Ex Parte Wang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 7, 2018

14127829 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/127,829 12/19/2013
104598 7590 06/11/2018
Troutman Sanders LLP/Google LLC
Attn: Patents
600 Peachtree Street, NE, STE 3000
Atlanta, GA 30308-2219
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sherwin Wang
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.
GOOG355 1013
EXAMINER
SHIUE, DONG-CHANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/11/2018 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):
jam es. schutz@troutmansanders.com
patents@troutmansanders.com
ryan. schneider@troutmansanders.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHERWIN WANG
Appeal2017-007901
Application 14/127,829
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-7, 9-21, and 23-28. Claims 8 and 22 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Google Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-007901
Application 14/127,829
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention is generally directed to:
[a] method and apparatus for selectively adjusting transmit
diversity parameters in a mobile communication system
including a mobile device and a base station. The mobile device
transmits a signal set comprised of a plurality of signals
differing only in phase from one another, receive in response an
input parameter for each set, and adjust the phase difference of
a subsequently transmitted signal set as a function of the input
parameters.
Abstract. 2
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below (with the disputed
limitation emphasized):
1. A method for delivering, by a mobile device, an
improved wireless transmission signal set, the method
comprising the steps of:
transmitting, by the mobile device and directed to a base
station, a plurality of signal sets, each signal set comprising the
same number of signals, and all signals in a set differing only in
phase;
receiving, at the mobile device, a plurality of input
parameters, each input parameter corresponding to a transmitted
signal set in response;
deriving by the mobile device, a received signal quality
measure for the transmitted signal sets as a function of the
plurality of received input parameters;
based on the derived received signal quality measure,
determining phase for each of a plurality of signals composing
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed Feb. 24, 2016 ("Final
Act."); Appellant's Appeal Brief filed July 25, 2016 ("App. Br.") and Reply
Brief filed Apr. 17, 2017 ("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed
Feb. 15, 2017 ("Ans."); and the original Specification filed Dec. 19, 2013
("Spec.").
2
Appeal2017-007901
Application 14/127,829
an improved signal set, wherein the phases are determined as a
function of the derived received signal quality measure, and
wherein the function includes deweighting factors that are
applied to certain of the received input parameters; and
delivering the improved signal set comprising the
plurality of signals differing only by the determined phases.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-7, 9-21, and 23-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2008/0160922 Al; published
July 3, 2008) ("Sun") and Abreu et al. (US 2008/0123775 Al; published
May 29, 2008) ("Abreu").
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments in the Briefs and are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Unless
otherwise noted, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 2-13) and in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 3-9), and we concur with
the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and
highlight specific arguments as presented in the Briefs.
Rejection of Claims 1-7 and 9-14 under§ 103(a)
The Examiner finds that the combination of Sun and Abreu teaches or
suggests the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 2-5. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Abreu teaches or suggests the disputed "deriving"
limitation of claim 1-"deriving by the mobile device, a received signal
quality measure for the transmitted signal sets as a function of the plurality
of received input parameters." Id. at 4 (citing Abreu i-f 54); Ans. 4--6 (citing
Abreu Figs. 1, 6; i-f 25, 11. 7-13; i-f 53, 11. 3-5, and last 5 lines).
3
Appeal2017-007901
Application 14/127,829
Appellant contends Abreu fails to "disclose derivation of any sort."
App. Br. 9. Regarding paragraph 54 of Abreu, Appellant argues that Abreu
teaches "outcome values" and "outcome sequences" that "yield" or "result
in" "nominal value adjustments," but fails to disclose "any derivation
whatsoever, particularly by a mobile device that receives input parameters."
Id. Regarding paragraph 3 5 of Abreu, Appellant argues it teaches a
feedback signal to instruct the communication device 20a to increase or
decrease the total power of its transmitted signal. Id. According to
Appellant, a feedback signal that itself "instructs" communication device
20a to increase or decrease total power "cannot be interpreted as disclosing,
teaching, or suggesting 'deriving, by the mobile device, a received signal
quality measure for the transmitted signal sets as a function of the plurality
of received input parameters,' as Claim 1 recites." Id. at 9-10; Reply Br. 8
(citing ii 3 5).
Appellant further argues Abreu's "outcome values" most closely
represent "a received signal quality measure for the transmitted signal sets,"
but the "outcome values" are included in feedback signals and "cannot be
derived 'as a function of the plurality of received input parameters [received
at the mobile device]."' Reply Br. 6-7 (citing Abreu ii 35). Regarding
Abreu's "grade 606" shown in Figure 6, and described in paragraph 59, of
Abreu, Appellant argues grades are computed for each outcome sequence,
which is an arrangement of outcome values in a logical order, and because
outcome values come from feedback communication device 20b, the grading
of sequences taught by Abreu does not teach or suggest "deriving a received
signal quality measure," as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 7.
4
Appeal2017-007901
Application 14/127,829
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the Examiner
erred. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Abreu teaches that "[ w ]hen
Device 20A is a mobile handset and Device 20B is a base station, the base
station sends the feedback signals generated by Feedback Generator 30 to
the mobile device via the communication link 24 taught in Fig. 1." Ans. 4.
The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Abreu teaches a plurality of input
parameters "such as feedback value of 0 and 1 from a base station indicating
quality down and quality up, respectfully," which are "received by the
mobile device to calculate a grade 606 for a nominal value adjustment." Id.
(citing Abreu Fig. 6, i-f 53 (last 5 lines)). The Examiner further finds as
follows:
Therefore, these input parameters are clearly received and
processed by the mobile device to derive a received signal quality
measure, such as grade 606 in Fig. 6, for the transmitted signal
sets as a function of the plurality of received input parameters
(feedback signal) from the base station.
Ans. 5.
Appellant does not dispute the disclosure of Abreu, but instead argues
that receiving "outcome values" included in feedback signals from feedback
communication device 20b does not teach or suggest "deriving" a received
signal quality measure as a function of the received input parameters. See
App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 6-8. Appellant has not set forth a proposed
construction for the term "deriving." We note that the terms "deriving" and
"derive" are not used in the Specification. We further note that original
claim 1 uses the term "deriving," and original claim 15 uses the term
"derive." The term "derive" is defined as: "to take, receive, or obtain
especially from a specified source." See https://www.merriam-webster.com/
5
Appeal2017-007901
Application 14/127,829
dictionary/derive (last reviewed on May 24, 2018). We give the term
"deriving" the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Considering the broadest reasonable interpretation of "deriving," we agree
with the Examiner's findings that Abreu teaches or suggests the disputed
"deriving" limitation because Abreu teaches the mobile device "receives" or
"obtains" a received signal quality measure, such as the grade 606,
computed for the transmitted signal sets as a function of the plurality of
received input parameters (feedback signal) from the base station.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in (1) finding
Abreu teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1 and (2)
concluding that the combination of the teachings of Sun and Abreu renders
the subject matter of claim 1 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Thus, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2-7
and 9-14, which are not separately, substantively argued (see App. Br. 10).
Rejection of Claims 15-21and23-28 under§ 103(a)
Appellant argues Abreu does not teach or suggest "respective phases
are determined as a function of the derived received signal quality measure,"
as recited in claim 15. App. Br. 10. According to Appellant, Abreu instead
discloses "outcome values" that "yield" or "result in" "nominal value
adjustments." Id. The Examiner finds Abreu teaches that a transmit
diversity parameter may refer without limitation to any feature of the
transmission, for example, "relative phase, relative amplitude, relative
power, absolute power, ... other suitable signal feature that may be
modulated." Ans. 8-9 (citing Abreu i-f 30, 11. 3-8). The Examiner also finds
that "Sun discloses the same feature of perturbing/modifying the transmitted
6
Appeal2017-007901
Application 14/127,829
signals by modifying their phases." Id. at 9 (citing Sun Fig. 6 (block 685),
i-f 52, last 4 lines). In the Reply Brief, Appellant does not address or respond
to these findings. For the reasons stated by the Examiner, we agree with the
Examiner's findings. Thus, based on the preponderance of the evidence, we
agree with the Examiner's finding that Abreu and Sun teach or suggest
"respective phases are determined as a function of the derived received
signal quality measure," as recited in claim 15. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 15, as well as dependent claims 16-21
and 23-28, which are not separately, substantively argued (see App. Br. 10).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7, 9-21, and 23-28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7