Ex Parte Akimoto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2018

13090061 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/090,061 04/19/2011
74365 7590 09/14/2018
Slater Matsil, LLP/HW/FW/HWC
17950 Preston Road, Suite 1000
Dallas, TX 75252
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Y osuke Akimoto
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
HW 83835960US12 1637
EXAMINER
CEHIC, KENAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2018 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):
uspatent@huawei.com
docketing@slatermatsil.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOSUKE AKIM OTO, TATS US HI AIBA,
SHOHEI YAMADA, and HIROSHI KA TSURAGA WA
Appeal2018-007292
Application 13/090,061 1
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and SHARON PENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 29--39, which are all the claims
pending in the application. Claims App 'x. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellants, Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., is the real party
in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed July 10, 2017 ("App.
Br."); Reply Brief filed June 6, 2018 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's Answer
mailed April 9, 2018 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed January 23, 2017
("Final Act."); and original Specification filed April 19, 2011 ("Spec.").
Appeal2018-007292
Application 13/090,061
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "a wireless communication system,
base station apparatus and mobile station apparatus for setting transmission
frequencies individually with flexibility corresponding to kinds of feedback
information for the mobile station apparatus to transmit to the base station
apparatus, thereby optimizing transmission periods corresponding to the
kinds of feedback information, and minimizing a reduction in system
throughput caused by disagreement of the transmission period with the
optimal period." Spec. ,r 25; Abstract (emphasis added).
Claims 29, 32, 35, 37, and 39 are independent. Claim 29 is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter, as reproduced below with disputed limitations
in italics:
29. A base station apparatus comprising:
a processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
storing a program to be executed by the processor, the program
including instructions for:
[ 1] allocating a first periodicity corresponding to
a transmission of reception quality information, a second
periodicity corresponding to a transmission of
transmission signal precoding information, and a third
periodicity corresponding to a transmission of
transmission signal sequence information, wherein the
transmission signal sequence information is indicative of
a number of transmission sequences communicable with a
mobile station apparatus, wherein the first periodicity, the
second periodicity, and the third periodicity are different
from each other;
[2] assigning same periodical physical uplink
control channel resources for [i] the transmission of
reception quality information, [ii] the transmission of
transmission signal precoding information, and [iii] the
2
Appeal2018-007292
Application 13/090,061
transmission of transmission signal sequence information;
and
[3] transmitting, to the mobile station apparatus
through radio resource control (RRC) signaling, a
transmission parameter indicative of the first periodicity,
the second periodicity, the third periodicity, and
information of the periodical physical uplink control
channel resources.
App. Br. 9 (Claims App'x) (bracketing added).
EXAMINER'S REJECTION & REFERENCES
Claims 29--39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
obvious over Ihm et al. (US 2010/0118824 Al; published May 13, 2010;
"Ihm"), Kotecha et al. (US 2010/0202553 Al; published Aug. 12, 2010;
"Kotecha"), Wanguemert Perez et al. (US 2005/0083900 Al; published
April 21, 2005; "Wanguemert Perez"), and Pecen et al. (US 2003/0193969
A 1; published October 16, 2003; "Pecen"). Final Act. 2-11.
DISCUSSION
In support of the obviousness rejection, the Examiner finds Ihm
teaches most aspects of Appellants' "base station" recited in claim 29 and
similarly, claims 32, 35, 37, and 39, including:
[ 1] "allocating a first periodicity corresponding to a
transmission of reception quality information, a second
periodicity corresponding to a transmission of transmission
signal precoding information, and a third periodicity
corresponding to a transmission of transmission signal sequence
information ... " (Final Act. 3 (citing Ihm ,r,r 37, 39, 40, 55, 68,
70, 78-81, 83, Table 4, Table 7, Table 9));
3
Appeal2018-007292
Application 13/090,061
[2] assigning same periodical physical uplink control
channel resources for [i] the transmission of reception quality
information, [ii] the transmission of transmission signal
precoding information, and [iii] the transmission of transmission
signal sequence information (Final Act. 3 (citing Ihm ,r,r 37, 39,
40, 55, 68, 70, 78-81, 83, Table 4, Table 7, Table 9)); and
[3] transmitting, to the mobile station apparatus ... a
transmission parameter indicative of the first periodicity, the
second periodicity, the third periodicity, and information of the
periodical physical uplink control channel resources." (Final Act.
4--5 (citing Ihm ,r,r 39, 40, 55, 68, 70, 78-81, 83, Table 4, Table
7, Table 9)).
For example, Ihm's Figure 3 shows allocation of uplink control
channel resources at a base station (BS) based on feedback information
received from a mobile station (MS), as reproduced below with additional
markings:
MS BS
S31
Period I 1-! __ T_r_a_n_s_m_. _it_F_e_e_d_b_a_c_k_In_f_o_r_m_a_l_io_n_....._
Transmit lndica tion flag
Transmit Feedback header
--------------------------.r--i
S32
S33
S34
S35
Ihm's Figure 3 shows BS allocation of uplink control channel resources.
4
Appeal2018-007292
Application 13/090,061
According to Ihm, the feedback information received from MS
includes, but is not limited to: (1) channel quality information (CQI), (2)
MIMO channel matrix and weight value, and (3) mode information (i.e.,
MIMO mode or permutation mode). Ihm ,r,r 6-7, 39-40.
To support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner further relies
on: (1) Kotecha for teaching that feedback information expressly includes (i)
"precoding information" and (ii) "sequence information" (Final Act. 8
(citing Kotecha ,r,r 17, 21, 31, 34, 49)); (2) Wanguemert Perez for teaching
"wherein the first periodicity, the second periodicity, and the third
periodicity are different from each other" (Final Act. 9--10 ( citing
Wanguemert Perez ,r,r 3, 13, 20, 31 )); and (3) Pecen for teaching the
transmission of a transmission parameter, via radio resource control (RRC)
signaling. Final Act. 11 ( citing Pecen ,r 41 ).
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding
Ihm, Kotecha, Wanguemert Perez, and Pecen. Nor do Appellants dispute
the Examiner's rationale for combining Ihm, Kotecha, Wanguemert Perez,
and Pecen. Instead, Appellants present three principal arguments against the
Examiner's combination of Ihm, Kotecha, Wanguemert Perez, and Pecen.
First, Appellants argue "the cited references do not teach or render
obvious a system or method where transmissions of reception quality
information, transmission signal precoding information and transmission
signal sequence information are assigned the same periodical physical
uplink control channel resources." App. Br. 4--5. According to Appellants,
Ihm "only discloses that the mobile station (MS)-selected MIMO mode and
permutation mode can be transmitted periodically ... and does not disclose
that the resources for transmission of the MS-selected MIMO mode and
5
Appeal2018-007292
Application 13/090,061
permutation mode are transmitted on the same periodical physical uplink
control channel resources" and the "resources for transmitting the mobile
station (MS)-selected MIMO mode and permutation mode are assigned
separately for each information type ... [ as such] are not the same periodical
resources." App. Br. 4--5 (citing Ihm ,r,r 44, 55).
Second, Appellants argue "the cited references do not teach or render
obvious a system or method for allocating a second periodicity
corresponding to a transmission of transmission signal precoding
information, and a third periodicity corresponding to a transmission of
transmission signal sequence information, where the periodicities are
different from each other." App. Br. 5-7 (emphasis added). According to
Appellants, "[ n ]othing in Ihm teaches that different types of [feedback]
information are transmitted sing [sic] different periodicities." App. Br. 6.
Appellants also argue "Ihm teaches way from the feature where 'the first
periodicity, the second periodicity, and the third periodicity are different
from each other,' which allows the three types of feedback information to be
transmitted individually" because (1) Ihm' s "feedback information" is
included in a MAC header that "belongs to a data packet, rather than to a
physical uplink control channel" and (2) "various information is fed back in
one MAC header, which means the various information is fed back in a
bundled mode, rather than being fed back individually." App. Br. 6.
Third, Appellants argue "the cited references do not teach or render
obvious a system or method for transmitting. to the mobile station
apparatus through RRC signaling, a transmission parameter indicative of
the first periodicity, the second periodicity. the third periodicity, and
information of the periodical physical uplink control channel resources."
6
Appeal2018-007292
Application 13/090,061
App. Br. 7. In particular, Appellants acknowledge Pecen teaches
"transmitting transmission signal sequence information using RRC
signaling" but argue that "the RRC signaling in claim 29 is used to transmit
a transmission parameter indicative of the first periodicity, the second
periodicity and the third periodicity, and information of the periodical
physical uplink control channel resources, which is not disclosed in Pecen."
App. Br. 7.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Instead, we find the
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments
supported by evidence. Ans. 3-8. As such, we adopt the Examiner's
findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For example, as correctly
recognized by the Examiner, Ihm's feedback information (inclusive of
multiple types of feedbacks) is transmitted on the same uplink control
channel (CQICH) periodically which could correspond to Appellants'
claimed "same periodical physical uplink control channel resources" recited
in claim 29. Ans. 5 (citing Ihm ,r,r 37, 68, 70, 78, 83, Table 9). Second, Ihm
is not relied upon for teaching different types of feedbacks transmitted at
"different periods" as Appellants argue. App. Br. 5-7. Instead,
Wanguemert Perez teaches "different feedbacks [transmitted] at different
periods," as recognized by the Examiner. Ans. 6 (citing Wanguemert Perez
,r,r 3, 13, 20, 31 ). Similarly, Pecen teaches allocating resources, via RRC
(radio resource control) signaling. Ans. 8 (citing Pecen ,r 41). One cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCP A 1981 ). The test of obviousness is what the combined teachings
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Keller, 642 F.2d
7
Appeal2018-007292
Application 13/090,061
at 425. Contrary to Appellants' arguments, the combination of Ihm and
Wanguemert Perez teaches the second disputed limitation of claim 29.
Likewise, the combination of Ihm, Wanguemert Perez, and Pecen teaches
the third disputed limitation of claim 29.
In the Reply, Appellants raise new arguments against the Examiner's
combination, including: (1) "Ihm is completely silent about the transmission
signal precoding information, and transmission signal sequence
information"; and (2) "Wanguemert [Perez] does not relate to the three kinds
of specific information in claim 29, that is, [i] reception quality information,
[ii] transmission signal precoding information, and [iii] transmission signal
sequence information." Reply Br. 2--4. These arguments are belated
disputes regarding the Examiner's factual findings. In the absence of a
showing of good cause by Appellants, we can decline to consider these new
argument raised for the first time in the Reply Brief. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2) (2018); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
(noting that an argument not first raised in the brief to the Board is waived
on appeal); Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834, 1837 (BP AI 2010)
(informative) ( explaining that arguments and evidence not timely presented
in the principal Brief, will not be considered when filed in a Reply Brief,
absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have
been presented in the Principal Brief); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473,
1477 ( BPAI 2010) (informative) ("[p]roperly interpreted, the Rules do not
require the Board to take up a belated argument that has not been addressed
by the Examiner, absent a showing of good cause.").
Nevertheless, for purposes of completeness, we address Appellants'
new arguments below. At the outset, we note claim terms are given their
8
Appeal2018-007292
Application 13/090,061
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. In re
Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under
the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are given their ordinary
and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Trans logic Tech., Inc.,
504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The terms "transmission signal precoding information" and
"transmission signal sequence information" are not specifically defined by
Appellants' Specification; rather, the term "transmission signal precoding
information" is described as "information of precoding on a transmission
signal." Spec. ,r,r 72; see also id. 73, 76, 90, 104 and originally-filed claims
1-5. Similarly, the term "transmission signal sequence information" is
described as "the number of transmission sequences communicable with the
base station." Spec. ,r,r 72; see also id. 73, 76, 90, 104 and originally-filed
claims 1-5.
Based on Appellants' Specification, the terms "transmission signal
precoding information" and "transmission signal sequence information" can
be broadly, but reasonably interpreted to encompass (1) Ihm's MIMO
channel [precoding] matrix and weight value, and mode information (i.e.,
MIMO mode or permutation mode) (see Ihm ,r,r 6-7, 39-40); and/or (2)
Kotecha's "precoding matrix" and "encoded feedback value" indicating "a
number of spatial streams to be used during transmission of a data signal
sent over the transmission channel" (see Kotecha ,r,r 21, 31, 34, 49).
Appellants do not direct us to evidence to show the Examiner's
interpretations are erroneous. "[T]he fact that [Appellants] can point to
definitions or usages that conform to their interpretation does not make the
9
Appeal2018-007292
Application 13/090,061
PTO' s definition unreasonable when the PTO can point to other sources that
support its interpretation." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 29,
and similarly, claims 32, 35, 37, and 39, and their respective dependent
claims 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, and 38, which Appellants do not argue separately.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 29-39 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 29-39
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10