Ex Parte Ma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2017

12226736 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 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.
12/226,736 03/01/2012 Jianglei Ma 30134/15303 (P16068US1) 6814
114746 7590
Apple Inc. — FKM
150 Broadway
Suite 702
New York, NY 10038
EXAMINER
LIU, SIMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2413
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIANGLEI MA, MING JIA, JIANMING WU, PEIYING ZHU,
WEN TONG, EVELYNE LE STRAT, SARAH BOUMENDIL, and
MOUSSA ABDI
Appeal 2016-005421
Application 12/226,7361
Technology Center 2400
Before: DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 21, 22, 24—32, and 34—37. Claims 1—20, 23, and 33 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. (App. Br.
2).
Appeal 2016-005421
Application 12/226,736
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to adapting
communication schemes for multi-antenna transmission (Abstract). Claim
21, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
21. A method of transmitting a data signal from a plurality of
transmit antennas on at least one user equipment (UE) device to
at least a receive antenna on a base station (BS) in a wireless
communication network, comprising:
adapting a rank of transmission and a degree of transmit
diversity based on one or more network parameters including a
traffic type and a number of antennas available at the UE for
uplink transmission, wherein the number of antennas available
changes from all of the plurality of transmit antennas to less than
all of the plurality of transmit antennas;
splitting the data signal into a set of independent data
streams, wherein the rank of transmission is represented by a
number of independent data streams in the set between the at
least one UE and the BS;
encoding each of the data streams from a subset of the set
of independent data streams using space-time encoder logic to
provide space-time encoded sequences, based on a mapping
control signal; and
transmitting the space-time encoded sequences and any
non space-time encoded data streams from the set of independent
data streams using the plurality of transmit antennas.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Tong
Jeong
Khan
Sayeed
Lohr
US 2004/0114618 A1
US 2005/0276317 A1
US 2006/0009168 A1
US 2008/0009321 A1
US 2008/0298387 A1
June 17, 2004
Dec. 15,2005
Jan. 12, 2006
Jan. 10, 2008
Dec. 4, 2008
2
Appeal 2016-005421
Application 12/226,736
REJECTIONS
Claims 21, 22, 26, 28—32, and 34—37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jeong, Khan, and Tong (Final Act. 3—
11).
Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jeong, Khan, Tong, and Lohr {id. at 11—12).
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jeong, Khan, Tong, and Sayeed {id. at 12).
ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 21 and 34
Appellants contend their invention as recited in claims 21 and 34 is
not obvious over Jeong, Khan, and Tong (App. Br. 4—7; Reply Br. 2—5).
The issue presented by the arguments is:
Does the combination of Jeong, Khan, and Tong teach, suggest, or
otherwise render obvious “the number of antennas available changes from
all of the plurality of transmit antennas to less than all of the plurality of
transmit antennas,” as recited in claim 21 and similarly recited in claim 34?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Tong teaches “the
number of antennas available changes from all of the plurality of transmit
antennas to less than all of the plurality of transmit antennas,” as recited in
claim 21 and similarly recited in claim 34 (App. Br. 4—7; Reply Br. 2—5).
Specifically, Appellants argue Tong does not teach “that the number of
antennas available at a [user’s equipment] changes from all” of the UE’s
3
Appeal 2016-005421
Application 12/226,736
antennas “to less than all of the [UE’s] antennas based on network
parameters” (Reply Br. 2; App Br. 5—6).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds
Tong selects a subset of mobile terminals, i.e., UEs, for cooperative
transmission (Ans. 4 (citing Tong Fig. 7); Final Act. 5—6). The Examiner
further finds Tong teaches transmission ranks, specifically rank-2
transmission where, in a group of UEs, two total antennas transmit data and
rank-4 transmission where, in another group of UEs, four total antennas
transmit data (Ans. 4—5 (citing Tong Fig. 8A, 10A); Final Act. 6).
We find Tong, however, does not disclose that any particular UE has
less than all of its antennas available for transmission. Rather, we determine
Tong’s teachings regarding the number of antennas used for transmission are
directed to the total number of antennas used by a group of UEs, rather than
the number of transmission antennas used by any particular UE (Tong || 46,
49, Figs. 8A, 10A). Further, we find Tong teaches more total antennas are
present than UEs in a selected group of UEs (Tong || 43, 45, Fig. 7), but
does not teach a UE uses less than all of its antennas. Furthermore, the
Examiner has not identified where Tong teaches less than all of a UE’s
antennas are available for transmission nor explained why an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have found it obvious to use less than all of a UE’s
antennas for transmission. Indeed, Tong is directed to “a MIMO
architecture with mobile terminals 16 having multiple transmit paths [to]
increase channel capacity by allowing multiple users to share the same
channels,” i.e., Tong maximizes the number of antennas used, rather than
using less than all of the antennas (Tong 142).
4
Appeal 2016-005421
Application 12/226,736
Accordingly, on this record, we are constrained to reverse the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of independent claims 21 and 34 and claims 22,
26, 28—32, and 35—37 which depend directly or indirectly from claims 1 and
34. The Examiner has not shown Lohr or Sayeed cure the deficiencies of
Tong. Accordingly, dependent claims 24, 25, and 27 stand with their
respective independent claims. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
§ 103 rejections of claims 24, 25, and 27.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21, 22, 26, 28—32, and 34—37
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jeong, Khan, and Tong
is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jeong, Khan, Tong, and Lohr is
reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jeong, Khan, Tong, and Sayeed is reversed.
REVERSED
5