`
`”dynamically changed” in such a way that these terms could apply to the claimed ”fixed” DMRS time
`
`periods during Applicant’s MTC coverage enhancement mode, but would not apply to the ”fixed” time
`
`
`periods during Applicant’s Non-enhancement mode.
`
`viii.
`
`Applicant’s second definitions for the claimed terms ”dynamically changed” and
`
`'fixed,” when discussing the Paiukoski reference, are broader than the first definitions,
`
`because they lack any duration, and are not consistent with Applicant’s use of those
`
`terms in the claims.
`
`38.
`
`Beginning on page 14 of the Appeal Brief filed on December 6, 2019, Applicant asserts an
`
`different scope for the definition of the term ”fixed” and ”dynamically changing.” Here, Applicant
`
`asserts that ”fixed” and ”dynamically changing” are terms of art, and that ”dynamically changing” refers
`
`to systematically changing or updating resources in ”real-time” or ”on the fly,” while the term ”fixed”
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/467,827
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 15
`
`simply has the opposite meaning (”not dynamically changing” [ever].) These definitions are different
`
`and broader than those asserted by the Applicant in the arguments presented on page 8 of the Appeal
`
`Brief, because this definition of ”fixed” does not have any associated duration. Here, Applicant now
`
`asserts that there is a new third mode of operation called ”semi-static configuration falls between
`
`dynamic and static configuration,” which is different than ”fixed” or ”dynamically changing.” However,
`
`this newly asserted ”semi-static” mode actually describes the operation of Applicant’s ”MTC coverage
`
`enhancement mode” which changes (dynamically) less frequency than non-enhancement mode, and
`
`which is described in the claims as being ”fixed.”
`
`39.
`
`In the arguments presented by the Applicant on pages 14-17 of the Appeal Brief, Applicant
`
`asserts that the invention disclosed in the Pajukoski reference does not read on the claims of the
`
`present invention, because duration of thethe DM RS of Pajukoski is not permanently ”fixed.” However,
`
`according to the definition of ”fixed” provided in on page 14 of the Appeal Brief, Applicant’s own ”MTC
`
`coverage enhancement mode” also does not fall under the definition of the term ”fixed” because
`
`Applicant’s invention is ”fixed” only for a temporary period of time. Accordingly, claims 12, 13, 21 and
`
`22 are indefinite because a person or ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would not be
`
`able to ascertain the meaning of the terms ”fixed” and ”dynamically changed” used in Applicant’s
`
`claims.
`
`e.
`
`With regard to the reiections under 35 U.S.C. 1031a! for Claims 14-21 and 23-29I the
`
`Examiner Responds to the Applicant’s arguments as follows:
`
`ix.
`
`Paiukoski discloses the same bifurcation of the same two modes of operation
`
`that are recited in Applicant’s claims.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/467,827
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 16
`
`40.
`
`Pajukoski discloses, in paragraphs [0046]-[0047], a first (typical) mode of operation where RRC
`
`signaling (control signaling in the downlink) comprises a DM RS SCI field which indicates a cyclic shift and
`
`
`OCC for dynamically changing a DRMS. This mode of operation is the same as Applicant’s Non-
`
`enhancement mode of operation, which is recited in the claims as being ”dynamically changed.”
`
`41.
`
`Pajukoski discloses, in paragraphs [0058]-[0062], a second (enhancement) mode of operation in
`
`which coverage is ”enhanced by repetition transmission” (Pajukoski, paragraph [0058]) usingm
`
`cover codes between repeated subframes (Pajukoski, paragraph [0061]).” Further, in this mode of
`
`operation, a Variable Spreading Factor (VSF) may be indicated the same DMRS SCI field (Pajukoski,
`
`paragraph [0062]) instead of the cyclic shift and OCC which would otherwise be included in the downlink
`
`control information in the typical mode of operation (Pajukoski, paragraphs [0046]-[0047]).
`
`x.
`
`Applciant’s arguments against the prior art are based on secondI broader
`
`definitions for the claimed terms ”dynamically changed” and ”fixed.”
`
`42.
`
`Beginning on page 14, line 27 of the Appeal Brief filed on December 6, 2019, Applicant now
`
`asserts that the terms ”fixed” and ”dynamically changing” are terms of art. No finite periods of time are
`
`associated with the new definition of the term ”fixed” as defined by the Applicant in this section of
`
`Arguments. Applicant now specifically calls out a third mode of operation called ”semi-static” as being
`
`different than ”fixed” or ”dynamically changing.” However, as discussed above, this newly asserted
`
`”semi-static” mode actually describes the operation of Applicant’s ”MTC covera e enhancement mode”
`
`which changes (dynamically) less frequency than non-enhancement mode, and which is described in the
`
`claims as being ”fixed.”
`
`43.
`
`Beginning in the last partial paragraph on page 14 of the Appeal Brief, Applicant further asserts
`
`that the present invention is distinguished from Pajukoski, because Pajukoski uses the term
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/467,827
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 17
`
`”dynamically” when describing the way a DRMS is typically determined. However, as discussed in the
`
`claim above, Pajukoski’s use of the word ”dynamically” in describing the determination of a DMRS
`
`occurs when Pajukoski’s invention is in ”typical” mode and not in ”enhancement” mode. This mode of
`
`
`Pajukoski’s operation is exactly the same as the dynamic determination of the DRMS in Applicant’s Non-
`
`enhancement mode of Applicant’s invention, in which a DM RS (Demodulation Reference Signal) is
`
`generated (changed) based on the cyclic shift and OCC contained in the downlink control information.
`
`44.
`
`Beginning in the last partial paragraph on page 15, line 3 of the Appeal Brief, Applicant asserts
`
`that ”Pajukoski is siient on iinking whether the combination used for generating the
`
`DMRS is dynamicnify changed or not to whether the communication device is configured in a
`
`coverage enhancement mode.” With this assertion, Appiicant acknowiedges that Pajukoski discioses the
`
`same two modes of operation as Applicant’s invention; because Appiicant asserts that the difference in
`
`the rnodes is oniy that Pajukoski aiiegediy does not disclose that one of the rnodes is iabeiied as
`
`”coverage enhancen’ient mode.” However, even the assertion of that aileged difference in iabeiiing is
`
`incorrect Paragraphs {0034} and [0058} of Pajukoski do disciose that a coverage rnode in which
`
`repetition transmission is performed hy spreading using orthogonai block coding is caiied ”coverage
`
`eni’rancernent.”
`
`45.
`
`Beginning in the iast two fines of page 15 of the Appeai Brief, Appiicant again asserts that
`
`Pajukoski is different than Abbiicant’s invention because the configuration of Pajukoski is aiiegediy onh;
`
`"dynamic”. However, as discussed above, the configuration of Pajukositi is dynamic in exactly the sarne
`
`way that the configuration of Appiicant’s invention is dynarnic.
`
`46.
`
`Beginning on page 16, fine 3 of the Appeai Brief, Appiicant again asserts that Pajukoski is
`
`different than Abbiicant’s invention because Pajukoski is aiiegediy siient on the bifurcation hased on
`
`whether coverage enhancement rnode is configured or not. However, as discussed ahove, paragraphs
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/467,827
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 18
`
`[0034] and {0058} sf Pajnkmki d0 dificiose that the coverage made in which repetitien transmissien is:
`
`performed by spreading using orthogonal hieck ceding i3 called ”ceverage enhancement.”
`
`47.
`
`Beginning on page 16, line 13.3}. at the Appeal Brief, Anniicant asserts that Pajukeski is different
`
`than Applicant’s invention because Pajukoski aiiegediy dees not diseiese that the coverage
`
`enhancement mode inciudes that the DCE is received and the DC! dues not dynamically change the
`
`combination used for generating the DMRS. However, as discussed in the claim rejections, 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 DM RS 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 peri