Ex Parte Behravan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

13522106 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/522,106 07/13/2012 Ali Behravan
152435 7590 08/02/2018
Sage Patent Group/Zacco
PO BOX 30789
RALEIGH, NC 27622-0789
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.
1009-0221 I P31021 US2 1678
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, STEVEN HD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2414
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 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):
zaccoinstructions@sagepat.com
outsourcing@zacco.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALI BERRA VAN, DAVID ASTEL Y,
AND GEORGE JONGREN
Appeal2017-009492
Application 13/522,106 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-009492
Application 13/522,106
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to wireless communications, and
specifically, to transmitting antenna-specific sounding reference signals
("SRSs") using resources allocated by an uplink scheduling grant. Spec. 1.
According to Appellants' background of the invention, SRSs are known
signals from user equipment (such as mobile terminals, i.e., handsets) to a
base station (eNodeB), and typically were transmitted over shared resources
(i.e., shared by multiple handsets). Id. User traffic, in contrast, typically is
transmitted separately over resources granted, via an uplink scheduling
grant, to each specific mobile terminal. Id. Appellants' invention utilizes
these "granted resources" to transmit (in addition to user traffic) an antenna-
specific SRS. Abstract; Spec. p. 2, 4, 32-36.
Claims 1 and 18 are independent, and are reproduced below.
1. A method in a user equipment of transmitting
antenna-specific sounding reference signals for two or more
uplink transmit antennas, said method comprising:
transmitting a non-precoded antenna-specific sounding
reference signal for each of at least one of the uplink transmit
antennas within and confined to a granted resource allocated to
the user equipment for a scheduled uplink transmission of user
traffic.
18. A method at a network node of controlling
sounding reference signal transmissions by a user equipment,
said method comprising:
scheduling uplink transmissions by the user equipment
and sending corresponding uplink grants to the user equipment;
and
including control signaling within one or more of the
uplink grants, to configure the transmission of one or more non-
2
Appeal2017-009492
Application 13/522,106
pre-coded antenna-specific sounding reference signals within
and confined to the granted bandwidth allocated by at least one
said uplink grant.
App. Br. 20, 24 ( emphases added).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12, 15, 16, and 18-23 are rejected underpre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Pajukoski '532
(US 2010/0195532 Al; Aug. 5, 2010) and Pajukoski '146
(US 2012/0269146 Al; Oct. 25, 2012). Final Act. 2-5.
Claims 4, 5, 8, 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Pajukoski '532, Pajukoski '146, and
Tirola (US 2009/0181687 Al; July 16, 2009). Final Act. 5---6.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of the arguments
raised in the Briefs. On the record before us, we cannot sustain the
Examiner's rejections.
Claims 1-17
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Pajukoski '532
teaches or suggests "transmitting a ... sounding reference signal [ (SRS)]
... within and confined to a granted resource allocated to the user equipment
for a scheduled uplink transmission of user traffic," as recited in independent
claim 1. App. Br. 9-14. Specifically, Appellants contend Pajukoski '532
teaches transmitting an SRS over a pre-defined SRS resource "shared by
multiple UEs/or SRS transmission," not a resource granted to a specific UE
for uplink of user traffic, as the disputed limitation in claim 1 requires. App.
3
Appeal2017-009492
Application 13/522,106
Br. 10-12; see also Pajukoski '532 ,r,r 63---64 (describing the SRS resource).
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument.
The Examiner finds Pajukoski '532 teaches that a sounding reference
signal "is transmitted in both uplink and downlink in order to select the
antenna for the base station and mobile." Ans. 7 (citing Pajukoski '532,
,r,r 13-14). We agree that the foregoing passages in Pajukoski (and others
throughout the reference) describe a sounding reference signal. On the
record before us, however, the Examiner does not identify any teaching in
Pajukoski '532 or Pajukoski '146 (or their combination) of transmitting an
SRS within the "granted resource" recited in claim 1, i.e., a resource granted
for "scheduled uplink of user traffic." The Examiner finds Pajukoski '532
teaches "the mo bile inserts [the] SRS into the punctured data block," but
does not adequately explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand the "punctured data block" as part of the granted resource recited
in claim 1. Ans. 8-9. Simply because this data block is "pre-defined," as
the Examiner finds (Ans. 8) does not necessarily mean it is a "granted
resource allocated to the user equipment for a scheduled uplink transmission
of user traffic," as recited in claim 1. Similarly, the remainder of the
Examiner's Answer cites lengthy passages of Pajukoski '532 but does not
identify how these passages teach or suggest the disputed claim limitation.
Ans. 7-10 (citing Pajukoski '532 ,r,r 13-14, 42, 53, 57---65); see also Final
Act. 2-3. 2
2 Although not well explained, the passages cited by the Examiner appear to
describe the inverse of what is recited in claim 1, namely, transmitting user
traffic over the SRS resource. Pajukoski '532 ,r,r 57---65;
4
Appeal2017-009492
Application 13/522,106
Accordingly, on this record, we are persuaded the Examiner erred.
We do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We
also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2-17, which depend
from claim 1 and thus include the disputed limitation of claim 1.
Claims 18-23
Independent claim 18 includes a limitation similar to the disputed
limitation of claim 1, namely, "configure the transmission of one or more
non-precoded antenna-specific sounding reference signals within and
confined to the granted bandwidth allocated by at least one said uplink
grant." App. Br. 24 (emphasis added). 3 Appellants argue the Examiner
erred for reasons similar to the error regarding claim 1, specifically, that the
references do not teach or suggest "confin[ing]" the SRS in the manner
claimed. App. Br. 14--15.
In the rejection of claim 18, the Examiner relies on the same passages
in Pajukoski '532 that were cited in the rejection of claim 1. Ans. 6; Final
Act. 4--5. The Examiner further finds the "presence bit" in Pajukoski '532
teaches the claimed control signal. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Pajukoski '532 ,r,r
14, 28, 42, 53, 56-65), 8-9 (citing Pajukoski '532 ,r,r 25, 57---65); Ans. 4--5,
11-12 (citing Pajukoski '532 ,r,r 25, 57-65). As in the rejection of claim 1,
however, the Examiner does not adequately explain how the cited references
teach or suggest configuring antenna-specific SRSs "within and confined to
the granted bandwidth allocated by [an] uplink grant," as recited in claim 18.
Moreover, the portions of Pajukoski '532 cited by the Examiner do not relate
3 Claim 18 further requires "control signaling" within one or more of the
uplink grants, and omits the specific recitation of "user traffic" that was in
claim 1. Neither Appellants nor the Examiner acknowledge or discuss these
differences between claims 1 and 18.
5
Appeal2017-009492
Application 13/522,106
to "configuring transmission of SRS;" rather, they describe a presence bit
signaling the presence/absence of SRS transmissions on the SRS resource,
and thereby denying/permitting transmissions of user traffic on the SRS
resource. See, e.g., Pajukoski '532 ,r,r 25, 56-65; see also Ans. 8 (finding
only that "presence or absence of [SRS] ... may be signaled").
Accordingly, on this record, we are persuaded the Examiner erred.
We do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 18. We
also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 19--23, which
depend from claim 18 and thus include the disputed limitation of claim 18.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-23.
REVERSED
6