Ex Parte Geirhofer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 11, 2016

13210052 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/210,052 08/15/2011
15055 7590 08/15/2016
Patterson & Sheridan, LLP,
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stefan Geirhofer
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.
102501 1357
EXAMINER
MALEK, LEILA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2016 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):
qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com
P AIR_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 STEP AN GEIRHOFER, PETER GAAL, and JUAN MONTOJO
Appeal2015-002025
Application 13/210,052
Technology Center 2600
Before SCOTT B. HOW ARD, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1--4, 14-22, 32--40, 50-58, and 68-72. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm
Incorporated. App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 5, 6, 10, 23, 24, 28, 41, 42, 46, 59, 60, and 64 have been cancelled.
App. Br. 13-21. Claims 7-9, 11-13, 25-27, 29-31, 43--45, 47--49, 61-63,
and 65-67 have been objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base
claim, but the Examiner has indicated that these claims would be allowable
if rewritten in independent form. Final Act. 13.
Appeal2015-002025
Application 13/210,052
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' application relates to enforcing codebook properties such
as constant modulus and finite alphabet in adaptive and dual-stage
codebooks. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal
and reads as follows with the disputed limitation italicized:
1. A method for wireless communications, comprising:
receiving multiple feedback aspects of a channel for the
wireless communications;
determining multiple codewords based on the multiple
feedback aspects;
determining a final precoding matrix based on the multiple
codewords;
enforcing at least one codebook property in at least one of
the final precoding matrix or the multiple codewords by at least
one of:
providing multiple codebooks; wherein the
determining the multiple codewords comprises selecting
each of the multiple codewords from a different one of the
multiple codebooks and wherein all of the multiple
codewords in each of the codebooks meet the at least one
codebook property;
quantizing each of the multiple codewords; or
quantizing the final precoding matrix;
applying the final precoding matrix to a plurality of spatial
streams to form precoded spatial streams; and
transmitting the precoded spatial streams.
2
Appeal2015-002025
Application 13/210,052
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1--4, 14-22, 32--40, 50-58, and 68-72 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sayana (US 2011/0319027 Al; Dec.
29, 2011) and Koivisto (US 2011/0243098 Al; Oct. 6, 2011). Final Act. 4-
13.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Sayana and Koivisto teaches
or suggests "enforcing at least one codebook property in at least one of the
final precoding matrix or the multiple codewords ... wherein all of the
multiple codewords in each of the codebooks meet the at least one codebook
property." Ans. 11-14; Final Act. 5-6. Appellants argue the Examiner's
finding is in error because Koivisto teaches a codebook with a certain
structure or certain properties, but does not teach that multiple codebooks
each have the same structure or properties . .,A'"pp. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 3-5.
The Examiner responds that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
"all of the multiple codewords in each of the codebooks meet the at least one
codebook property" does not require that each codebook has the same
property. Ans. 13-14. The Examiner reasons that because the various
properties are referred to as "a property," each codebook may have a
different property and still satisfy the limitation. Id.
The Examiner also responds that Koivisto teaches codebooks with
limited alphabets, constant modulus, or a nested property. Ans. 12-13. The
Examiner finds these characteristics satisfy the "at least one codebook
property" limitation. Ans. 13. The Examiner finds an ordinarily skilled
3
Appeal2015-002025
Application 13/210,052
artisan would have known that each codebook may have the same property,
which the Examiner asserts would satisfy the disputed limitation. Id.
Appellants have persuaded us that the Examiner erred. First, we
disagree with the Examiner's interpretation of "all of the multiple codewords
in each of the codebooks meet the at least one codebook property." Claim 1
recites, in relevant part, "enforcing at least one codebook property in at least
one of the final precoding matrix or the multiple codewords." Claim 1
further recites "wherein all of the multiple codewords in each of the
codebooks meet the at least one codebook property." The recitation of "the
at least one codebook property" refers back to the "enforcing" limitation.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this term requires that "the at least
one codebook property" be met in each of the codebooks. In other words,
the same property must be met by each codebook, not different properties as
asserted by the Examiner.
Second, Koivisto teaches a codebook that may have various
properties, including constant modulus. Koivisto i-f 29. However, Koivisto
is silent as to whether multiple codebooks have the same or different
properties. Accordingly, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding Koivisto teaches or suggests multiple codebooks that meet the same
property. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants
have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
unpatentable over Sayana and Koivisto. Therefore, we do not sustain the
4
Appeal2015-002025
Application 13/210,052
rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejections of claims 2--4,
14-22, 32--40, 50-58, and 68-72, which contain similar limitations.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1--4, 14-22,
32--40, 50-58, and 68-72.
REVERSED
5