Ex Parte Sayana et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

13920872 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/920,872
106809 7590
Docket Clerk - SAMS
P.O. Drawer 800889
Dallas, TX 75380
06/18/2013
09/26/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Krishna Sayana
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.
2012.06.013.SRO 4316
EXAMINER
LINDENBAUM, ALAN LOUIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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):
patents@munckwilson.com
munckwilson@gmail.com
patent.srad@samsung.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KRISHNA SA YANA, BOON LOONG NG, YOUNG-HAN NAM,
THOMAS NOVLAN, JINKYU HAN, JIANZHONG ZHANG, and
HYOJINLEE
Appeal2017-009883
Application 13/920,872
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-30, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., is the applicant on the
present application. Bib. Data Sheet.
Appeal2017-009883
Application 13/920,872
RELATED PROCEEDINGS
Appellants state there are no related proceedings. App. Br. 3. We
find, however, that Application 14/571, 194 is a continuation of the instant
application ('194 Spec. ,r 1) and is the subject of Appeal 2017-007399,
Notice of Appeal filed September 29, 2016. Accordingly, Appeal 2017-
007399 is related to the present appeal, in which the Notice of Appeal was
filed December 6, 2016, and should have been identified as such.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosed invention "relates generally to coordinated
multi-point transmission and, more specifically, to communication
parameter feedback for use in scheduling coordinated multi-point
transmission." Spec. ,r 2. Representative claims 1 and 6, which are
illustrative, read as follows:
1. A user equipment, comprising:
a transceiver configured to receive a signal containing
information regarding configuration of at least two channel
state information (CSI) processes; and
a controller configured to determine the configuration of
the at least two CSI processes from the received signal,
wherein a first of the at least two CSI processes is a rank
indicator (RI)-reference CSI process such that an RI in CSI
reports for a second of the at least two CSI processes that is
based on the RI-reference CSI process is required to be the
same RI as the RI for the RI-reference CSI process.
6. A user equipment, comprising:
a control system configured
to report channel state information (CSI) to each of
two or more transmission points from which the user
equipment is receiving signals using at least two CSI
processes, wherein a first of the at least two CSI
2
Appeal2017-009883
Application 13/920,872
processes is a rank indicator (RI)-reference CSI process
such that an RI in CSI reports for a second of the at least
two CSI processes that is based on the RI-reference CSI
process is required to be the same RI as the RI for the RI-
reference CSI process,
in response to a collision between at least two CSI
reports to different ones of the two or more transmission
points each with reporting type of a same priority and
employing different CSI processes, to drop one of the at
least two CSI reports based upon configuration indices
associated with the CSI processes for the two CSI
reports, and
in response to a collision between at least two CSI
reports to different ones of the two or more transmission
points each with reporting type of a same priority and
employing a same CSI process, to drop one of the at least
two CSI reports based upon indices associated the two or
more transmission points.
Claims 1-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)2 as being
unpatentable over Khoshnevis et al. (US 2013/0258874 Al, published Oct 3,
2013 ("Khoshnevis")) in view of Xu et al. (US 2013/0286904 Al, published
Oct. 31, 2013 ("Xu")). See Final Act 2-9.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App.
Br." filed Feb. 24, 2017; "Reply Br." filed July 14, 2017) for the positions of
Appellants; the Final Office Action ("Final Act." mailed Oct. 6, 2016) and
Examiner's Answer ("Ans." mailed May 16, 2017) for the reasoning,
findings, and conclusions of the Examiner; and the Specification ("Spec."
filed June 18, 2013). Only those arguments actually made by Appellants
have been considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellants did not
2 All rejections are under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. in effect prior to the
effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 ("pre-AIA").
Final Act 2.
3
Appeal2017-009883
Application 13/920,872
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
ISSUES
The claims are subject to a common ground of rejection. See Final
Act. 2-9. Appellants argue claims 1-5, 11-15, and 21-25 as a group,
relying on arguments for claim 1 ("Claim 1 Grouping"). App. Br. 9-17.
Appellants argue claims 6-10, 16-20, and 26-30 as a group, relying on
arguments for claim 6 ("Claim 6 Grouping"). App. Br. 9-14, 17-20.
Therefore, we select claim 1 as the representative claim for the Claim 1
Grouping, and claim 6 as the representative claim for the Claim 6 Grouping,
pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The issues
presented by Appellants' arguments are as follows:
As to the both the Claim 1 Grouping and Claim 6 Grouping, does the
Examiner err in finding the combination of Khoshnevis and Xu teaches or
suggests that
a first of the at least two CSI processes is a rank indicator (RI)-
reference CSI process such that an RI in CSI reports for a second
of the at least two CSI processes that is based on the RI-reference
CSI process is required to be the same RI as the RI for the RI-
reference CSI process
(the "RI-reference limitation"), as recited in claim 1?
As to the Claim 1 Grouping, does the Examiner err in finding the
combination of Khoshnevis and Xu teaches or suggests
a transceiver configured to receive a signal containing
information regarding configuration of at least two channel
state information (CSI) processes; and a controller configured
to determine the configuration of the at least two CSI processes
from the received signal, wherein a first of the at least two CSI
processes is a rank indicator (RI)-reference CSI process such
4
Appeal2017-009883
Application 13/920,872
that an RI in CSI reports for a second of the at least two CSI
processes that is based on the RI-reference CSI process is
required to be the same RI as the RI for the RI-reference CSI
process
(the "CSI process configuration limitation"), as recited in claim 1?
As to the Claim 6 Grouping, does the Examiner err in finding the
combination of Khoshnevis and Xu teaches or suggests that
[A] in response to a collision between at least two CSI
reports to different ones of the two or more transmission points
each with reporting type of a same priority and employing
different CSI processes, to drop one of the at least two CSI
reports based upon configuration indices associated with the
CSI processes for the two CSI reports, and
[BJ in response to a collision between at least two CSI
reports to different ones of the two or more transmission points
each with reporting type of a same priority and employing a
same CSI process, to drop one of the at least two CSI reports
based upon indices associated the two or more transmission
points
(the "collision limitations") (bracketed letters and underlining added
for ease of reference), as recited in claim 6?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments and contentions (App. Br.
9--20; Reply Br. 2-8) in light of the Examiner's findings and conclusions
(Final Act. 2-3, 4--5) and further explanations (Ans. 12-35) regarding
representative claims 1 and 6. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075
(BPAI 2010) (precedential). We agree with the Examiner's findings,
conclusions, and explanations, and, except as set forth below, we adopt them
as our own. Accordingly, we will not repeat the colloquy between the
Appellants and the Examiner here. The following discussion, findings, and
conclusions are for emphasis.
5
Appeal2017-009883
Application 13/920,872
CLAIM 1 GROUPING
RI-Reference Limitation
The Examiner relies on the combination of Khoshnevis and Xu to
teach the limitations of claim 1, including the RI-reference limitation. See
Final Act. 2--4 (citing Khoshnevis ,r,r 17-18, 20, 53, 59; Xu ,r,r 71-72).
Appellants contend that Xu does not teach a CSI report that has "an RI that
is required to be the same as an RI for the RI-reference CSI configuration,"
as recited in claim 1, because the cited passages of Xu indicate that the use
of the same RI is optional or permissive, such that the RI of the at least one
report is not required to be the same as the RI for the RI-reference CSI
configuration. App. Br. 10-14; Reply Br. 4--8; see also Final Act. 3 (citing
Xu ,r,r 71-72). We disagree.
Xu teaches the following:
[T]he UE modifies the rank indicator . . . by using . . . [ 1] a
previous rank indicator ... from a TDD subframe configuration
before the TDD subframe reconfiguration, [2] a previous rank
indicator ... from a TDD subframe configuration after the TDD
subframe reconfiguration, [3] a common rank indicator ... for
the TDD subframe reconfiguration, or [ 4] a lowest allowed rank
indicator.
Xu ,r 72 (bracketed numbers added for ease of reference). We agree with the
Examiner that the person having ordinary skill in the art (PHO SIT A) would
have understood items 1--4 to describe four distinct alternative embodiments
of Xu's process illustrated in Figure 10, rather than four optional paths
within a single embodiment. See Ans. 14--15. In other words, the
PHOSITA, reading Xu, would understand that any given implementation of
Xu's process would use one of the four alternative embodiments, not all four
optionally. This reading is reinforced by the fact that Xu does not teach a
6
Appeal2017-009883
Application 13/920,872
process step for selecting among the alternatives. Therefore, it is only
necessary for one of embodiments 1--4, when read in combination with
Khoshnevis, to teach the RI-reference limitation. The Examiner explains,
and we agree, that each of embodiments 1-3, at least, teaches requiring an
RI of a CSI report to be the same as the RI of an RI-reference CSI
configuration. Id. As one example, in embodiment 1, the "RI-reference CSI
configuration" ( claim 1) maps to the configuration of the CSI transmission
for "a TDD subframe configuration before the TDD subframe
reconfiguration" (Xu ,r 72 ). Thus, "[an] RI that is required to be the same as
an RI for the RI-reference CSI configuration" (claim 1) maps to
"modif[ying] the rank indicator . . . related to the CSI transmission to
resolve [a] detected conflict ... by using ... a previous rank indicator ...
from [ such previous] TDD subframe configuration" (Xu ,r 72).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants contend that Khoshnevis' s CSI
reference signals do not teach an "RI-reference CSI process." Reply. Br. 3-
5 (referring to Khoshnevis ,r,r 17-18, 20, 52, 59). However, the Examiner
relies on the combination of Khoshnevis and Xu to teach the limitations of
claim 1, including the argued limitation. See Final Act. 2-3 ( citing
Khoshnevis ,r,r 17-18, 20, 53, 59; Xu ,r,r 71-72). It is well-settled law that
non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981).
Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the combination of references,
taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee's invention to a person
having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The only feature of the recited "RI-reference CSI
process" found in claim 1 that makes it an "RI-reference" CSI process, as
7
Appeal2017-009883
Application 13/920,872
opposed to just a CSI process, is that "an RI in CSI reports for a second of
the at least two CSI processes that is based on the RI-reference CSI process
is required to be the same RI as the RI for the [first] RI-reference CSI
process." However, the Examiner relies on Xu when combined with
Khoshnevis, not Khoshnevis alone, for this feature of claim 1. See Final
Act. 3.
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments regarding the RI-reference
limitation do not persuade us of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 1.
CS! Process Configuration Limitation
Appellants contend "[ the cited] portions of Khoshnevis merely
disclose signaling of CSI-RS configuration[ s ], without specifying signaling
of CSI process configurations." App. Br. 14 (referring to Khoshnevis ,r,r 17-
18, 20, 53, 59). However, we agree with the Examiner that Khoshnevis's
"CSI configuration is used for a process of transmitting CSI Information"
(Ans. 19) and is, therefore, "CSI process configuration information" as
recited in claim 1. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(citing Akzo NV. v. US. Int'! Trade Comm'n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 &n.11
(Fed. Cir. 1986)) (explaining that application of references to a claim "is not
an 'ipsissimis verbis' test"); Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus.,
Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("[A] ... reference ... need not
duplicate word for word what is in the claims.").
Appellants contend that Khoshnevis does not disclose the CSI process
configuration limitation because Khoshnevis does not teach the RI-reference
limitation, discussed supra. See App. Br. 15-16. Appellants further contend
that Xu does not teach the CSI process configuration limitation. App. Br.
15-16. However, the Examiner relies on the combination ofKhoshnevis
and Xu to teach the limitations of claim 1, including the RI-reference
8
Appeal2017-009883
Application 13/920,872
limitation. See Final Act. 2--4 ( citing Khoshnevis ,r,r 17-18, 20, 53-56, 58-
59, 62, 75, 89, 103, 106; Xu ,r,r 71-72). Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where, as here, the ground
of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references. Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. The test for obviousness is whether the
combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the
patentee's invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Merck, 800
F .2d at 1097. Appellants do not explain why the combination of Khoshnevis
and Xu articulated by the Examiner would not have rendered the CSI
process configuration limitation obvious to the PHO SIT A.
Appellants further contend Xu only teaches the "[i]mplicit setting of
an RI-reference CSI process by simply re-using the most recently used RI
value [which] does not satisfy" the CSI process configuration limitation.
App. Br. 17. As pointed out by the Examiner, Appellants "ha[ ve] not
provided any reasoning to support that conclusory argument, other than
simply quoting the claim language." Ans. 21. See C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )(iv) ("A
statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim."); see also In
re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board
reasonably interpreted [a previous version ofJ Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art."); cf In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391
(Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in
greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable]
distinctions over the prior art."). We additionally note that claim 1 does not
9
Appeal2017-009883
Application 13/920,872
recite any criteria for selecting the CSI configuration that is to be used for
the "RI-reference CSI configuration."
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments regarding the CSI process
configuration limitation do not persuade us of Examiner error in the
rejection of claim 1.
CLAIM 6 GROUPING
RI-Reference Limitation
For the reasons discussed supra regarding claim 1, Appellants'
arguments regarding the RI-reference limitation (App. Br. 10-14; Reply Br.
4--8) also do not persuade us of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 6.
Collision Limitations
The Examiner finds that Khoshnevis teaches the collision limitations
of claim 6. Final Act. 5 (citing Khoshnevis ,r,r 20, 62, 74--75, 89, 103, 106,
132, 198, Fig. 11).
Appellants contend that the cited passages of Khoshnevis do not teach
collision limitation A because Khoshnevis only suggests using serving cell
index to select which of two or more colliding CSI reports to drop without
regard to whether the CSI processes are different, as recited in collision
limitation A, or the same, as described in collision limitation B. App. Br.
19--20 (discussing Khoshnevis ,r,r 62, 75, 132). We disagree.
Khoshnevis's Figure 11 is reproduced below.
10
Appeal2017-009883
Application 13/920,872
Ge~er;:1te, lor mullJple CSIHS rece;,,;w on ;i serv;rig
802 cell, mulbp!e CSI repotts l113t zre sr.heduled lr.t ne
i)()6
816
820
822
tra:1smittf.."'l1 in a subframe
Ptloii:i?.e tn,1 CSI mpo,·t;; h'1Sed O!l CSI mpor, type
tor eac~ CSI rn •. o,·I conn, uratklr, i,1 each serving ,~11
~lect the ~1i9!1est priorcy CS! reprni lor eat~ C I
,·eporl c@f;11uwtkin in e;id1 ser,in~ ceil
PnMti.w fr1e CSI repo.-ts b3S(;d ():1 CSI report fype
a:11orn CSI re lort a,,·,·r.-c,_:r;,it:ons
Sei!ld the highe,;t 1:.dority CSI re,-,-.,;,, Brntmg CSI
rt!~mn c:)nt:-Ct..:ra'iiorn-;.
Drop al: rn:in-seiectcd CSi :\~port(s)
Do tr,e seloctec cs I :s:po:'tS 832
fr{Jm In<, diffr,r0n1 CSI rnporl t·fo
conligura,iMs h~va tt,e :fi.l1.
~,;rr;e priority?
Prinrihre me CS! repor:s based
on CSl report cr..nfi9~irntio:1 ind(3x
s~:et"-t the csi report with ti~
k~we,st ronfig:Jrat:On index
nmp Ail nQ!'·S,,l(.s::ted CSI
rt~X)dfs~
P~oriiiw
lheCSI
re,:::ons
be$ed on
CSlreµorl
i:ffit"l:tg
s.er.1i~'tg
c~lls
Seiec, me (Nera:i 11~t,est prionty CSI ,eport amo.19
s.e"1in r.t,ils
Drop ali nor.-se!ected CSI re~'Ort(s}
l)o th,3 r,elected CSI report~
tom the ,jifferent se:'>·:ng cellii
r,Nr, th&. s~me prim,ty?
Se!ecl me CS! re;xxt wi1J1 :J1s lowest S<11vi,;g ce:I
~l®X
Drop !he CS! re;.,m, of tt;e non -seleclect ~er,·ing rell
T:w1Sf:1it t~" ov~II ~;g~es: pricr~y CS! ,.,po,1 !\) ::in
eNode 8 oi1 \he PUCCH
842
844
FIG. 11
Khoshnevis's Figure 11 "is a flow diagram of . .. [a] method for collision
resolution among transmission schedules of uplink control information
(UCI)." Khoshnevis ,r 14.
As pointed out by the Examiner (see Ans. 22-24), in the process
illustrated in Khoshnevis' s Figure 11, if two colliding CSI reports have the
same priority and different CSI processes, i.e., CSI report configurations or
types, as recited in collision limitation A, both reports will be passed,
without dropping, through steps 802, 806, 814, 816, 818, 820, 822, and 824
to step 826. At steps 826 and 827, Khoshnevis's process will prioritize the
reports based on a configuration index, and at steps 828 and 830,
Khoshnevis' s process will select a report to retain ( the one with the lower
11
Appeal2017-009883
Application 13/920,872
configuration index) and drop the other report. Thus, Khoshnevis teaches
collision limitation A.
If the two colliding reports have the same priority and the same CSI
process, as recited in collision limitation B, Khoshnevis's Figure 11
illustrates that both reports will be passed from step 820 through steps 834,
836, and 838 to step 840, where Khoshnevis's process prioritizes the reports
based on serving cell index, i.e., an index associated with the two or more
transmission points, and at steps 842 and 844, Khoshnevis's process will
select a report to retain (the one with the lower serving cell index) and drop
the other report. Thus, Khoshnevis teaches collision limitation B.
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments regarding the CSI process
collision limitations do not persuade us of Examiner error in the rejection of
claim 6.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, Appellants have failed to persuade us of error
in the Examiner's rejection of representative claims 1 and 6. See Frye,
94 USPQ2d at 1075. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
(1) representative claim 1; (2) claims 2-5, 11-15, and 21-25, which fall with
representative claim 1; (3) representative claim 6; and (4) claims 7-10, 16-
20, and 26-30, which fall with representative claim 6.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-30 is affirmed.
12
Appeal2017-009883
Application 13/920,872
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.50(±), 4I.52(b).
AFFIRMED
13