Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 23, 2022

2021001317 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 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. 16/067,929 07/03/2018 Alexei Davydov APP328WOUS 7329 167761 7590 03/23/2022 Eschweiler/Apple Inc. c/o Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC Rosetta Center 629 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1101 Cleveland, OH 44114 EXAMINER SAMPAT, RUSHIL PARIMAL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2469 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/23/2022 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): apple-docketing@epiplaw.com docketing@epiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte ALEXEI DAVYDOV, GREGORY V. MOROZOV, and VICTOR SERGEEV ________________ Appeal 2021-001317 Application 16/067,929 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JASON V. MORGAN, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, 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 to reject claims 25-39 and 41-48. Claims 1-24 are canceled. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). The Examiner objects to claim 40 as depending from a rejected claim, but the Examiner indicates that claim 40 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the claims from which claim 40 depends. Final Act. 21; Ans. 24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-001317 Application 16/067,929 2 SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to “[t]echniques for measuring CSI (Channel State Information) based on [a] beamformed CSI-RS [(Channel State Information-Reference Signal)] having reduced overhead.” Abstract. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references (only the first named inventor of each reference is listed): Name Reference Date Seo US 2015/0117350 A1 Apr. 30, 2015 Davydov US 10,271,304 B2 Apr. 23, 2019 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 25-39 and 41-48 as follows: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Citation 25-39, 41-48 103 Seo, Davydov Final Act. 4-21 ANALYSIS Claim 25, which is representative with respect to itself and claims 26- 39 and 41-48, is reproduced below (disputed limitations emphasized, formatting, and bracketing added). 25. An apparatus configured to be employed in a User Equipment (UE), comprising: a memory; and one or more processors configured to: [1] process higher layer signaling indicating one or more CSI (Channel State Information)-RS (Reference Signal) resources associated with a plurality of REs (Resource Appeal 2021-001317 Application 16/067,929 3 Elements) comprising a RE for each CSI-RS resource for each of one or more CSI-RS APs (Antenna Ports) [2] in each of a plurality of continuous PRBs (physical resource blocks) in a frequency domain; [3] process additional higher layer signaling comprising one or more CSI-RS parameters that indicate a subset of the plurality of REs associated with a beamformed CSI- RS transmission; decode one or more CSI-RSs from the indicated subset; and measure one or more CSI parameters based on the decoded one or more CSI-RSs. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). In rejecting claim 25 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Seo’s Channel State Information-Reference Signal configuration information teaches or suggests [1] processing “higher layer signaling indicating one or more CSI (Channel State Information)-RS (Reference Signal) resources associated with a plurality of REs (Resource Elements) comprising a RE for each CSI-RS resource for each of one or more CSI-RS APs (Antenna Ports).” Final Act. 5 (citing Seo ¶¶ 51, 155-56, 162, Fig. 13); Ans. 25-28 (further citing, e.g., Seo ¶ 154, Fig. 10). The Examiner finds that Davydov’s arrangement of resource elements in physical resource blocks teaches or suggests the claimed resource elements being [2] in “each of a plurality of continuous PRBs (physical resource blocks) in a frequency domain.” Final Act. 6 (citing Davydov 2:65-3:9, Figs. 1, 2); Ans. 26-28. The Examiner further relies on Seo-which teaches coordinated transmission schemes that include, e.g., coordinated beamforming-as teaching or suggesting [3] processing “additional higher layer signaling comprising one or more CSI- RS parameters that indicate a subset of the plurality of REs associated with a Appeal 2021-001317 Application 16/067,929 4 beamformed CSI-RS transmission.” Final Act. 5 (citing Seo ¶¶ 44, 51, 155- 56, 162, Fig. 13); Ans. 28-30 (further citing Seo ¶ 5). Appellant contends the Examiner errs because Seo fails to teach or suggest recitation [3]. Appeal Br. 5-6. In particular, Appellant argues that “Seo makes no mention of a beamformed CSI-RS transmission (the discussion in ¶ [0044] bears no relation to that of ¶ [0162]), much less any connection between a subset of the plurality of REs and a beamformed CSI- RS transmission.” Id. at 6; see also Reply Br. 5 (arguing that Seo provides its beamforming, coordinated beamforming, and CSI-RS teachings “in completely separate contexts and portions of the specification”). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner errs. Claim 25 includes recitations directed to processing different higher level signaling (i.e., “higher level signaling” and “additional higher level signaling”) respectively [1] indicating one or more Channel State Information-Reference Signal resources associated with a plurality of Resource Elements and [3] comprising one or more Channel State Information-Reference Signal parameters that indicate a subset of the plurality of Resource Elements associated with a beamformed Channel State Information-Refence Signal transmission. The Examiner cites to Seo’s Channel State Information- Reference Signal configuration information (Final Act. 5 (citing, e.g., Seo ¶ 155)), but fails to show that this configuration information includes both forms of the claimed higher level signaling. In particular, the Examiner fails to explain how Seo’s beamforming teaches or suggests the claimed parameters that indicate a subset of the plurality of Resource Elements associated with a beamformed Channel State Information-Reference Signal transmission. Final Act. 5; Ans. 29-30. Further, the Examiner’s citation to Appeal 2021-001317 Application 16/067,929 5 Seo’s illustration of Cell-Specific Reference Signals and User Equipment- Specific Reference Signals does not show the claimed additional higher level signaling of recitation [3] would have been obvious. Ans. 29 (illustrating an annotated version of Seo’s Figure 13). In particular, the Examiner fails to show that Cell-Specific Reference Signals teach or suggest Channel State Information-Reference Signal parameters that indicate a subset of a plurality of Resource Elements associated with a beamformed Channel State Information-Refence Signal transmission. Reply Br. 5 (Cell- Specific Reference Signals are “wholly distinct” from Channel State Information-Reference Signals). The Examiner does not rely on Davyov to cure the noted deficiency of Seo. Independent apparatus claim 37-which recites one or more processors configured to generate first and second sets of higher layer signaling-has similar recitations to method claim 25. Independent non-transitory machine readable medium claim 45-which recites instructions for receiving first and second higher level signaling-also has similar recitations to method claim 25. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 25, and claims 26-39 and 41-48, which have similar recitations to claim 25. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 25-39, 41-48 103 Seo, Davydov 25-39, 41-48 REVERSED