Peter Gaal et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 27, 2019

15065272 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2019)

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.
15/065,272 03/09/2016 Peter Gaal PQ411.01 (81679.1454) 5319
109682 7590 08/27/2019
Holland & Hart LLP/Qualcomm
P.O. Box 11583
Salt Lake City, UT 84147
EXAMINER
VLAHOS, SOPHIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2633
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2019 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
patentdocket@hollandhart.com
qualcomm@hollandhart.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte PETER GAAL, WANSHI CHEN, HAO XU,
TAO LUO, and SHIMMAN ARVIND PATEL
____________________

Appeal 2018-004287
Application 15/065,272
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1–6, 8–17, and 19–30. Claims 7 and 18 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to a channel or interference estimation for SC-
FDM symbol streams. Claims 1 and 20, reproduced below, are illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:

1 Appellants’ indicate that Qualcomm Incorporated is the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2018-004287
Application 15/065,272
2

1. A method for wireless communication at a user
equipment (UE), comprising:
determining a user-specific insertion period offset for the
UE, wherein the user-specific insertion period offset is different
from another user-specific insertion period offset for another UE;
inserting channel or interference estimation modulation
symbols into a sequence of data modulation symbols in
accordance with the user-specific insertion period offset;
performing a discrete Fourier transform (DFT) on a group
of modulation symbols in the sequence of data modulation
symbols, the group of modulation symbols including at least one
of the channel or interference estimation modulation symbols;
and
generating a single-carrier frequency domain modulated
(SC-FDM) symbol stream based at least in part on an output of
the DFT.

20. A method for wireless communication at a base
station, comprising:
receiving, at the base station, at least one single-carrier
frequency domain modulated (SC-FDM) symbol stream from at
least one user equipment (UE);
performing an inverse discrete Fourier transform (IDFT)
on a tone-demapped output of a discrete Fourier transform (DFT)
for each of the at least one SC-FDM symbol stream, to recover a
plurality of data modulation symbols and channel or interference
estimation modulation symbols for each of the at least one SC-
FDM symbol stream, wherein the channel or interference
estimation modulation symbols for a SC-FDM symbol stream
are further recovered based at least in part on a user-specific
insertion period offset for a UE from which the SC-FDM symbol
stream is received;
estimating interference based at least in part on the channel
or interference estimation modulation symbols; and
decoding the data modulation symbols based at least in
part on the estimated interference.

Appeal 2018-004287
Application 15/065,272
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Jayaraman et al. US 7,046,726 B2 May 16, 2006
Palanki et al. (‘932) US 2006/0203932 A1 Sept. 14, 2006
Palanki et al. (‘272) US 2007/0014272 A1 Jan. 18, 2007
Seki US 2007/0280365 A1 Dec. 6, 2007
Cho et al. US 2009/0227278 A1 Sept. 10, 2009
Kishigami et al. US 2010/0075693 A1 Mar. 25, 2010
Nishikawa US 2013/0223560 A1 Aug. 29, 2013

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Palanki ‘932 in view of Nishikawa.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 24, and 29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Palanki ‘932 in view of Palanki
(hereinafter referred to as Palanki ‘272) and Nishikawa.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Palanki in view of Palanki ‘272, Nishikawa and further in view of
Jayaraman.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Palanki ‘932 in view of Nishikawa and further in view of Jayaraman.
Claims 3–6 and 15–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Palanki ‘932 in view of Palanki ‘272, Nishikawa and
further in view of Kishigami.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Palanki ‘932 in view of Palanki ’272, Nishikawa, and
further in view of Cho.
Appeal 2018-004287
Application 15/065,272
4
Claims 21 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Palanki ‘932 in view of Nishikawa, and further in view of
Seki.

ANALYSIS
We address the Appellants’ arguments in the order set forth in the
Appeal Brief.
Independent claim 1
With respect to claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 24, and 29, Appellants
do not set forth separate arguments for patentability. (App. Br. 6).
Consequently, we select independent claim 1 as the representative claimed
for this group and address Appellants’ arguments thereto. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellants contend that the Palanki ‘932 and the Palanki ‘272
references do not teach or suggest the claimed “inserting channel or
interference estimation modulation symbols into a sequence of data
modulation symbols in accordance with the user-specific insertion period
offset” recited in independent claim 1. (App. Br. 6–9). Appellants further
distinguish “internal” and “external” steps in the internal multiplexing of the
data symbols and the pilot symbols in the Palanki ‘932 and Palanki ‘272
references in an attempt to distinguish the claimed invention. (App. Br. 6–9;
Reply Br. 2).
The Examiner maintains that Appellants’ arguments concerning
internal and external steps are not commensurate in scope with the express
language of independent claim 1. (Ans. 3–4). The Examiner further
maintains that in the proposed modification Palanki ‘932, Fig. 10A, TDM
control and Mux 1022 implement the pilot insertion based on user-specific
Appeal 2018-004287
Application 15/065,272
5
insertion period offsets (Fig. 5 of Palanki ‘272 TDM pilots for user 1 and
user 2 having different insertion period offsets (t, t+ 1 )). (Ans. 5). We
agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ arguments are not supported by the
express language of independent claim 1 and that the proffered combination
teaches or suggests the internal processing.
Appellants contend that the Palanki ‘272 reference does not disclose
or suggest “inserting channel or interference estimation modulation symbols
into a sequence of data modulation symbols in accordance with the user-
specific insertion period offset,” as recited in claim 1. Instead, Palanki ‘272
discloses transmitting the pilot symbol in a symbol [sic, period] reserved for
the transmission of the pilot symbol, where the symbol reserved for the
transmission of the pilot symbol is surrounded by two sets of symbols
reserved for data transmission. (Reply Br. 3–4).
Appellants merely repeat that language of claim 1 and contend that
the references do not teach or disclose the claimed invention. Moreover,
Appellants do not explain how the claimed invention differs from the
combination of prior art references. We may speculate that the Appellants
intended the claimed invention to include a step of determining a specific
location using the “offset” for the symbol insertion using the disclosed
insertion policy identification module (Spec. ¶ 88), but that is not
commensurate in scope with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claim language.
Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir.
2004). However, great care should be taken to avoid reading limitations of
Appeal 2018-004287
Application 15/065,272
6
the Specification into the claims. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343
F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
As a result, we find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive of error in the
Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness.
Appellants further contend that the Palanki ‘932 and Palanki ‘272
references do not teach or suggest “performing a discrete fourier transform
(DFT) on a group of modulation symbols in the sequence of data modulation
symbols, the group of modulation symbols including at least one of the
channel or interference estimation modulation symbols” or “generating a
single-carrier frequency domain modulated (SC-FDM) symbol stream based
at least in part on an output of the DFT.” (App. Br. 9–10).
The Examiner further clarifies the rejection is not that “the reserved
pilot periods are subject to any Fourier transformation” but that a group of
modulation symbols in the sequence of modulation symbols are subject to a
Fourier transformation, and that group of modulation symbols includes at
least one of the channel or interference estimation modulation symbols.
(Ans. 6–7).
The Examiner maintains that insertion of channel or interference
estimation modulation symbols (pilot symbols of Palanki) in accordance
with the user-specific insertion period offset (e.g. t, t+ 1) occurs prior to the
SC-FDMA modulation the Palanki ‘272 reference in paragraph 175 and as
shown in Figures 1 and 15. (Ans. 7–8). We agree with the Examiner and
find Appellants’ argument to be unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s
factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of independent claim 1 and
claims 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 24, and 29 not separately argued. See 37 CFR
41.37 (c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2018-004287
Application 15/065,272
7
Because Appellants have not set forth separate arguments for
patentability of dependent claims 3–6, 8, 11, 12, 15 –17, and 23 these claims
will fall with representative independent claim 1.

Independent claim 20
With respect to claims 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, and 30, Appellants do not
set forth separate arguments for patentability. (App. Br. 9). Consequently,
we select independent claim 20 as the representative claim for this group and
address Appellants’ arguments thereto. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellants further contend that the Palanki ‘932 and Nishikawa references
do not teach or suggest “wherein the channel or interference estimation
modulation symbols for a SC-FDM symbol stream are further recovered
based at least in part on a user-specific insertion period offset for a UE from
which the SC-FDM symbol stream is received,” as recited in independent
claim 20. (App. Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 4–6).
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s reliance upon paragraph 46 of
the Palanki ‘932 reference does not support the Examiner’s position because
P1 merely represents a number of symbol periods in which a pilot may be
sent. (See Palanki ‘932 at ¶ 46 (“data may be sent in D1 symbol periods,
then pilot may be sent in the next P1 symbol periods …”).) Appellants
contend that this number of symbol periods cannot be interpreted as a “user-
specific insertion period offset,” as recited in claim 20. (App. Br. 11; see
also Reply Br. 4–5). But, Appellants do not identify why the number of
symbols in the symbol periods cannot teach or suggest “user-specific
insertion period offset” or what the specific scope of this claim limitation is
to differentiate it from the prior art references.
Appeal 2018-004287
Application 15/065,272
8
The Examiner maintains that that there is no definition for the term
“user-specific insertion period offset” in the Specification that excludes the
interpretation of P1 of Palanki. (Ans. 9). We agree with the Examiner that
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation reads on
Palanki ‘932. We disagree with Appellants’ interpretation of the teachings
of the Palanki ‘932 reference. Moreover, we find that Figure 5A of the
Palanki ‘932 reference discloses plural sample periods including a first
sampled period having data in a data symbol period D1 followed by a pilot
symbol time period P1 followed by more data in a data symbol period D1
followed by a second pilot symbol time period P1 followed by more data in a
data symbol period D1.
We note that the scope of independent claim 20 sets forth “receiving,
at the base station, at least one single-carrier frequency domain modulated
(SC-FDM) symbol stream from at least one user equipment,” and “wherein
the channel or interference estimation modulation symbols for a SC-FDM
symbol stream are further recovered based at least in part on a user-specific
insertion period offset for a UE from which the SC-FDM symbol stream is
received.” (Emphasis added). The Palanki ‘932 reference discloses at least
one single carrier frequency domain modulated symbol stream and the
modulation symbols are recovered based upon their location which is
specific to that user and there only needs to be a single user in the broadest
reasonable interpretation of claim 20.
“In the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretations . . . limitations are not to be read into the claims
from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Any special meaning assigned to a term
“must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from
Appeal 2018-004287
Application 15/065,272
9
common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the
field of the invention.” Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133
F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick
Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“A patentee
may act as its own lexicographer and assign to a term a unique definition
that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning; however, a
patentee must clearly express that intent in the written
description.”). Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a
claim term, the words take on the ordinary and customary meanings
attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1,
LLC. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(citation omitted).
Appellants have not identified how the claimed “user-specific
insertion period offset” is different from the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claimed invention which the Examiner proffers is taught
or suggested by the Palanki ‘932 reference. Appellants have not shown error
in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness with respect
to representative independent claim 20 and claims 22, 25, 26, 28, and 30 not
separately argued.
Because Appellants have not set forth separate arguments for
patentability of dependent claims 21 and 27 these claims will fall with
representative independent claim 20.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–6, 8–17, and 19–30
based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2018-004287
Application 15/065,272
10

DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 1–6, 8–17, and 19–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED