Ex Parte Luo et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 24, 2019

14743211 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/743,211 06/18/2015
15055 7590 04/26/2019
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
XiliangLuo
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.
101539USC01 2189
EXAMINER
SHAND, ROBERTA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2472
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2019 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):
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 XILIANG LUO, WANSHI CHEN, TAO LUO, PETER GAAL,
XIAOXIA ZHANG, HAO XU, and WAN MONTOJ0 1
Appeal2018-007104
Application 14/743,211
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, SHARON PENICK, and
RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 3-11, 13-21, and 23-33, which constitute all the
claims pending in this Application. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 2, 12, and 22
have been canceled. Id. at 14, 16, 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). We reverse.
1 Appellants list QUALCOMM Incorporated as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief filed January 22, 2018 ("Appeal Br.") 3.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents for their respective details: the Final Action mailed
June 2, 2017 ("Final Act."); the Examiner's Answer mailed May 9, 2018
("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed July 2, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2018-007104
Application 14/743,211
APPELLANTS' INVENTION
The Specification is directed to a method of sending control
information in a wireless communication network. Spec. ,r 2. As the
Specification explains, a wireless communication network can include base
stations that communicate with individual user equipment (UE), such as a
mobile phone. Id. ,r,r 4, 28. AUE can communicate with a base station via
downlink (communication from the base station to the UE) and uplink (from
the UE to the base station). Id. The UE can send control information
relating to multiple downlink carriers on a single uplink carrier. Id. This
control information can include a channel quality indicator (CQI), precoding
matrix indicator (PMI), rank indicator (RI), acknowledgement/negative
acknowledgement (ACK/NACK), and other information. Id. ,r 7.
In one embodiment described in Appellants' specification, the UE
maps the control information for multiple downlink carriers to multiple
layers of the data channel. Id. ,r 9. The UE can also use spatial multiplexing
for the uplink channel which uses a number of spatial layers to transmit
information in separate streams on separate antennas. Id. ,r 88. The UE can
use the multiple spatial layers of the uplink channel to send control
information for multiple downlink carriers as well as data. Id.
Claim 1 illustrates the claims at issue:
1. A method of wireless communication comprising:
identifying a data channel of an uplink carrier, the data
channel having a plurality of spatial layers, wherein each of the
plurality of spatial layers is associated with a different
precoding for spatial multiplexing via a plurality of antenna
ports of a transmitter;
determining control information for one or more
downlink carriers to send on the data channel, the control
2
Appeal2018-007104
Application 14/743,211
information comprising a first type of control information and a
second type of control information, the second type of control
information being different from the first type of control
information;
mapping the first type of the control information to a first
number of spatial layers of the plurality of spatial layers;
mapping the second type of the control information to a
second number of spatial layers of the plurality of spatial layers,
the second number of spatial layers being different from the
first number of spatial layers; and
sending, according to the precoding for spatial
multiplexing via the plurality of antenna ports of the
transmitter, the first type of the control information mapped to
the first number of spatial layers and the second type of the
control information mapped to the second number of spatial
layers.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims Appendix).
THE REJECTIONS AND CONTENTIONS
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-21, and 23-33, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Onggosanusi (US 2009/0262856 Al;
published October 22, 2009) in view ofNayeb Nazar (US 2011/0249578
Al; published October 13, 2011) and further in view ofErell
(US 2010/0220800 Al; published September 2, 2010).
The Examiner finds that Onggosanusi teaches a method of wireless
communication that includes, inter alia, the steps of "identifying a data
channel of an uplink carrier, the data channel having a plurality of layers"
and "determining control information for one or more downlink carriers to
send on the data channel, the control information comprising a first type of
control information (PMI) and a second type of control information (RI)[,]
3
Appeal2018-007104
Application 14/743,211
the second type of control information being different from the first type of
control information." Final Act. 3 ( citing Onggosanusi ,r,r 46, 50). The
Examiner finds that Onggosanusi
Id.
does not teach mapping the first type of the control information
to a first number of layers of the plurality of layers; and
mapping the second type of the control information to a second
number of layers of the plurality of layers[,] the second number
of layers being different from the first number of layers.
The Examiner relies on Figure 2 and paragraphs 59---61 ofNayeb
Nazar to teach the limitation of mapping the first and second types of control
information to a first and second number of spatial layers. Final Act. 4;
Ans. 3. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Figure 2 ofNayeb Nazar,
reproduced below:
4
Appeal2018-007104
Application 14/743,211
Figure 2 ofNayeb Nazar shows the use of resource blocks (RBs) 205
that transmit control data (CQI/PMI 250, RI 230, and ACK/NACK 220,
respectively) over two slots (slot O 260 and slot 1 270) of a lms subframe,
each slot having seven symbols (subdivisions). Nayeb Nazar ,r 60 (cited in
Final Act. 4). The Examiner determined that "[t]hese subdivisions are read
to be the spatial layers" recited in claim 1. Final Act. 8.
On appeal, Appellants contend that Nayeb Nasser fails to teach or
suggest the claimed steps of "mapping the first type of the control
information to a first number of spatial layers of the plurality of spatial
layers" and "mapping the second type of the control information to a second
number of spatial layers of the plurality of spatial layers, the second number
of spatial layers being different from the first number of spatial layers," as
recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 8-9. Specifically, Applicants argue that the
Examiner erred in "refer[ ring] to the different resource elements of the
resource block 205 [in Figure 2 ofNayeb Nasser] to which the different
types of control information ( e.g., CQI/PMI, RI, ACK/NACK) are mapped
to as corresponding to 'spatial layers' of claim 1." Id. at 10. To the
contrary, Appellants argue, "the resources of a resource block ( e.g., resource
elements of the resource block 205) cannot correspond to spatial layers."
Appeal Br. 10-11.
The term "spatial layers," Appellants assert, "used in spatial
multiplexing is a well-established concept and is known to a person of
ordinary skill in the art of wireless communication." Id. at 11. Appellants
point to Figure IA of Onggosanusi to illustrate its argument regarding the
understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art of "spatial layers":
5
Appeal2018-007104
Application 14/743,211
FIG. IA
usm
EQUlPME!'lT
100
I'' ,•'
Figure IA of Onggosanusi shows the use of transmit module 110,
which maps information to "R spatial layers or transmit streams," these
streams being precoded (in pre-coder 130) and transmitted through multiple
antennas. Onggosanusi ,r,r 8, 64 (cited in Appeal Br. 11-12). Based on
these disclosures, Appellants argue that "as well known in the art, each
spatial layer is a different transmit stream." Appeal Br. 11-12. Thus,
Appellants argue, "Nayeb Nazar fails to teach or suggest mapping and
transmitting different types of control information ( e.g., CQI/PMI, RI,
ACK/NACK) on different numbers of spatial layers or transmit streams."
Id. at 12.
ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants that the record does not support the
Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1, 3-11, 13-21, and 23-33. On
6
Appeal2018-007104
Application 14/743,211
the issue of claim construction, the Examiner erred in construing the term
"spatial layers" to include subdivisions of slots on the uplink. To the
contrary, we agree with Appellants that the term "spatial layers" was
understood in the art to refer to multiple transmit streams in which each
"spatial layer" is a different transmit stream. Appeal Br. 12.
Notably, Appellants' Specification itself distinguishes between
"spatial layers" and the subdivisions on the slots of the uplink. For example,
the Specification discusses in connection with Figure 7 A and 7B the use of
subdivisions ( symbol periods) of a slot used to transmit a resource block on
the uplink carrier. See Spec. ,r,r 33, 82 (referring to a "slot of 7 symbol
periods" which is used to transmit a "resource block"). These subdivisions
are units of the transmission timeline each having a specific time duration.
Id. ,r 33 ( explaining that "[ e Jach subframe may have a predetermined
duration, e.g., one millisecond (ms), and may be partitioned into two slots"
each of which slots may include "seven symbol periods"). The Specification
distinguishes this method of subdividing and allocating data in the
transmission timeline from"[ s ]patial multiplexing," which transmits
information on the uplink in "multiple layers" and is discussed in connection
with Figures 8A and 8B of Appellants' specification. Id. ,r 88.
Appellants' proposed construction of "spatial multiplexing" and
"spatial layers" is also confirmed by Onggosanusi, which reflects the
understanding in the art that the term "spatial multiplexing" refers to
transmitting multiple data streams on different antennas. Onggosanusi
explains that spatial multiplexing involves taking "a number of parallel
spatial streams," each of which is "mapped to one or more spatial
transmission layers," which spatial transmission layers are, in tum, "mapped
7
Appeal2018-007104
Application 14/743,211
to the physical transmit antennas." Onggosanusi ,r 8 ( cited in Appeal Br.
11 ). Onggosanusi distinguishes these spatial transmission layers from
resource blocks to be transmitted over slots of a subframe. Onggosanusi ,r
60 (referring to "resource blocks (RBs) 205" that "may be transmitted over
slot O 206 and slot 1 270 over, for example, 1 ms").
Given this claim construction, we agree with Appellants that the
portions ofNayeb Nasser cited by the Examiner fail to teach or suggest the
claimed steps of "mapping the first type of the control information to a first
number of spatial layers of the plurality of spatial layers" and "mapping the
second type of the control information to a second number of spatial layers
of the plurality of spatial layers, the second number of spatial layers being
different from the first number of spatial layers," as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 8-9. These portions ofNayeb Nasser do not describe mapping
control information to "spatial layers" in a "spatial multiplexing system."
To the contrary, they merely describe transmitting control information on
subdivisions of a slot, as shown in Figure 2 ofNayeb Nasser. Nayeb Nazar
,r 60; Fig. 2. These subdivisions are distinct from "spatial layers" in a spatial
multiplexing system.
Accordingly, Appellants have demonstrated error in the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 1. We, therefore, reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1, and of claims 3-11, 13-21, and 23-33, which depend
from claim 1 or otherwise recite similar limitations.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-11, 13-21, and 23-33
is reversed.
8
Appeal2018-007104
Application 14/743,211
REVERSED
9