14322575 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)

Ex Parte CHEN et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 29, 2019

14322575 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/322,575 07/02/2014 23494 7590 04/02/2019 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR RunhuaCHEN 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. TI-73966 5857 EXAMINER LEE, JAE YOUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2466 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/02/2019 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): 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, RALF M. BENDLIN, and ANTHONY E. EKPENYONG 1 Appeal 2018-006678 Application 14/322,575 2 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ALEX S. YAP, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-30, which constitute all the 1 Texas Instruments Inc. ("Appellant") is the applicant as provided in 37 C.F .R. Â§ 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 The application on appeal has an effective filing date of July 2, 2013. Therefore, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) amendments to the U.S. Code(Â§Â§ 102, 103) are applicable. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Â§ 2159. 02 (The amended sections "apply to any patent application that contains or contained at any time a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date that is on or after March 16, 2013."). Appeal 2018-006678 Application 14/322,575 claims pending in this application. Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 2. 3, 4 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. Appellant's Invention The invention at issue on appeal relates generally to advanced wireless (cellular) communication systems-transmission points and user equipment ("UE") (i.e., apparatuses) and methods-for improving performance by utilizing "multi-point-to-point or coordinated multi-point (CoMP) communication" schemes "where multiple base stations can cooperatively design downlink transmissions to simultaneously serve a UE." Spec. ,r 4. See Spec. ,r,r 5-9; Abstract. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 1. A transmission point (TP) comprising: a processor configured to generate a transmission parameter for the TP, wherein the transmission parameter comprises at least one of a transmission rank, a beaniforming matrix, a transmission power, and an on/off status; and 3 The Examiner includes canceled claim 9 in the listing of claims on appeal. Claim 9 was canceled in Appellant's Amendment dated Oct. 31, 2017. 4 We refer to Appellant's Specification ("Spec.") filed July 2, 2014 (claiming benefit of US 61/842,152, filed July 2, 2013 and US 61/865,474 filed Aug. 13, 2013); Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed Jan. 29, 2018; Supplemental Appeal Brief ("Supp. Appeal Br.") filed Feb. 14, 2018; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed June 15, 2018. We also refer to the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed June 2, 2017; and Answer ("Ans.") mailed Apr. 18, 2018. 2 Appeal 2018-006678 Application 14/322,575 a transmitter coupled to the processor and configured to transmit the transmission parameter as part of a coordinated multi-point (CoMP) scheme. Rejections on Appeal5 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 12-14, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Barany et al. (US 2011/0268007 Al, published Nov. 3, 2011) ("Barany"). 2. The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Barany and Kazmi et al. (US 2015/0036519 Al, published Feb. 5, 2015 (filed Dec. 10, 2013, claiming benefit of US 61/746,310, filed Dec. 27, 2012)) ("Kazmi"). 3. The Examiner rejects claims 11 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Barany and Ko et al. (US 2015/0124736 Al, published May 7, 2015 (filed June 24, 2013)) ("Ko"). 4. The Examiner rejects claims 4---6 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Barany and Liu (US 2014/0162717 Al, published June 12, 2014 (filed Feb. 18, 2014, claiming benefit of PCT/CN2012/079914, filed Aug. 10, 2012)). 5. The Examiner rejects claims 7, 8, 10, 11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Barany and Wu (US 2014/0301299 Al, published Oct. 9, 2014 (filed Apr. 3, 2014, claiming benefit of US 61/807,778, filed Apr. 3, 2013)). 5 The Examiner includes canceled claim 9 in the listing of the rejected claims. See footnote 3, supra. We find this typographical error harmless, and make appropriate correction in the statement of the rejections for clarity and consistency. 3 Appeal 2018-006678 Application 14/322,575 6. The Examiner rejects claims 21 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Barany and Kim (US 2014/0226612 Al, published Aug. 14, 2014 (filed Oct. 8, 2012)). ISSUE Based upon our review of the record, Appellant's contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows: Did the Examiner err in finding Barany discloses "A transmission point (TP) comprising: a processor" that generates "a transmission parameter for the TP," which includes "at least one of a transmission rank, a beamforming matrix, a transmission power, and an on/off status," and a "transmitter coupled to the processor and configured to transmit the transmission parameter as part of a coordinated multi-point (CoMP) scheme" within the meaning of Appellant's claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 13, 20, 23, and 27-30? ANALYSIS Claim 1 The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as being anticipated by Barany. See Final Act. 48--49; Ans. 42--46. Appellant contends that Barany does not disclose the disputed limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9-14; Reply Br. 1--4. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia, that the Examiner-cited portions of Barany do not describe a processor generating transmission parameters-including one of a transmission rank, a beamforming matrix, a transmission power, and an on/off status-and a 4 Appeal 2018-006678 Application 14/322,575 transmitter transmitting the parameter as part of a CoMP scheme. See Appeal Br. 10-14; Reply Br. 1--4. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of Barany (Barany ,r,r 61, 62, 65, 66-see Final Act. 48--49; Ans. 42--46) do not describe the disputed transmission parameter( s ). At best, the cited portions of Barany describe a transmission point (see Barany ,r 65----CoMP Transmission Point (CTP)) or base station (see Barany ,r 61) including a processor (see Barany ,r 11) that generates Co MP control messages (see Barany ,r 61) and transmitting the CoMP control messages to other base stations (see Barany ,r 61 ). Barany also describes receiving "implicit feedback" from user equipment ( a wireless device) where "information is sent back to [a] transmitter that use[s] hypotheses of different transmission and/or reception processing (e.g., channel quality indication (CQI), precoder matrix indication (PMI), and rank indication (RI))." Barany ,r 66. Barany does not explicitly disclose a Transmission Point processor generating transmission parameters, much less the enumerated parameters. Even if we presume a Transmission Point processor generates transmission parameters that are included in the control messages-a finding not made by the Examiner-we are still left to speculate whether the generated parameters include the enumerated parameters ( one of "a transmission rank, a beamforming matrix, a transmission power, and an on/off status"). Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us and determine that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of Barany anticipate Appellant's claim 1. Dependent claims 3 and 12 depend on and stand with claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3, and 12. 5 Appeal 2018-006678 Application 14/322,575 Claim 13 The Examiner rejects independent claim 13 as being anticipated by Barany. See Final Act. 51-54; Ans. 54--58. Appellant contends that Barany does not disclose the disputed limitations of claim 13. See Appeal Br. 20- 26; Reply Br. 10-13. Claim 13 recites: "a receiver configured to receive a transmission parameter from a transmission point (TP) as part of a coordinated multi-point (CoMP) scheme wherein the transmission parameter corresponds to the transmission point" and "a processor coupled to the receiver ... configured to: process the transmission parameter, and generate transmission instructions based on the transmission parameter" (Supp. Appeal Br. 3). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of Barany (Barany ,r,r 61, 62, 66, 74, 77, 82, 83-see Final Act. 51-54; Ans. 54--58), for the same reasons as claim 1 (supra), do not explicitly describe receiving a transmission parameter from TP as part of a CoMP scheme, a processor processing the transmission parameter, and a processor generating transmission instructions based on the transmission parameter. We are again left to speculate whether the CoMP control messages include a transmission parameter and whether the generated transmission instructions are based on a transmission parameter. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us and determine that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of Barany anticipate Appellant's claim 13. Dependent claims 14, 16 and 17 depend on and stand with claim 13. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 13, 14, 16, and 17. 6 Appeal 2018-006678 Application 14/322,575 Claim 20 The Examiner rejects independent claim 20 as being anticipated by Barany. See Final Act. 56-59; Ans. 67-70. Appellant contends that Barany does not disclose the disputed limitations of claim 20. See Appeal Br. 31- 39; Reply Br. 18-24. Similar to claim 1, claim 20 recites: "receiving a transmission parameter from another transmission point (TP) ... wherein the transmission parameter is at least one of a transmission rank, a beamforming matrix; a transmission power, and an on/off status" (Supp. Appeal Br. 4). We agree with Appellant, for the same reasons as claim 1 (supra), that Barany does not disclose the enumerated transmission parameter( s ). Consequently, we determine that the Examiner erred in finding that Barany anticipates Appellant's claim 20. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 20. Claim 23 The Examiner rejects independent claim 23 as being anticipated by Barany. See Final Act. 59-62; Ans. 70-75. Appellant contends that Barany does not disclose the disputed limitations of claim 23. See Appeal Br. 40- 49; Reply Br. 24--27. Similar to claim 13, claim 23 recites: "receiving a transmission parameter from a transmission point (TP) ... [ and] generating transmission instructions based on the transmission parameter" (Supp. Appeal Br. 5). For the same reasons as claim 13 (supra), we agree with Appellant that Barany does not disclose generating transmission instructions based on the transmission parameter. Consequently, we determine that the Examiner erred in finding that Barany anticipates Appellant's claim 23. Dependent claims 24 and 26 7 Appeal 2018-006678 Application 14/322,575 depend on and stand with claim 23. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 23, 24, and 26. Claims 27-30 The Examiner rejects independent claims 27-30 as being anticipated by Barany. See Final Act. 64---69; Ans. 83-95. Appellant contends that Barany does not disclose the disputed limitations of claims 27-30. See Appeal Br. 56-71; Reply Br. 34--42. Claim 27 recites: "a processor configured to handle multiple ... (CoMP) hypotheses wherein each hypothesis has a corresponding channel state information reference signal (CS I-RS)" (Supp. Appeal Br. 6). Claims 28 and 30 recite similar limitations. See Supp. Appeal Br. 6-7. Claim 29 recites: a processor configured to handle multiple transmission parameters" (Supp. Appeal Br. 6). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of Barany (Barany ,r,r 58, 60, 61, 62, 66, 74, 84---see Final Act. 64---69; Ans. 83-95) do not explicitly describe a processor configured to handle multiple CoMP hypotheses or multiple transmission parameters, nor a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS). Specifically, Barany does not describe processing (by a processor) multiple transmission parameters (see discussion of claim 1, supra). Barany also does not explicitly disclose processing (by a processor) multiple CoMP hypotheses (see e.g., Appeal Br. 56-57; Reply Br. 34--35). Further, Barany does not describe a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS). See Appeal Br. 57---60; Reply Br. 34--36. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us and determine that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of 8 Appeal 2018-006678 Application 14/322,575 Barany anticipate Appellant's claims 27-30. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 27-30. The Obviousness Rejections The Examiner rejects claim 2, which depends from claim 10, as obvious in view of Barany and Kazmi. See Final Act. 69-71. The Examiner rejects claims 15 and 22, which depend from claims 13 and 20 (respectively), as obvious in view of Barany and Ko. See Final Act. 71-73. The Examiner rejects claims 4---6 and 18, which depend from claims 1 and 13 (respectively), as obvious in view of Barany and Liu. See Final Act. 73- 78. The Examiner rejects claims 7, 8, 10, 11, and 19, which depend from claims 1 and 13 (respectively), as obvious in view of Barany and Wu. See Final Act. 78-84. The Examiner also rejects 21 and 25, which depend from claims 20 and 23 (respectively), as obvious in view of Barany and Kim. See Final Act. 84--86. The Examiner does not suggest, and we do not find, that the additional cited references (Kazmi, Ko, Liu, Wu, or Kim) cure the deficiencies of Barany (supra). Therefore, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2, 4--8, 10, 11, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 25 for the same reasons set forth as their respective base claims (supra). CONCLUSIONS Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 12- 14, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l). Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 4--8, 10, 11, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. 9 Appeal 2018-006678 Application 14/322,575 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8 and 10-30. REVERSED 10