Ex Parte Geirhofer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2017

12893538 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017)

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.
12/893,538 09/29/2010 Stefan Geirhofer 093529US 4313
15055 7590 09/27/2017
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
DEAN, RAYMOND S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2017 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):
qu alcomm @ pattersonsheridan .com
PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEFAN GEIRHOFER, ALEXEI YURIEVITCH, and
SIDDHARTHA MALLIK
Appeal 2015-003080
Application 12/893,53 81
Technology Center 2600
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, 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—43. Claims 44-47 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants identify Qualcomm Incorporated as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-003080
Application 12/893,538
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to enhancing wireless communication in
multiple-access networks, by determining “granularity of feedback” of
channel state information (“CSI”) corresponding to various cells in the
network. Spec. 5—6. Claims 1, 15, 20, 25, 26, 33, 38, and 43 are
independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and subject matter of
the appeal, and read as follows (with the disputed limitations in italics):
1. A method for wireless communication, comprising:
determining granularity of feedback of channel state
information (CSI) for each of a plurality of cells, the granularity
of feedback for each cell being selected based on quality of a
communication channel between the cell and a user equipment
(UE); and
reporting CSI for each of the plurality of cells based on the
granularity of feedback for the cell,
wherein the determining and the reporting are performed
by the UE.
App. Br. 22 (emphasis added).
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 4, 13, 15, 20, 25, 26, 33, 38, and 43 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yin et al. (US
2008/0153506 Al; published June 26, 2008) (“Yin”) and Muszynski (US
5,623,484; issued Apr. 22, 1997). Final Act. 3—13.
Claims 3, 8, 16, 21, 27, 34, and 39 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yin, Muszynski, and Choi (US
6,618,597 Bl; issued Sept. 9, 2003). Final Act. 14—16.
2
Appeal 2015-003080
Application 12/893,538
Claims 5, 17, 22, 28, 35, and 40 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yin, Muszynski, and Farajidana et al.
(US 2010/0113078 Al; published May 6, 2010) (“Farajidana”). Final Act.
16-17.
Claims 6, 18, 23, 29, 36, and 41 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yin, Muszynski, and Cho et al. (US
2007/0155392 Al; published July 5, 2007) (“Cho”). Final Act. 17-18.
Claims 7, 19, 24, 30, 37, and 42 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yin, Muszynski, and Sanayei (US
2010/0002797 Al; published Jan. 7, 2010). Final Act. 18-19.
Claim 9 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yin, Muszynski, Choi, and Sanayei. Final Act. 19-20.
Claim 10 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yin, Muszynski, and Jian et al. (US 8,526,384 B2; issued
Sept. 3, 2013) (“Jian”). Final Act. 20-21.
Claim 12 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yin, Muszynski, Jian, and Liu et al. (US 2011/0080965
Al; published Apr. 7, 2011) (“Liu”). Final Act. 21—22.
Claims 14 and 31 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yin, Muszynski, and Zheng et al. (US 8,179,844 B2;
issued May 15, 2012) (“Zheng”). Final Act. 22—23.
Claim 32 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yin, Muszynski, Zheng, and Sarkar (US 2009/0093222
Al; published Apr. 9, 2009). Final Act. 23—25.
3
Appeal 2015-003080
Application 12/893,538
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments presented in this appeal. Any other 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 obviousness rejections of
the independent claims (i.e., claims 1, 15, 20, 25, 26, 33, 38, and 43) and
dependent claims 2-4, 7—14, 16, 19, 21, 24, 27, 30-32, 34, 37, 39, and 42,
we agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and adopt them as
our own. With respect to the remaining obviousness rejections of dependent
claims 5, 6, 17, 18, 22, 23, 28, 29, 35, 36, 40, and 41, however, we are
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. We provide
the following to highlight and address specific arguments.
Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 13, 15, 20, 25, 26, 33, 38, and 43
Underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Yin and Muszynski
collectively teach “the determining and the reporting [of granularity of CSI
feedback] are performed by the UE [i.e., user equipment],” as recited in
claim l.2 App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2—5. Specifically, Appellants argue the
Examiner relies on Yin as teaching the foregoing limitation, but that Yin’s
determination of feedback granularity is performed by the base station, not
user equipment. App. Br. 9. We disagree.
As the Examiner finds, Yin teaches multiple embodiments in which
CSI feedback granularity is determined (and dynamically changed) between
2 Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4, 13, 15, 20, 25, 26, 33, 38, and 43 as a
group, and we choose claim 1 as representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal 2015-003080
Application 12/893,538
base stations and “subscribers,” i.e., user equipment. Ans. 24—25; Yin Fig.
5,||33—34, 42. One of the embodiments described in Lin includes a
“subscriber station” (user equipment) with channel quality indicator (CQI)
“measurement logic” to “perform channel measurements” including
granularity. Yin H 40-43. As Yin further describes, “once the requisite
channel measurements have been taken [by the subscriber station], the
subscriber station . . . may indicate [i.e., report] the CQI to the base station.”
Yin 143. Accordingly, we discern no error in the Examiner’s finding one of
ordinary skill would recognize Yin teaches or suggests “user equipment,”
i.e. a subscriber station, performs the “reporting” and “determining” recited
in claim 1.
Appellants next argue the Examiner erred in finding Yin and
Muszynski collectively teach the granularity of CSI feedback is selected
“based on quality of a communication channel between the cell and a user
equipment,” as further recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10-11. Again, however,
we are not persuaded. As the Examiner finds, Yin teaches “granularity of
feedback” selected based on “loading of the cells,” and further teaches
“loading of the cells” is merely one example for such selection. Ans. 25—26;
Yin || 32—34, 42. Muszinski teaches “loading based on the quality of a
communication channel between the cell and a user equipment.” Ans. 25
(citing Muszynski col. 4,11. 66—67, col. 5,11. 1—5). Substituting Muszynski’s
loading step for that in Yin, therefore, teaches the disputed limitation. Ans.
25—26.3
3 Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s rationale in combining the
references.
5
Appeal 2015-003080
Application 12/893,538
Finally, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Yin and
Muszynski collectively teach determining granularity of CSI feedback for
each of a “plurality of cells,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11—12
(emphasis added). Appellants contend Yin relates only to a “single” cell,
and Muszynski “does not discuss granularity of feedback at all.” Id. We
disagree. As the Examiner finds, Yin teaches “multiple base stations” and
“multiple subscriber stations” in its wireless communication system. Ans.
26 (citing Yin 133). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand
multiple base stations and multiple subscriber stations as supporting multiple
cells (i.e., a “plurality of cells”), not necessarily a single cell as Appellants
argue. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 13, 15, 20, 25, 26, 33, 38, and 43.
Rejection of Dependent Claims 5, 17, 22, 28, 35, and 40
Underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests determining a “subband size” for each cell, the “subband size for
each cell being selected based on the quality of the communication channel,”
as recited in claim 5 (which depends from claim l).4 On the record before
us, we are persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
The Examiner relies on Farajidana as teaching or suggesting the
disputed limitation. Final Act. 17; Ans. 26. The Examiner finds, “[sjection
4 Appellants argue claim 5 with claims 17, 22, 28, 35, and 40, all of which
recite the disputed limitation or one commensurate in scope. We choose
claim 5 as representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
6
Appeal 2015-003080
Application 12/893,538
[paragraph] 0048 of Farajidana teaches that multiple CQIs can be reported
via a subband and that the size of the subband can be adjusted or expanded
based on the number of CQIs that are communicated back.” Ans. 26. We
agree that the cited paragraph of Farajidana describes “defining the subband
size,” but we find it teaches doing so based on “system bandwidth,” not
based on “quality of the communication channel” as recited in claim 5.
Farajidana 148. The Examiner does not find this limitation in the other
prior art of record.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of claims 5, 17, 22, 28, 35, and 40.
Rejection of Dependent Claims 6, 18, 23, 29, 36, and 41
Underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests determining a “reporting interval for feedback” selected “based on
the quality of the communication channel of the cell,” as recited in claim 6
(which depends from claim l).5 On the record before us, we are persuaded
by Appellants’ argument.
The Examiner cites Cho paragraph 25 as teaching or suggesting the
disputed limitation, but does not describe where in paragraph 25 the teaching
or suggestion is found. Final Act. 18; Ans. 26—27. As Appellants argue,
Cho paragraph 25 describes a “reporting interval” based on factors other
than the quality of the communication channel of the cell. App. Br. 14. The
5 Appellants argue claim 6 with claims 18, 23, 29, 36, and 41, all of which
recite the disputed limitation or one commensurate in scope. We choose
claim 6 as representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
7
Appeal 2015-003080
Application 12/893,538
Examiner further reasons, “if there is no CQI to report then there is no need
to establish a CQI reporting interval.” Ans. 27. If the Examiner’s statement
reflects a conclusion that the disputed claim element is non-limiting, we
disagree. The method recited in claim 6 affirmatively requires the step of
“determining a reporting interval” based on the recited factors. On the
record before us, we cannot discern where the Examiner has found this
limitation taught or suggested in the cited prior art.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of claims 6, 18, 23, 29, 36, and 41.
Remaining Rejections
Underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants argue the Examiner’s remaining rejections are erroneous
for the same reasons as the rejection of claim 1, and that the additional
references cited in the remaining rejections do not cure the deficiencies
regarding the rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 16—20. Because we discern no
error regarding claim 1, Appellants’ argument regarding the remaining
rejections is unpersuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of the remaining claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 7—16, 19—21,
24—27, 30—34, 37—39, 42, and 43, but reverse the decision rejecting claims 5,
6, 17, 18, 22, 23, 28, 29, 35, 36, 40, and 41.
8
Appeal 2015-003080
Application 12/893,538
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.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9