Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2018

14222553 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018)

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.
14/222,553 03/21/2014 Runhua Chen TI-73611 1074
23494 7590 03/02/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
JEONG, MOO RYONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2018 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RUNHUA CHEN and RALF MATTHIAS BENDLIN
Appeal 2017-004688
Application 14/222,5531
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
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 1-26, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Texas Instruments
Incorporated. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-004688
Application 14/222,553
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to multi-input multi-output (MIMO)
transmissions in wireless communication systems. Spec. ^ 3. According to
the Specification, existing Long-Term Evolution (LTE) wireless systems
may use multiple-antenna configurations to transmit multiple data streams
simultaneously, which increases efficiency of spectrum usage. Id. ^ 5. To
function properly, such systems require a variety of reference signals, signal
measurement, feedback, and reporting mechanisms. Id. ^ 6. Appellants’
invention relates to an “[ijmproved” feedback mechanism using “two or
more CSI-RS resources or sub-resources to report two or more
measurements in one CSI report,” rather than the typical “one CSI-RS
resource per eNB to make one measurement and one report.” Id. ^ 7.2
Claims 1,9, 17, and 23-26 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the subject matter of the appeal and reads as follows:
1. A method for providing channel state information (CSI)
feedback between a base station and a user device, comprising:
obtaining, at the user device, a first measurement using a
first CSI-RS sub-resource;
obtaining, at the user device, a second measurement using
a second CSI-RS sub-resource;
deriving a single CSI-process based on the first and the
second measurements; and
2 The foregoing abbreviations represent channel state information (CSI),
reference signal (RS), and evolved NodeB (eNB) (e.g., a base station).
2
Appeal 2017-004688
Application 14/222,553
reporting said CSI-process to the base station.
App. Br., Claims App. 1.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 14-19, and 23-25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Nam et al. (US 2013/0258964 Al;
Oct. 3, 2013) (“Nam”). Final Act. (Mar. 23, 2016) 10-18.
Claims 4, 5, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Nam and Kim et al. (US 2015/0180628 Al; June 25,
2015) (“Kim”). Final Act. 18-19.
Claims 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Nam and Vook et al. (US 2015/0078472 Al; Mar. 19, 2015) (“Vook”).
Final Act. 20-23.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Nam and Hong et al. (US 2014/0073337 Al; Mar. 13, 2014) (“Hong”).
Final Act. 23-24.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). With respect to the rejections of claims 1, 6-9, 14-17, and
20-26, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and adopt
them as our own. With respect to the rejections of the remaining
claims (i.e., claims 2-5, 10-13, 18, and 19), however, we are persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred on the record before us. We
provide the following to highlight and address specific arguments.
3
Appeal 2017-004688
Application 14/222,553
Anticipation by Nam
A. Claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 17, and 23—25
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Nam (at paragraphs 68
and 93) discloses a single CSI-process based on measurements obtained
using CSI-RS sub-resources, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9-10.
Specifically, Appellants contend the passages cited in Nam describe two CSI
processes respectively associated with H-CSI and V-CSI, not one CSI
process associated with two sub-resources as recited in claim 1. Id. We
disagree.
As the Examiner finds, Nam discloses “one or more” CSI processes
per serving cell. Final Act. 11; Ans. 22; Nam 68. Nam also discloses a
joint-CQI derived and reported via one CSI process associated with
H-CSI-RS and V-CSI-RS.3 Final Act. 11; Ans. 22; Nam 123-24.
Appellants’ argument does not explain how the foregoing processes in Nam
differ from the claimed single CSI process and associated CSI-RS
sub-resources. App. Br. 9-10. In the Reply Brief, Appellants merely
contend “[o]ne skilled in the art would not confuse these terms.” Reply Br.
3. This assertion, however, is not sufficient to demonstrate error.
Appellants further argue the Examiner erred because Nam (at
paragraphs 107 and 123) does not disclose obtaining measurements using
CSI-RS sub-resources, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11-12. Specifically,
Appellants contend the passages cited in Nam describe configuring
3 The foregoing abbreviations represent horizontal and vertical CSI (H-CSI,
V-CSI) reference signals.
4
Appeal 2017-004688
Application 14/222,553
H-CSI-RS and V-CSI-RS (also A-CSI-RS and B-CSI-RS)4 and that
“‘configuring’ is not the same thing as ‘a first measurement’ [and] ‘a second
measurement’.” Id. at 11. On the record before us, however, Appellants’
argument does not persuade us of error.
As the Examiner finds, Nam discloses H-CSI and V-CSI are estimated
from two sets of CSI-RS’s associated with H-CSI-RS AP’s and V-CSI-RS
AP’s, respectively. Final Act. 11; Ans. 23; Nam^Hf 93, 123-124. The
Examiner relies on this disclosure, not just the “configuring” step as argued
by Appellants. Appellants, moreover, do not argue any distinction between
the foregoing H-CSI and V-CSI determinations in Nam and the claimed
“obtaining ... a first [and second] measurement” using sub-resources. App.
Br. 9-10. In the Reply Brief, Appellants merely acknowledge Nam’s
disclosure of the estimations (at paragraph 93) and then state Nam’s
disclosure of configuring for H-CSI-RS and V-CSI-RS (at paragraph 107)
“clearly does not teach measurement[.]” Reply Br. 3—4. Appellants’
arguments are not sufficient to demonstrate error. See Lovin, 652 F.3d at
1357.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellants argue the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6, 9, 14, 17, and 23-25 for the same
reasons as claim 1. App. Br. 9-10, 12, 14-15, 19-20, 24-26. For the
foregoing reasons, we also sustain the rejections of those claims.
4 Nam interchangeably references A-CSI-RS, B-CSI-RS and H-CSI-RS,
V-CSI-RS. See, e.g., Nam]fl[ 104, 123. The Examiner also does so. See,
e.g., Final Act. 4. For consistency, we only reference H-CSI-RS, V-CSI-RS,
i.e., though A-CSI-RS and B-CSI-RS are stated by the cited passage.
5
Appeal 2017-004688
Application 14/222,553
B. Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 18, and 19
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Nam (at
paragraph 177) discloses a message configuring first and second CSI-RS
sub-resources, as recited in dependent claim 2. App. Br. 12-13.
Specifically, Appellants contend the passage cited in Nam describes the
RRC configuration (message) as configuring a UE for one set of CSI-RS
APs, not for multiple CSI-RS sub-resources.5 Id. Appellants have
persuaded us the Examiner erred.
We agree with Appellants’ argument that the passages cited by the
Examiner disclose RRC configuration as configuring the UE for “one ... of
. . . two sets of CSI-RS APs” and these “two sets” as respectively H-CSI-RS
APs and V-CSI-RS APs. Nam]fl| 177 (emphasis added), 139. The
Examiner, on the record before us, does not explain how configuring one set
of CSI-RS APs, such as one set of H-CSI-RS APs or V-CSI-RS APs,
configures a UE for multiple CSI-RS sub-resources.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 2. We also do
not sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 18, which recite limitations
commensurate in scope with the disputed limitation of claim 2, and were
rejected for the same reasons. Final Act. 12-13, 15. Further, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 3,11, and 19, which depend from claims 2,
10, and 18, respectively, and therefore include the limitations of those
claims.
5 The foregoing abbreviations represent radio resource control (RRC), user
equipment, and antenna port (AP).
6
Appeal 2017-004688
Application 14/222,553
C. Claims 7, 8, 15, and 16
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Nam (at paragraph 93)
discloses CSI-RS sub-resources associated with respective sets of antenna
ports, as recited in dependent claim 7 (which depends from claim 1). App.
Br. 15-16. Specifically, although Appellants acknowledge the passage cited
in Nam discloses H-CSI-RS APs and V-CSI-RS APs, Appellants contend
that disclosure does not include sets of APs as CSI-RS sub-resources of the
same base station, as recited in claim 7. Id. On the record before us,
Appellants’ argument does not persuade us of error.
As the Examiner finds, Nam discloses the H-CSI-RS APs and
V-CSI-RS APs located at a singular eNB. Nam Fig. 6; Abstract; 4; Final
Act. 11. As the Examiner further finds, one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand the claimed CSI-RS sub-resources as reading on CSI-RSs and
associated sets of CSI-RS APs such as H-CSI-RS APs and V-CSI-RS APs.
Ans. 18 (citing Spec. ^ 49); see also Spec. ^ 32 (equating a reference signal
and antenna port). Appellants’ arguments do not explain how the foregoing
H-CSI-RS APs and V-CSI-RS APs in Nam differ from the claimed CSI-RS
sub-resources. In the Reply Brief, Appellants merely contend the
Examiner’s findings “are based on a misinterpretation of claim language and
a lack of understanding of what is defined in the Appellants’ specification.”
Reply Br. 6; see also id. at 2 (contending “the application is clear on the
definitions,” but citing none). Appellants’ arguments are insufficient to
demonstrate error.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 7 over Nam. We also
sustain the same rejection of claim 15, for which Appellants repeat the same
arguments made regarding claim 7, App. Br. 20-21, for the same reasons.
7
Appeal 2017-004688
Application 14/222,553
Regarding claim 8, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding
Nam (at paragraph 139) discloses a CSI-RS sub-resource used to report CSI
for antenna ports in the horizontal axis and another CSI-RS sub-resource
used to report CSI for antenna ports in the vertical axis. Specifically,
Appellants again acknowledge the passage cited in Nam discloses H-CSI-RS
APs and V-CSI-RS APs, but contend Nam does not disclose these sets of
APs as CSI-RS sub-resources. Id.', Reply Br. 6. This argument, however, is
essentially the same argument Appellants made regarding claim 7. For the
reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded of error.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 8. We also sustain the
same rejection of claim 16, for which Appellants repeat the same arguments
made regarding claim 8, App. Br. 21-22, for the same reasons.
Obviousness over Nam and Kim
D. Claims 4, 5, 12, and 13
Claims 4, 5, 12, and 13 each depend from claim 3 or claim 11. As
discussed above, Appellants persuade us the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 3 and 11 as anticipated by Nam. The Examiner does not explain how
the addition of Kim cures the deficiency in Nam. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, 12, and 13.
E. Claims 20—22
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Vook (at paragraph 16
and Figures 4, 9, and 10) teaches a CSI-RS sub-resource used to report CSI
for array sub-elements within one antenna panel in an elevation domain and
another CSI-RS sub-resource used to report CSI between different antenna
8
Appeal 2017-004688
Application 14/222,553
panels in an azimuth domain, as recited in claim 20. App. Br. 35-37.
Specifically, Appellants acknowledge the passage and figures cited in Vook
teach antennas arranged in a panel form and feedback for antenna ports, but
contend the panel form and feedback do not teach CSI reporting for antenna
array sub-elements of one panel in an elevation domain and different panels
in an azimuth domain. Id. On the record before us, Appellants’ arguments
do not persuade us of error.
As the Examiner finds, Vook teaches an antenna array 20 at the eNB
can include multiple panels (e.g., two panels 20A, 20B) to provide azimuth
elements. Final Act. 21; Vook^f 30. Vook’s cited disclosures also indicate
the antenna panels are identical in the elevation domain (each having rows
A-C) and different in the azimuth domain (having different azimuth
locations). Vook Fig. 4. Appellants’ argument does not explain how the
foregoing antenna panels and feedback in Nam differ from the claimed CSI
reporting. App. Br. 36-37.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants contend Vook’s CSI reporting is for
antenna ports that are “antenna elements[,]” not array sub-elements. Reply
Br. 7. Appellants also note Vook states (at paragraph 30): “The antennas
are labeled according to an alphanumeric scheme in which the letter (A, B, C
. . .) refers to the ‘row’ in which the antenna is located and the number
refers to the azimuth location of the antenna.” Reply Br. 7. These
arguments do not explain how antenna ports differ (as “antenna elements”)
from antenna array sub-elements. Nor do these arguments explain why
Vook’s labeling of antennas shows that CSI is not reported for sub-elements
of one panel in an elevation domain and different panels in an azimuth
domain. SeeLovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.
9
Appeal 2017-004688
Application 14/222,553
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 20. We also
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 21 and 22, for which Appellants
repeat the same arguments made regarding claim 20.
Obviousness over Nam and Hong
F. Claim 26
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 26 for the
same reason as claim 1, namely because Nam teaches two CSI processes
respectively associated with H-CSI and V-CSI, not one CSI process
associated with two sub-resources. App. Br. 40. For the reasons discussed
above, however, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 26.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 6-9, 14-17,
and 20-26.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2-5, 10-13, 18,
and 19.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED IN PART
10