Motorola Mobility LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 29, 2021

2020005138 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2021)

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.
15/717,921 09/27/2017 Hossein Bagheri SMM02157-US-NP2 8810
73635 7590 12/29/2021
Loppnow & Chapa [Motorola]
P.O. Box 7588
Libertyville, IL 60048
EXAMINER
CHU, WUTCHUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2021 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):
docketing.mobility@motorola.com
docketing@loppchap.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HOSSEIN BAGHERI, RAVIKIRAN NORY, and
VIJAY NANGIA
____________

Appeal 2020-005138
Application 15/717,9211
Technology Center 2400
_______________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC B. CHEN, and HUNG H. BUI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–4, 8, 9, and 11–17. Appeal Br. 21–29
(Claims App.). Claims 21–24 are canceled.2 Claims 5–7, 10, and 18–20 are
objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be
allowable. Final Act. 17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
According to Appellant, Motorola Mobility LLC, is identified as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 See Appellant’s Amendment After Final filed October 20, 2019, entered
by the Examiner, via Advisory Action dated November 21, 2019, where
claims 21–24 were cancelled.
Appeal 2020-005138
Application 15/717,921

2
We affirm.3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to “a method and apparatus [user
equipment (UE)] for reporting channel state information [‘CSI’ for reduced
latency in Third Generation Partnership Project Long Term Evolution (3GPP
LTE) systems].” Spec. ¶¶ 1–2.
Claims 1 and 14 are independent. Representative claim 1 is
reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized and numeral
bracketing added for clarity:
1. A method performed by a device, the method comprising:
[1] receiving an indication from a network, the indication
requesting the device to feedback channel state information
corresponding to at least one selected from a first transmit
time interval length operation and a second transmit time
interval length operation;
[2] when the indication requests channel state information
feedback for the first transmit time interval length operation:
[2a] determining a first reference transmit time interval of
a first transmit time interval length based on the transmit time
interval in which the indication is received; and
[2b] deriving at least one selected from
a channel measurement to compute the channel
state information using reference signals associated with the
first reference transmit time interval, and
an interference measurement to compute the
channel state information using measurements made on
resource elements associated with the first reference transmit
time interval; and

3 We refer to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed February 20, 2020 (“Appeal
Br.”); Reply Brief filed June 29, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer
mailed April 23, 2020 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed August 19, 2019
(“Final Act.”); and Specification filed September 27, 2017 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2020-005138
Application 15/717,921

3
when the indication requests channel state information feedback
for the second transmit time interval length operation:
determining a second reference transmit time interval of a
second transmit time interval length based on the transmit
time interval in which the indication is received; and
deriving at least one selected from
a channel measurement to compute the channel
state information using reference signals associated with the
second reference transmit time interval, and
an interference measurement to compute the
channel state information using measurements made on
resource elements associated with the second reference
transmit time interval,
wherein the first transmit time interval length operation has one
selected from
a shorter time duration than the second transmit
time interval length operation, or
a same time duration as the second transmit time
interval length operation but is associated with a shorter
communication processing time than a communication
processing time associated with the second transmit time
interval operation,
wherein determining the first reference transmit time interval
comprises determining the first reference transmit time
interval of the first transmit time interval length to be the
transmit time interval in which the indication is received, and
wherein determining the second reference transmit time interval
comprises determining the second reference transmit time
interval of the second transmit time interval length to be the
transmit time interval in which the indication is received.

Appeal Br. 21–22 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2020-005138
Application 15/717,921

4
REJECTIONS AND REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 12–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Chen et al., US 2016/0205676 A1; published
July 14, 2016; “Chen”). Final Act. 3–13.
(2) Claims 3 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Chen and Yang et al., US 2017/0289985 A1; published Oct.
15, 2017; “Yang”). Final Act. 13–15.
(4) Claims 4, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Chen and Nogami et al., US 2018/0048447 A1;
published Feb. 15, 2018; “Nogami”). Final Act. 15–16.

ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for Examiner error based upon the
issues identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and
evidence. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1–4, 8, 9, and 11–17 and adopt as our own the
findings set forth by the Examiner for these claims to the extent consistent
with our analysis herein. Final Act. 3–16; Ans. 3–10.
Anticipation of Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 12–15 by Chen
In support of the anticipation rejection, the Examiner finds Chen
discloses each and every element of base claim 1. Final Act. 3–7. In
particular, the Examiner finds Chen teaches Appellant’s claimed “method
Appeal 2020-005138
Application 15/717,921

5
performed by a device [UE]” shown in Figure 1, including the disputed
limitations:
[1] receiving an indication from a network, the indication
requesting the device to feedback channel state information
corresponding to at least one selected from a first transmit time
interval length operation and a second transmit time interval
length operation;
[2] when the indication requests channel state information
feedback for the first transmit time interval length operation:
[2a] determining a first reference transmit time
interval of a first transmit time interval length based on the
transmit time interval in which the indication is received; and
[2b] deriving at least one selected from
a channel measurement to compute the
channel state information using reference signals associated with
the first reference transmit time interval, and
an interference measurement to compute the
channel state information using measurements made on resource
elements associated with the first reference transmit time
interval; and

Id. at 3–7 (citing Chen ¶¶ 29, 34, 68, 70, 72, 87, 88).
Chen’s Figure 1, depicting 3GPP LTE system 100 including user
equipment (UE) 115 provided with management component 661 to report
channel state information (CSI) to network entity 105, is reproduced below:
Appeal 2020-005138
Application 15/717,921

6

Chen’s Figure 1 shows 3GPP LTE system 100 including a plurality of
network entities (e.g., base stations, eNodeBs, or WLAN access points) 105,
a number of user equipment (UEs) 115 and core network 130. Chen ¶ 33.
UE 115 is provided management component 661 configured to generate and
report channel state information (CSI) to network entity 105 according to
two types of communication technologies: (1) “legacy” communication
technology (e.g., legacy LTE or legacy system) that uses a transmission time
interval (TTI) for communication of data and control information on the
order of 1 millisecond; and (2) ultra-low latency (ULL) communication
technology (e.g., ULL LTE or ULL system) that uses an ultra-fast TTI on
the order of 70–90 microseconds. Chen ¶¶ 29, 33. According to Chen, CSI
reporting may be triggered in response to receipt of “a message [downlink
data/message] from a network entity that commands or requests a UE to
Appeal 2020-005138
Application 15/717,921

7
report CSI to the network entity [such as one or more indications received at
UE].” Chen ¶ 70. In addition,
a CSI reporting trigger detecting component 802 [shown in
Figure 8] may include a CSI reporting trigger TTI determining
component 804, which may be configured to determine a TTI
associated with a channel or communication for which CSI is to
be reported based on the trigger. For instance, CSI reporting
trigger TTI determining component 804 may determine that CSI
reporting is triggered for a communication utilizing legacy LTE
communications having a TTI on the order of 1 ms, and may
perform CSI generation and reporting processes associated with
legacy LTE. In the alternative, the CSI reporting trigger TTI
determining component 804 may determine that CSI reporting is
triggered for a communication utilizing ULL communications
having a TTI on the order of up to one symbol (e.g., one symbol,
two symbols, a slot in the two slots, etc.) of the subframe.
Chen ¶ 70 (emphasis added).
Appellant presents three principal arguments against Chen. To the
extent Appellant’s arguments can be understood, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error for reasons discussed below.
First, Appellant contends Chen does not disclose “receiving an
indication from a network, the indication requesting the device to feedback
channel state information [CSI]” as recited in claims 1 and 14. Appeal Br.
11; Reply Br. 2.
We do not agree with Appellant. During prosecution, claim terms are
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are
given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one
Appeal 2020-005138
Application 15/717,921

8
of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Here, the term “indication” received from a network is not defined by
Appellant’s Specification and, in the context of Appellant’s Specification,
can be broadly, but reasonably interpreted to encompass Chen’s “message”
or “downlink data/messages” received from a network entity that commands
or requests a UE to report CSI to the network entity. Chen ¶ 70. According
to Chen, the “downlink data/messages 1010 [shown in Figure 10] may
include one or more messages that include a CSI reporting trigger 1012
requesting or commanding the UE to report CSI to the network entity.”
Chen ¶ 87.
As correctly recognized by the Examiner, the term “indication”
received can be broadly interpreted to encompass Chen’s CSI reporting
trigger, i.e., (1) legacy CSI reporting trigger or (2) ULL CSI reporting
trigger requesting the UE to generate and feedback CSI information. Ans.
4–5 (citing Chen ¶¶ 29, 70).
Second, Appellant contends Chen does not disclose “determining a
first reference transmit time interval [TTI] of a first transmit time interval
[TTI] length based on the transmit time interval in which the indication is
received” as recited in claims 1 and 14. Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 2.
Appellant acknowledges Chen’s CSI reporting process performed by a UE
may vary depending upon two types of communication technologies: (1)
“legacy” communication technology (e.g., legacy LTE or legacy system) or
(2) ultra-low latency (ULL) communication technology (e.g., ULL LTE or
ULL system), but argues
Appeal 2020-005138
Application 15/717,921

9
“such is not the disclosure of determining a reference transmit
time interval of a transmit time interval length based on the
transmit time interval in which the indication is received.”

Appeal Br. 12.
We disagree. There is no requirement that the prior art must use the
same words to describe a claim element in order to be deemed as teaching or
disclosing that claim element. “[T]he reference need not satisfy an
ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re
Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Instead, prior art references
must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in
the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
As recognized by the Examiner,
The CSI reporting trigger, correspond to claimed the
indication received, can be 1) legacy CSI reporting trigger or 2)
ULL CSI reporting trigger. UE determines a TTI based on the
CSI reporting trigger:
1) ULL CSI reporting trigger associated with a
communication having a first TTI (e.g., 70-90 microseconds TTI
CSI process, in para. [0078 & 0029]), corresponds to claimed
first reference TTI and its first TTI length; and
2) legacy CSI reporting trigger associated with [a
communication having] a second TTI (e.g., a legacy LTE 1 ms
TTI CSI as shown in para. [0078 & 0080]), corresponds to
claimed second reference TTI and its second TTI length.

Ans. 5 (citing Chen ¶¶ 29, 78, 80) (emphasis omitted).
In other words, when Chen’s CSI generating component 808 of CSI
management component 661, shown in Figure 8, determines a transmit time
interval (TTI) associated with a channel or communication for which CSI is
to be reported based on the CSI reporting trigger: (1) ULL CSI reporting
trigger associated with a communication having a first TTI (e.g., 70–90
Appeal 2020-005138
Application 15/717,921

10
microseconds, or alternatively, (2) legacy CSI reporting associated with a
communication having a second TTI (e.g., 1 millisecond) (see Chen ¶ 70),
Chen is said to disclose the disputed limitation: “determining a first
reference transmit time interval [TTI] of a first transmit time interval [TTI]
length based on the transmit time interval in which the indication is
received” as well as “determining a second reference transmit time interval
[TTI] of a second transmit time interval length [TTI] based on the transmit
time interval in which the indication is received” as recited in claims 1 and
14. (emphasis added).
Third, Appellant contends Chen does not disclose “deriving at least
one selected from [1] a channel measurement . . . and [2] an interference
measurement to compute the channel state information [CSI] using reference
signals associated with the reference TTI,” as recited in claims 1 and 14.
Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 2.
We also disagree. Chen discloses that both legacy and ULL CSI
reporting triggers may indicate “a same reference resource for channel
measurement and/or interference measurement upon which the generated
CSI may be based,” or alternatively, “separate interference measurement
resources for CSI reporting.” Chen ¶ 72. As such, a person skilled in the art
would understand that Chen is said to disclose the disputed limitation:
“deriving at least one selected from [1] a channel measurement . . . and [2]
an interference measurement to compute the channel state information [CSI]
using reference signals associated with the reference TTI,” as recited in
claims 1 and 14.
For these reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1
Appeal 2020-005138
Application 15/717,921

11
and 14 and their respective dependent claims 2, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 15, which
are not argued separately.
For the same reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of (1) dependent claims 3 and 16 based on the combined teachings
of Chen and Yang; and (2) dependent claims 4, 11, and 17 based on the
combined teachings of Chen and Nogami, which are also not argued
separately.

CONCLUSION
On this record, Appellant does not show the Examiner erred in
rejecting (1) claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 12–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Chen; (2) claims 3 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Chen and Yang; and (3) claims 4, 11, and 17
as obvious over the combined teachings of Chen and Nogami.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 8, 9,
12–15
102 Chen 1, 2, 8, 9,
12–15

3, 16 103 Chen, Yang 3, 16
4, 11, 17 103 Chen, Nogami 4, 11, 17
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 8, 9,
11–17

Appeal 2020-005138
Application 15/717,921

12
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED