Ex Parte Baker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2018

14417754 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/417,754 01127/2015
48116 7590 04/02/2018
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthew Baker
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.
LUTZ 201975US01 5361
EXAMINER
BEYEN, ZEWDU A
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2018 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):
docketing@faysharpe.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW BAKER, FANG-CHEN CHENG, and
MIN ZHANG
Appeal 2017-011356
Application 14/417,754 1
Technology Center 2400
Before LARRY J. HUME, SCOTT E. BAIN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-21, which constitute all claims pending
in the application. Claim 4 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Alcatel Lucent as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-011356
Application 14/417,754
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
Appellants' claimed invention relates to coordinated multipoint
(CoMP) techniques in L TE networks. Spec. 1. According to Appellants,
CoMP transmission and reception "may offer improvements within a
network to data rates, cell-edge throughput, and also overall system
throughput." Id. The claimed invention relates to configuring user
equipment to "receive a dynamically changing [CoMP] transmission." Id.
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is representative of the
invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows:
1. A method of configuring user equipment in a wireless
communications network to operate to receive a dynamically
changing coordinated multipoint transmission from one or
more transmission point [sic] in said network, said method
compnsmg:
determining, for said user equipment, one or more
transmission points from which said user equipment may receive
a transmission and allocating them to a coordinated multipoint
set associated with said user equipment;
allocating a set of modes of operation of said transmission
points in said coordinated multipoint set for communication with
said user equipment;
associating a codepoint to each mode in said allocated set
of modes of operation of said set of transmission points to form
a codebook; and
informing said user equipment of said codebook;
wherein each codepoint comprises an indication of a
channel state information reference signal associated with each
mode of operation of said transmission points in said
coordinated multipoint set for communication with said user
equipment.
2
Appeal 2017-011356
Application 14/417,754
App. Br. 15 (Claims App'x) (emphases added).
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-3, 5-15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2010/0271968
Al; Oct. 28, 2010) ("Liu") and Nam et al. (US 2011/0103324 Al; May 5,
2011) ("Nam"). Final Act. 5-7.
Claims 16, 17, 20, and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu, Nam, and Rheinschmitt
et al. (US 2011/0075746 Al; March 31, 2011) ("Rheinschmitt"). Final
Act. 7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but did not make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth
in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner's
Answer, and provide the following discussion for highlighting and emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests "each codepoint [in the codebook] comprises an indication of a
channel state information reference signal associated with each mode of
operation of said transmission points in said coordinated multipoint set for
communication with said user equipment," as recited in claim 1. App. Br.
7-8; Reply Br. 2-3. Specifically, Appellants argue Nam "deals with multi-
user (MU) MIMO in which transmissions from one base station are sent to
multiple subscriber stations," which is "not the same as the claimed
3
Appeal 2017-011356
Application 14/417,754
coordinated multipoint." Id. at 8. Appellants' argument, however, does not
persuade us of error.
The Examiner relies not upon Nam alone, but on the combination of
Nam with Liu as teaching the disputed limitation. Ans. 6-7; Final Act. 4--5.
As the Examiner finds, Nam teaches "methods of conveying the [channel]
state in codepoints" of a signal. See Ans. 7; Nam i-f 133 (emphasis added).
Contrary to Appellants' argument, the Examiner finds Liu (not Nam) teaches
"coordinated multipoint" transmissions. Ans. 6; Liu Figs. 3, 6, i-fi-1 117-121.
Liu includes tables demonstrating "CoMP transmission points," and further
teaches an indicator of "transmission points configurations for coordinated
multipoint" from among "possible operation modes." Liu i-fi-1 118, 121. In
both the Final Action and the Answer, the Examiner explains that one of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits (including reducing
signal interference) of modifying Liu as suggested by Nam.
Appellants' argument regarding Nam alone does not address any of
the foregoing findings by the Examiner related to the combination of
references. Appellants' argument, therefore, does not demonstrate error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references.").
Accordingly, we discern no error in the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claim 1. Appellants' arguments regarding the remaining claims
(App. Br. 8-13) are redundant to those regarding claim 1, and we, therefore,
also discern no error in the rejections of those claims.
4
Appeal 2017-011356
Application 14/417,754
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejections of
claims 1-3 and 5-21.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-21.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5