Boon Loong. Ng

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 17, 2019

13543172 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2019)

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.
13/543,172 07/06/2012 Boon Loong NG 5320090035US02 6836
61755 7590 10/17/2019
Kunzler Bean & Adamson - Lenovo
50 W. Broadway
10th Floor
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101
EXAMINER
YANG, ZHAOHUI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/17/2019 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):
docket@kba.law
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BOON LOONG NG
____________________

Appeal 2018-008992
Application 13/543,172
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before IRVIN E. BRANCH, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as LENOVO
INNOVATIONS LIMITED (HONG KONG). Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-008992
Application 13/543,172

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to wireless communication systems using
“a method for determining and transmitting Channel Quality Indicator
Reference Signals (CQI-RS)” in order to measure and report a “Channel
Quality Indicator (CQI).” Spec. 1:14–22. Claims 1, 2, 4–16, and 18–29 are
pending; claims 1, 14, 15, and 28 are independent. App. Br. 11–14. Claim 1
is reproduced below for reference (emphasis and bracketed lettering added):
1. A method implemented in a base station used in a wireless
communications system, comprising:
[a] transmitting to a user equipment (UE) two channel
quality indicator (CQI) reference signals using two resource
elements per transmission layer within a resource block; and
[b] receiving from the user equipment a report determined
according to said two CQI reference signals;
wherein the value of the subframe offset is within a range
from 0 ms to (TCQI-RS - 1) ms, where TCQI-RS denotes a CQI
reference signal transmission period.

Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 12, 14–16, 18, 23, 26, and 28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over ZTE, “Discussion of CQI-RS
design for LTE-A CoMP”, R1-090632, 2/13/2009, evidenced by Ad Hoc
chairman, “Way forward on CoMP and MIMO DL RS” R1-090529, 3gpp
tsg rani #55b, Ljubljana, Slovenia, Jan. 12-16, 2009, (Ad Hoc), Shen (US
2009/0067391 A1, published Mar. 12, 2009), and Onggosanusi (US
2009/0238256 A1, published Sept. 24, 2009). Final Act. 3–14.
Appeal 2018-008992
Application 13/543,172

3
Claims 5–8, 10, 11, 13, 19–22, 24, 25, 27, and 29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over various combinations of ZTE,
Shen, Onggosanusi, and other prior art references. Final Act. 14–23.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We are not
persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error; we adopt the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions as our own, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Appellant argues “any hypothetical combination of ZTE, Shen, and
Onggosanusi does not disclose or suggest” the claim 1 limitations of [a]
“transmitting to a user equipment (UE) two channel quality indicator (CQI)
reference signals using two resource elements per transmission layer within
a resource block,” and [b] “receiving from the user equipment a report
determined according to said two CQI reference signals.” Reply Br. 2; see
also App. Br. 8.
Regarding limitation [a], Appellant contends “ZTE does not teach that
any channel quality indicator resource signals are transmitted from a base
station to a user equipment.” App. Br. 7. Appellant further contends “Shen
does not teach that any channel quality indicator resource signals are
transmitted from a base station to a user equipment” and “Onggosanusi
[does not] overcome the deficiencies of ZTE.” Id. at 8.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding limitation [a] of
claim 1 to be obvious in view of the combined teachings of the cited
Appeal 2018-008992
Application 13/543,172

4
references. The Examiner finds “Shen teaches ‘two CQI reference signals
using two resource elements per transmission layer (table 2, R1=1
equivalent of single transmission layer, subframe contains CQI RS 1 and
CQI RS 1s),” where each “CQI RS” refers to a channel quality indicator
reference signal. Final Act. 2; Shen Table 2, ¶ 6; see also Shen ¶¶ 5, 8.
Appellant does not show this finding is in error. See App. Br. 8.
The Examiner further finds downlink (i.e., “to a user equipment” as
claimed) transmission of reference signals to be obvious in view of the
disclosure of ZTE. Ans. 2. We agree, as one of ordinary skill would
understand ZTE teaches reference signals in the context of a meeting about
the “DL RS [which] stands for ‘downlink reference signal,’ [and] which is
sent from a base station to a user equipment.” Ans. 2; ZTE § 1, Reference
[3]; see also Final Act. 3–4. That is, ZTE refers to a “meeting [regarding]
the way forward [3] that allows for two new types of” reference signals, and
ZTE teaches the particular meeting’s “way forward” is for “DL RS.” ZTE
§ 1, Reference [3]. Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s reliance on
the meeting referenced by ZTE. See Final Act. 3; App. Br. 7. Nor does
Appellant challenge the Examiner’s combination analysis. Accordingly, we
are not persuaded the Examiner errs.2

2 Further with respect to limitation [a] of claim 1, the cited portions of ZTE
teach a “cell-specific reference signal.” ZTE § 1 (introduction); Final
Act. 3; see also App. Br. 7 (“ZTE discloses that cell-specific reference
signals (CRS) are RS for channel measurement and data demodulation.”).
We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would understand
ZTE’s cell-specific reference signal teaches or suggests transmitting—from
a base station “to a user equipment (UE)”—as claimed. Ans. 2; ZTE § 1; cf.
Spec. 1:25–26 (“Currently, . . . CQI/PMI measurement is performed based
on the cell-specific reference signals (CRS). Each CRS is associated with
transmit antenna ports at the eNB [(evolved Node B)].”).
Appeal 2018-008992
Application 13/543,172

5
We also are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding limitation [b]
of claim 1 to be obvious in view of the combined teachings of the cited
references. Appellant’s argument for this limitation relies on the arguments
presented for limitation [a]. See App. Br. 9 (“Indeed, Shen does not teach or
suggest transmitting to a user equipment two CQI reference signals, and
therefore cannot teach receiving a report from the user equipment according
to the two nonexistent CQI reference signals.”). Thus, for the same reasons
as discussed above, we do not find the Examiner errs in determining the
recited “receiving from the user equipment a report determined according to
said two CQI reference signals” is taught or suggested by the combination of
cited references. See Final Act. 4; Shen ¶ 28 (“Channel quality indicator
(CQI) needs to be fed back in uplink (UL).”).
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding ZTE and Shen
teach or suggest the disputed limitations of independent claim 1. Appellant
does not challenge the Examiner’s reliance on Onggosanusi for additional
limitations. See App. Br. 8–9. Nor does Appellant separately argue the
rejections of independent claims 14, 15, 18, or the dependent claims. See
App. Br. 9. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1,
2, 4–16, and 18–29.

Appeal 2018-008992
Application 13/543,172

6
CONCLUSION
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 9, 12,
14–16, 18,
23, 26, and
28
§ 103 ZTE, Shen,
Onggosanusi
1, 2, 4, 9, 12,
14–16, 18,
23, 26, and
28

5–8, 10, 11,
13, 19–22,
24, 25, 27,
and 29
§ 103 various
combinations
of ZTE,
Shen,
Onggosanusi,
and other
prior art
references
5–8, 10, 11,
13, 19–22,
24, 25, 27,
and 29

Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–16,
and 18–29

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).

AFFIRMED