Ex Parte Lin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 2, 2016

13648603 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/648,603 10/10/2012
57035 7590 11/04/2016
KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC
C/O CPA Global
900 2nd A venue South, Suite 600
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Xintian E. Lin
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.
P21283C7/1020P21283C7 1039
EXAMINER
TORRES, JUAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2634
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/04/2016 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):
triddle@kdbfirm.com
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
docketing@kdbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XINTIAN E. LIN and QINGHUA LI
Appeal2015-007035
Application 13/648,603
Technology Center 2600
Before LARRY J. HUME, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-30, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appeal2015-007035
Application 13/648,603
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to communication systems. See
generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a processor circuit arranged to select a precoding matrix
for a transmitter of a remote device based on channel conditions
of a communication channel for a closed-loop multiple-input
and multiple-output (MIMO) orthogonal frequency-division
multiple access (OFDMA) system, the precoding matrix
constructed by a transform applied to one or more vectors by
the processor circuit, and the transmitter of the remote device
capable of utilizing multiple transmitter antennae (Nt) and
multiple spatial channels (Ns).
References and Rejections 1
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over AAP A (Applicant Admitted Prior Art: Background
Section of the Specification), IEEE 802.16 (IEEE Std. 802.16-2004, IEEE
Standardfbr Local and metropolitan area netvvorks, Part 16: Air Interface
for Fixed Broadband JYireless Access Systems), Tong (US 2008/0108310
Al, May 8, 2008), and Giaimo (US 2004/0090924 Al, May 13, 2004).
Alternatively, claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over AAP A, IEEE 802.16, Ansari (Mehdi Ansari et al.,
Unified MIMD Pre-Coding based on Givens Rotation, IEEE C802. l 6e-
04/5l6 (Nov. 4, 2004)), and Giaimo.
Alternatively, claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over AAP A, IEEE 802.16, Roh (June Chul Roh &
1 The Examiner withdrew an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Ans. 27.
2
Appeal2015-007035
Application 13/648,603
Bhaskar D. Rao, Channel Feedback Quantization Methods for MJSD and
MIMD Systems, 15th IEEE Int'l Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile
Radio Communications, PIMRC 2004, Vol. 2, 805-809 (Sept. 5-8, 2004)),
and Giaimo.
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner's findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer, to the extent they are consistent with our
analysis below.2
Claims 1-12
On this record, and by a preponderance of evidence, the Examiner did
not err in rejecting claim 1.
First, Appellants contend the Examiner fails to explain what
constitutes the cited AAP A. See App. Br. 11. The Examiner explains "as
indicated in the previous Office action, the AAP A are in the specification
page 1 line 15 to page 2 line 12." Ans. 28. Appellants do not dispute that
explanation.
Second, Appellants contend the cited references fail to teach "a
closed-loop multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMD) orthogonal
frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA) system," as recited in claim 1
(emphasis added). See App. Br. 12-13. In particular, Appellants argue "the
Wikipedia MIMO reference ('Wikipedia-MIMO') is not available as prior
2 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
3
Appeal2015-007035
Application 13/648,603
art," "the cited portions of 802.16-2004 also fail to disclose a closed-loop
MIMO OFDMA system," and "although these portions of 802.16-2004
pertain to various features related to MIMO, they are silent with respect to
closed-loop MIMO." App. Br. 12-13.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. In response to Appellants'
arguments, the Examiner provides further findings showing AAP A teaches
"a closed-loop multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO)" system. See
Ans. 28; AAPA i-f 3 ("[c]losed loop multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO)
systems"). Therefore, Appellants' argument that 802.16-2004 does not
teach a closed-loop MIMO is unpersuasive of error. Further, Appellants'
argument about Wikipedia is moot, because the Examiner's further findings
do not cite Wikipedia.
Third, Appellants generally assert the identified references fail to
teach "a processor circuit arranged to select a precoding matrix for a
transmitter of a remote device based on channel conditions of a
communication channel for a closed-loop multiple-input and multiple-output
(MIMO) orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA) system"
or "OFDMA," as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 12-13.
Appellants' general assertion is unpersuasive of error. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim recites
will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.");
see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that "the
Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art").
4
Appeal2015-007035
Application 13/648,603
Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. For similar reasons, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 6.
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2-5 and 7-12, which Appellants do not separately argue with
substantive contentions.
Claims 13-25
On this record, and by a preponderance of evidence, the Examiner did
not err in rejecting claim 13.
First, Appellants contend the Examiner fails to explain what
constitutes the cited AAPA. See App. Br. 13. As discussed above with
respect to claim 1, the Examiner explains "as indicated in the previous
Office action, the AAP A are in the specification page 1 line 15 to page 2 line
12." Ans. 33. Appellants do not dispute that explanation.
Second, Appellants argue the cited references do not teach the
limitations recited in claim 13:
selecting, by a processor circuit, a vector from a set of
vectors stored by a first device;
selecting one or more columns of a matrix formed from a
transform of the selected vector, the selected columns
comprising a codeword for a transmitter of a second device; and
sending feedback based on the codeword from the first
device to the second device.
See App. Br. 14--15. In particular, Appellants contend "the identified
references fail to disclose at least sending feedback based on a codeword
comprising one or more selected columns of a matrix formed from a
transform of a vector selected from a set of vectors." App. Br. 14.
5
Appeal2015-007035
Application 13/648,603
Appellants argue:
none of these respective portions of the identified references
[Tong, Ansari, and Roh] disclose a matrix that is formed from a
transform of a vector selected from a set of vectors and from
which one or more columns would be selected to form a
codeword based upon which feedback would be sent.
App. Br. 14.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because they are not directed
to the Examiner's specific findings, which cite AAPA as the primary
reference for the rejection, and rely on Tong (alternatively, Ansari or Roh)
as a secondary reference. See Final Act. 12-13, 20-21, 28-29; Ans. 35-38.
Because the Examiner relies on the combination of AAP A, IEEE 802.16,
Tong (alternatively, Ansari or Roh), and Giaimo to teach the disputed claim
limitations, Appellants cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking a
secondary reference individually. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F .2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13. For similar reasons, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 18.
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 14--17 and 19-25, which Appellants do not separately argue with
substantive contentions.
Claims 26--30
On this record, and by a preponderance of evidence, the Examiner did
not err in rejecting claim 26.
First, Appellants contend the Examiner fails to explain what
constitutes the cited AAPA. See App. Br. 15. As discussed above with
6
Appeal2015-007035
Application 13/648,603
respect to claim 1, the Examiner explains "as indicated in the previous
Office action, the AAP A are in the specification page 1 line 15 to page 2
line 12." Ans. 40. Appellants do not dispute that explanation.
Second, Appellants argue the cited references do not teach "select a
precoding matrix for a transmitter based on a channel condition, the
precoding matrix constructed by applying a transform to one or more
vectors; select an index for the precoding matrix; and cause transmission of
the index for the precoding matrix to a remote device with the transmitter,"
as recited in claim 26. See App. Br. 16-17. In particular, Appellants
contend "the identified references fail to disclose at least causing
transmission of an index selected for a precoding matrix constructed by
applying a transform to one or more vectors." App. Br. 16. Appellants
argue "none of these respective portions of the identified references [Tong,
Ansari, and Roh] disclose selecting an index for a precoding matrix
constructed by applying a transform to one or more vectors." App. Br. 16.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because they are not directed
to the Examiner's specific findings, which cite AAPA as the primary
reference for the rejection, and rely on Tong (alternatively, Ansari or Roh)
as a secondary reference. See Final Act. 15-16, 23, 31; Ans. 42--45.
Because the Examiner relies on the combination of AAP A, IEEE 802.16,
Tong (alternatively, Ansari or Roh), and Giaimo to teach the disputed claim
limitations, Appellants cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking a
secondary reference individually. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 26.
7
Appeal2015-007035
Application 13/648,603
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 27-30, which Appellants do not separately argue with substantive
contentions.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-30.
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
8