Ex Parte Janis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2018

15005650 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/005,650 01/25/2016
102469 7590 09/20/2018
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./Nvidia
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
PekkaJanis
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.
14-HE-0407-US02 5146
EXAMINER
YU,LIHONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2018 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PEKKA JANIS, TOMMI KOIVISTO, and KARI HAMALAINEN
Appeal2018-003328
Application 15/005,650 1
Technology Center 2600
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 11-17, 19, and 20. Appellants have withdrawn claims 1-10 from
consideration. See Appellants' Resp. (filed December 27, 2016) (electing
claims 11-20). The Examiner has objected to claim 18 as being dependent
upon a rejected base claim, but has indicated claim 18 would be allowable if
rewritten in independent form. Final Act. 9. We have jurisdiction over the
remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Nvidia Corporation as the real party in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-003328
Application 15/005,650
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to a
base station in a communication system providing "an elevation
beamforming transmission based on a set of elevation precoding matrix
indicator offsets in an elevation codebook." Spec. ,r,r 2-5, Abstract.
According to the Specification, cell-specific elevation beamforming relates
to a particular down-tilt of a base station antenna array. Spec. ,r 12. It is
desirable to set the down-tilt such that the array gain is maximized for user
devices close to the base station while also avoiding excessive inter-cell
interference with our (neighboring) cell sites. Spec. ,r 12-13. Further,
"[ w ]hen an applied down-tilt or a transmit beamformer on a physical
resource block is optimized for each user equipment instead of a whole user
equipment distribution, system performance improvement may be obtained."
Spec. ,r 14. In a disclosed embodiment (e.g., a frequency division duplex
system), the user device performs channel measurements based on a
reference signal and provides feedback to the base station. Spec. ,r 15. The
base station transmits data using an elevation beamforming based on the
received feedback information from the user device. See Fig. 3.
Claims 11 and 12 are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and
are reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
11. A method of operating a communications system having a
cellular structure, comprising:
selecting a set of elevation precoding matrix indicator
(PM!) offsets in an elevation codebook for elevation
beamforming based on reducing inter-cell interference for
neighboring cells by a base station located within a cell of the
cellular structure;
2
Appeal2018-003328
Application 15/005,650
transmitting the set of elevation precoding matrix indicator
(PMI) offsets and a set of reference signals for channel quality
and inter-cell interference measurements from the base station to
user equipment within the cell;
selecting a channel quality indicator (CQI) and a
corresponding one of the set of elevation precoding matrix
indicator (PMI) offsets based on the channel quality and inter-
cell interference measurements by the user equipment;
reporting the selected channel quality indicator (CQI) and
elevation precoding matrix indicator (PMI) offset by the user
equipment to the base station; and
transmitting data using an elevation beamforming based
on the selected elevation precoding matrix indicator (PMI) offset
at a data rate based on the selected channel quality indicator
(CQI) from the base station to the user equipment.
12. The method as recited in Claim 11 wherein the channel
quality indicator (CQI) is based on a ratio of a physical downlink
shared channel (PDSCH) energy per resource element (EPRE)
and the reference signal including a cell-specific reference
signal (CRS) or a channel state information reference signal
(CSI-RS) EPRE.
The Examiner's Rejections
1. Claims 11-15 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 2014/0355702 Al; Dec. 4, 2014)
("Thomas"). Final Act. 3-7.
2. Claims 16 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Thomas and Wennstrom (US 8,238,225 B2; Aug. 7,
2012). Final Act. 7-8.
3. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Thomas and Han et al. (US 8,767,661 B2; July 1, 2014)
("Han"). Final Act. 9.
3
Appeal2018-003328
Application 15/005,650
ANALYSIS 2
Claims 11, 16, and 17
Appellants assert the Examiner erred in finding Thomas teaches
"selecting a set of elevation precoding matrix indicator (PMI) offsets ...
based on reducing inter-cell interference for neighboring cells," as recited in
claim 11. Br. 5-7. In particular, Appellants argue Thomas describes a
network architecture of a coverage cell and a capacity booster cell. Br. 6
( citing Thomas ,r,r 31, 42). Because the capacity booster cell is located
within the coverage cell (see Thomas ,r 31, Fig. 2), Appellants contend
Thomas is directed to reducing interference within a single cell, and not
inter-cell interference for neighboring cells.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Thomas teaches selecting PMis
from a codebook (used for elevation beamforming) to "result in lower
interference by the coverage cell on the capacity booster cell." Ans. 3--4
( quoting Thomas ,r 51 ); see also Thomas ,r 42. The Examiner notes, as do
we, that Thomas teaches an issue affecting interference between the
coverage cell and capacity booster cell is "enhanced inter-cell interference
coordination (eICIC)." Ans. 4; Thomas ,r 42. Contrary to Appellants'
arguments, the Examiner explains that "there are areas in the coverage cell
that are not included in the capacity booster cell (Thomas: Fig. 2 and
paragraph 0031 ), and those areas in the coverage cell would interfere with
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
November 20, 2017 ("Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed December 6,
2017 ("Ans."); and the Final Office Action, mailed May 18, 2017 ("Final
Act."), from which this Appeal is taken. Appellants did not file a Reply
Brief.
4
Appeal2018-003328
Application 15/005,650
the capacity booster cell to cause 'inter-cell interference for neighboring
cells."' Ans. 4.
Based on the Examiner's findings and explanation, we are not
persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 11.
Regarding dependent claims 16 and 17, Appellants argue the cited
references (Wennstrom and Han) do not remedy the deficiencies alleged
relating to the Examiner's rejection of claim 11. Br. 14--16. Because we do
not find the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 11 to be in error, we
are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellants' arguments. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 16 and 17.
Claims 12 and 13
Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and recites "the channel quality
indicator (CQI) is based on a ratio of a physical downlink shared channel
(PDSCH) energy per resource element (EPRE) and the reference signal
including a cell-specific reference signal (CRS) or a channel state
information reference signal (CSI-RS) EPRE." Appellants acknowledge the
cited portions of Thomas mention the terms CQI, PDSCH, and CSI-RS, but
that Thomas uses these terms separately. Br. 8. In particular, Appellants
argue Thomas is silent as to a CQI feedback signal being based on a ratio of
PDSCH EPRE and a CSI-RS EPRE. Br. 8.
In response, the Examiner cites to paragraphs 72 through 7 6 in
Thomas, finding Thomas teaches the recited elements (i.e., CQI, PDSCH,
and CSI-RS) and that "[i]t would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in
the art to draw a comparison between the channel PDSCH and the reference
5
Appeal2018-003328
Application 15/005,650
signal CSI-RS because one is corresponding to the other." Ans. 4--5; see
also Final Act. 5 ( citing Thomas ,r,r 72, 75-76).
Here, even upon review of Thomas' s cited passages, the Examiner has
not provided sufficient evidence or technical reasoning in support of the
stated conclusion. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 12. Additionally, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 13, which depends therefrom.
Claim 14
Claim 14 depends from claim 11 and recites "the precoding matrix
indicator offset corresponds to a common offset applied to all precoding
matrix indicator values in the elevation codebook." Appellants assert that
paragraph 4 7 of Thomas, as identified by the Examiner in the rejection (see
Final Act. 10), is silent as to a common offset applied to all precoding matrix
indicator values in an elevation codebook. Br. 10.
We note, as does the Examiner, that Thomas describes "[a] PMI value
may correspond to a single codebook index or to multiple codebook
indexes." Thomas ,r 48 (emphasis added); Ans. 6. Thus, Thomas teaches, or
reasonably suggests, that the PMI value may correspond to all codebook
index values.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 14.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites that "the precoding matrix indicator offset
corresponds to a precoding matrix indicator offset separately applied to each
precoding matrix indicator in order to enable biasing of a resulting channel
6
Appeal2018-003328
Application 15/005,650
quality indicator in a direction-dependent beamfonning manner."
Appellants assert Thomas, as relied on by the Examiner, fails to teach
applying an offset to PMI ("let alone applying it to each PMI) to enable
biasing of a resulting CQI in a direction-dependent beamforming manner.
Br. 11-12.
As an initial matter, we note that "[ a ]n intended use or purpose
usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually
do no more than define a context in which the invention operates."
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d
1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Notwithstanding, Appellants' arguments do
not apprise us of Examiner error. As with claims 11 and 14 ( discussed
above), the Examiner finds Thomas teaches the PMI offset corresponds to a
precoding matrix indicator offset separately applied to each precoding
matrix indicator. See, e.g., Final Act. 3-5 (citing Thomas ,r,r 42, 47--48, 50-
51, 61 ); Ans. 4---6. Further, the Examiner finds Thomas teaches the PMI
offset enables biasing of a resulting CQI in a direction-dependent
beamforming manner. Final Act. 6 ( citing Thomas ,r,r 41, 46). Thomas
describes the use of elevation-port beamforming weights to direct the
direction of the beam. Thomas ,r 41, Fig. 8 (illustrating various down-tilt
angles). Further, Thomas describes the base station could limit a user device
to feedback CQI and PMI "for only a restricted codebook set which steers
away from the edge of [the] cell" based on the base station's knowledge of
the user device location (i.e., a directional bias). Thomas ,r 7 4.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 15.
7
Appeal2018-003328
Application 15/005,650
Claim 19
Claim 19 depends from claim 11 and recites:
wherein the precoding matrix indicator offset is one of N possible
values and is signaled as a length K*log2(N) vector of bits b,
where each set of log2(N) bits corresponds to a precoding matrix
indicator offset value and the location of the set of log2(N) bits
within the vector of bits b corresponds to a precoding matrix
indicator, a set of precoding matrix indicators or a phase
difference value dependent on K, wherein the elevation
codebook contains K distinct rank-I precoders.
As relied on by the Examiner, Wennstrom teaches log2(P) bits are
required for control signaling to indicate to a user device which precoding
matrix is used because the size of the base unit cookbook is P matrices.
Wennstrom, col. 4, 11. 33-37; see also Final Act. 7-8. Appellants argue
Wennstrom "is silent as to the location of the set of log2(P) bits and the rank-
I precoders." Br. 15.
In response, the Examiner states "[ e Jach precoding matrix is an
independent vector, thus a rank-I precoding matrix." Ans. 7.
Here, the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence or technical
reasoning in support of the stated finding and conclusion that W ennstrom
teaches or suggests the recited "rank-I precoders." Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 19.
Claim 20
Claim 20 depends from claim 11 and recites "the precoding matrix
indicator offset is applied as a power offset in a Physical Downlink Shared
Channel (PDSCH) transmission, where PDSCH precoding is applied
according to a reported elevation precoding matrix indicator." (Emphasis
8
Appeal2018-003328
Application 15/005,650
added.) Appellants assert the cited portions of Thomas fail to teach or
suggest applying a PMI offset as a power offset. Br. 13.
In response, the Examiner states Thomas teaches applying a PMI
offset in a PD SCH transmission and because "[ a ]ccording to mathematics, a
power is the number of times a certain number is to be multiplied by itself
... [Thomas teaches the] PMI offset has a power of one." Ans. 6-7.
When construing claim terminology during prosecution before the
Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification, reading claim language in light of the
Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
However, the broadest reasonable interpretation differs from the broadest
possible interpretation. In re Smith Int'!, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed.
Cir. 2017). The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is "an interpretation
that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in
the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is 'consistent with the
specification."' Smith, 871 F.3d at 1382-83 (quoting In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
The Examiner's construction of "power"-and, more specifically,
"power offset"-is not consistent with the Specification or with how an
ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the term in the context of the
claims in light of the Specification. See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 32-33, 40. The term
relates to an offset to transmission power. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claim 20.
9
Appeal2018-003328
Application 15/005,650
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11 and 14--1 7.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 12, 13, 19, and
20.
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 )(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10