NXP USA, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 9, 2020

15411054 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 2020)

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.
15/411,054 01/20/2017 Victor-Florin CRASMARIU 1080-DN31518ES 6157
114905 7590 10/09/2020
NXP-Davidson Sheehan
6501 William Cannon Drive West
Austin, TX 78735
EXAMINER
CADEAU, WEDNEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/09/2020 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte VICTOR-FLORIN CRASMARIU, ANDREI ALEXANDRU
ENESCU, and MARIUS OCTAVIAN ARVINTE
____________________

Appeal 2019-003497
Application 15/411,054
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JOHN D. HAMANN
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 through 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, NXP USA, Inc. is the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003497
Application 15/411,054

2
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method for use with a
transmitter which uses plural user specific channels to communicate with
different user receivers. The transmitter precodes the channel using a matrix
and reuses portions of the precoding matrix for other channels. Abstract,
Specification ¶ 9. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced
below.
1. A method comprising:
generating, at a transmitter device, a first set of
rotational matrices for a set of channels of the transmitter
device;
precoding first data for transmission based on the
first set of rotational matrices to generate first precoded
data;
transmitting the first precoded data via a first channel
of the set of channels at the transmitter device;
generating, at the transmitter device, a second set of
rotational matrices for the set of channels based on the first
set of rotational matrices;
precoding second data for transmission based on the
second set of rotational matrices to generate second
precoded data; and
transmitting the second precoded data via a second
channel of the set of channels at the transmitter device.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims Appendix).

Appeal 2019-003497
Application 15/411,054

3
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 5 and 15 through 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Forenza (US 2011/0003608 A1,
published Jan. 6, 2011), Ikram (US 2006/0039489 A1, published Feb. 23,
2006) and Bala (US 2009/0323849 A1, published Dec. 31, 2009). Final Act.
6–11.
The Examiner rejected claims 6 through 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Forenza, lkram, Bala and Ko (US
2010/0310000 A1, published Dec. 9, 2010). Final Act. 11–16.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejections of all of the disputed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Obviousness Rejection Based upon Forenza, lkram, and Bala
Appellant’s arguments directed to the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection based upon Forenza, lkram, and Bala, present us with several
issues. Appeal Br. 3–7. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments
is, did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Forenza, lkram, and
Bala teaches generating a second set of rotational matrices for the set of

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed October 18,
2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed April 1, 2018 (Reply Br.); Final
Office Action mailed June 15, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed February 1, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-003497
Application 15/411,054

4
channels based upon the first set of rotational matrices as recited in each of
independent claims 1 and 15? Appeal Br. 5–7.
The Examiner finds that Forenza teaches generating a second set of
rotational matrices for a set of channels, but does not teach generating the
second set based upon the first set. Final Act 7–8 (citing Forenza ¶¶ 348,
353, 354 and Figs. 5–9); see also Ans. 4–5. The Examiner finds that Bala
teaches generating codebooks, and checking if one is a subset of the other.
Final Act 8–9 (citing Bala ¶¶ 47–50); see also Ans. 5 (citing Bala ¶¶ 45, 47,
48 and 57). Based upon these findings, the Examiner considers the disputed
limitation directed to generating a second set of rotational matrices for the
set of channels based upon the first set of rotational matrices to be obvious.
Final Act. 9.
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. Initially we note that the Examiner appears to make conflicting
findings as to whether Forenza teaches generating a second precoding matrix
(which in combination with lkram, and Bala the Examiner equates to the
claimed rotational matrix) based upon the first precoding matrix. In the
Final Action on page 8, the Examiner states “Forenza in view of Ikram fail
to teach generating the second set of rotational matrices for the set of
channels based on the first set of rotational matrices.” Final Act. 8; see also
Ans. 4. However, on page 5 of the Answer, the Examiner states the Action
clearly points out that Forenza teaches generating a second precoding matrix
from a first by upgrading the first matrix. Nonetheless, we have reviewed
paragraphs 348, 353, and 354 and Figures 5–9 of Forenza cited by the
Examiner and do not find a teaching of generating a second rotational matrix
from a first rotational matrix—i.e., we concur with the Examiner’s finding
Appeal 2019-003497
Application 15/411,054

5
on page 8 of Final Action and not the conflicting statement on page 5 of the
Answer. Further, we have reviewed the cited teachings of Bala, which
discuss determining if the MU-MIMO (multi user multiple input multiple
output) codebook used to precode data is a subset of the SU-MIMO (single
user multiple input multiple output) codebook, and do not consider this to
teach or suggest generating a second set of rotational matrices for the set of
channels based upon the first set of rotational matrices. As argued by
Appellant in the Reply Brief, the claim recites “generating” (bringing into
existence) the second code based upon the first. Reply Br. 3. We consider
this interpretation of generating to be consistent with the Specification,
which discusses the second matrix is generated by reusing some columns of
the first matrix and generating (bringing into existence) other matrices. See
Spec. ¶ 19 and Fig. 2. The teachings in the paragraphs of Bala cited by the
Examiner merely teach that one codebook may be a subset of the other (e.g.,
if the subset is in the set, it is not generated but already exists), but we do not
find Bala to teach or suggest that one codebook is generated (brought into
existence or created) based upon the other codebook. Accordingly, we do
not find that the Examiner has demonstrated the combination of Forenza,
lkram, and Bala teaches all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and
15. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
Claims 1 through 5, and 15 through 19.

Obviousness Rejection Based upon Forenza, lkram, Bala, and Ko
The Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 6 through 8 and 20
relies upon similar findings concerning the limitations of independent claims
1 and 15. Final Act. 11. With respect to claim 8 the Examiner states that it
Appeal 2019-003497
Application 15/411,054

6
contains the same limitations as claims 1 and 6 and is similarly rejected.
Final Act 14. The Examiner has not shown that the teachings of Ko remedy
the deficiencies noted in the rejection of claim 1 and 15. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 6 through 14
and 20 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 15.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 15–19 103 Forenza, lkram, Bala 1–5, 15–19
6–14, 20 103 Forenza, lkram, Bala,
Ko
6–14, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED