Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

12797542 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121797,542 06/09/2010
23696 7590 09/01/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wanshi Chen
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.
092462 5006
EXAMINER
HARPER, KEVIN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte W ANSHI CHEN, JELENA M. DAMNJANOVIC,
PETER GAAL, and WAN MONTOJ0 1
Appeal2015-000562
Application 12/797 ,542
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-25, 27-31, 35-39, 43--47, and 51, which constitute all pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Qualcomm Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-000562
Application 12/797,542
Introduction
Appellants state their invention relates "to a method for
communication of feedback information in advanced wireless
communication systems." Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for reporting channel quality in a multiple
carrier system, comprising:
receiving one or more channel information feedback
reporting parameters, the channel information feedback
reporting parameters determined based on a total downlink
(DL) bandwidth of a plurality of DL component carriers
configured in an asymmetric configuration with an uplink (UL)
component carrier;
generating one or more channel information feedback
reports for the plurality of DL component carriers, wherein each
channel information feedback report is generated in accordance
with the one or more channel information feedback reporting
parameters; and
transmitting the one or more channel information
feedback reports for the plurality of DL component carriers to
an evolved NodeB (eNodeB) on the UL component carrier.
App. Br. (Claims App'x) 15.
Rejections
Claims 1-25, 27-31, 35-39, 43--47, and 51 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Roh et al. (US 2009/0046647 Al;
Feb. 19, 2009) ("Roh") and Chen et al. (US 7,149,527 B2; Dec. 12, 2006)
("Chen"). Final Act. 3-5.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the patentability of (1) all independent claims, i.e., 1,
9, 17, 25, 27, 35, 43, and 51 on the basis of claim 1 (App. Br. 8-12), (2)
claims 6, 14, and 22 on the basis of claim 6 (App. Br. 12-13), and (3) claims
2
Appeal2015-000562
Application 12/797,542
7, 8, 15, 16, 23, and 24 together on a single basis for which Appellants
identify claims 7 and 8 as representative (App. Br. 13-14). We have
reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs and the Examiner's Answer. We adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner (see Ans. 2--4
(maintaining all grounds of rejection from the Final Rejection)). We provide
the following analysis for emphasis.
Claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because "the
Office concedes that 'Roh does not disclose an asymmetric configuration for
DL and UL carriers,"' which "necessarily means it does not teach or suggest
the features of claim 1." App. Br. 9. This is unpersuasive. The rejection of
claim 1 over the combination of Roh and Chen relies on Chen, not Roh, for
teaching this feature, which the Examiner concedes is not disclosed by Roh.
Final Act. 3. When the rejection is based on a combination of references,
one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The relevant inquiry is whether the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in
the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. Id.
Appellants also argue the Examiner errs because "Roh fails to disclose
'component carriers,' as the term is used in the art" and "[ t ]he Office Action
equates 'sub bands,' as discussed in Roh, to 'component carriers' as recited
in claim 1. But 'component carrier' is a term of art; and the 'subbands'
discussed in Roh do not teach or suggest the 'component carriers' of claim
1." App. Br. 9. Appellants argue "'component carrier' has a distinct
meaning. As discussed in the Specification, ' [ i Jn L TE-Advanced, a UE
3
Appeal2015-000562
Application 12/797,542
[user equipment] may be configured with multiple component carriers in DL
and UL.' Specification, i-f [0059] (emphasis added). Those skilled in the art
understand that 'component carrier' is different from Roh's 'subband. "'
App. Br. 9--10.
The Examiner answers:
A subband mentioned in Roh comprises individual component
carriers (para. 32; para. 53, last sentence[2J). Each subband
compris[ es] at least an individual component carrier
(subcarrier) [that] is reported for CQI (para. 34, second
sentence; para. 35, second sentence; para. 53; para. 58, first two
sentences; para. 59, first sentence). Although not required by
the claim language[,] a user is assigned a band comprising
several component carriers (subcarriers) for aggregate
transmission (para. 59, first sentence; para. 62, second sentence;
para. 85, last two sentences). Therefore, Roh teaches
component carriers (subcarriers) which are used in aggregate
for user transmissions.
Ans. 3.
Appellants reply that equating claim 1 's "component carriers" to
Roh's "subcarriers" is error because, as evidenced by LTE documentation,
one of ordinary skill would understand these to be different and
incompatible terms of art. See Reply Br. 1-5.
Appellants do not persuade us of error. It is well settled that we
interpret a claim using "the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in
their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
2 "In an OFDM [(orthogonal frequency division multiplexing)] system, 'CQI
[ (channel quality indicator)] sub band' may include a single subcarrier or a
plurality of subcarriers." Roh i-f 53.
4
Appeal2015-000562
Application 12/797,542
applicant's specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). "[W]hile it is true that claims are to be interpreted in light of the
specification and with a view to ascertaining the invention, it does not follow
that limitations from the specification may be read into the claims." Sjolund
v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Absent a definition or
disclaimer of scope in the specification, we interpret the claim terms as
broadly as the ordinary usage by one of ordinary skill in the art permits. In
re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Appellants' Specification provides neither a definition of "component
carrier" nor a disclaimer of the scope of the term. We agree with the
Examiner that those of ordinary skill, in view of Appellants' Specification,
would understand the term "component carrier" in claim 1 to encompass
Roh's "subcarrier." We accordingly sustain the rejection of claims 1, 9, 17,
25, 27, 35, 43, and 51.
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and requires, inter alia, "two DL
component carriers are at least one of adjacent component carriers or
component carriers configured with the same DL transmission mode and/or
channel quality indicator (CQI) reporting mode." Appellants argue the
Examiner errs because
the Office Action does not even consider the relationship of DL
component carriers (e.g., adjacent [or] similarly configured), as
mentioned in claim 6. The Office Action, relying on Roh, only
mentions "DL carriers," with no discussion of how one skilled
in the art would, solely by reference to Roh, arrive at the
solution of claim 6 related to DL component carriers.
App. Br. 13.
5
Appeal2015-000562
Application 12/797,542
The Examiner answers with the finding that "Roh discloses a
group of subcarriers that are reported together using one CQI value
(fig. 2[,] note: a subcarrier within a subcarrier group; para. 35, last
sentence[3J; para. 85, last two sentences[4J; para. 110, second
sentence)." Ans. 4. Appellants provide no persuasive explanation for
why Roh's disclosure as cited by the Examiner fails to teach or
suggest the added limitations of claim 6. We agree with the Examiner
that the cited portions of Roh disclose downlink subcarriers (i.e.,
component carriers) in a group having the same CQI reporting mode
and teach the recited "aggregated channel information feedback
report" requirements of claim 6. We accordingly sustain the rejection
of claims 6, 14, and 22.
Claims 7 and 8
Claim 7, dependent from claim 6, requires "generating at least
one aggregated channel information feedback report may be enabled
on a per UE basis." Claim 8, dependent from claim 1, requires "a
plurality of M component carriers are divided into sets of one or more
component carriers" and "determining one or more channel
information feedback reporting parameters for each set." Appellants
argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 7 and 8 because the
3 "For example, instead of transmitting channel information carried by each
subcarrier, M subcarriers are selected from subcarriers or [a] subcarrier
group and channel information is carried by the M selected subcarriers .... "
Roh ii 35.
4 "The CQI subband is set by subcarrier group unit if a downlink performs
allocation or reporting by subcarrier group unit. Finally, the CQI subband is
set by several subcarrier group units if a downlink performs allocation or
reporting by binding several subcarrier groups together." Roh ii 85.
6
Appeal2015-000562
Application 12/797,542
rejection "grouped claims 6-8 and generally cited Roh, paragraphs 35
and 110-111" and "has not clearly articulated the reasons why claims
7 and 8 would have been obvious." App. Br. 14.
We find this unpersuasive in view of the Examiner's findings in
the Answer describing how Roh teaches aggregate channel feedback
on a per UE basis per the requirements of claim 7 (i.e., because "each
UE is allocated band(s) or group(s) each comprising more than one
carrier and the aggregate CQI of the assigned band(s) or group(s) is
generated (figs. 1 and 7; para. 108; para. 109, last sentence; para. 110,
first three sentences; para. 111)"). Ans. 4. We further agree with the
Examiner that the findings for claims 6 and 7 also teach the
requirements of claim 8. Id. We accordingly sustain the rejection of
claims 7, 8, 15, 16, 23, and 24.
DECISION
For the above reasons; we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims
1-25, 27-31, 35-39, 43--47, and 51. 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).
AFFIRMED
7