Ex Parte Forck et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 8, 2018

13144577 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/144,577 08/26/2011
10948 7590 05/10/2018
Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC
4 Research Drive, Suite 202
Shelton, CT 06484
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andreas Forck
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.
800.1683.Ul(US) 7072
EXAMINER
CRUTCHFIELD, CHRISTOPHER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/10/2018 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):
USPTO@hspatent.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS FORCK, THOMAS HAUSTEIN,
VOLKER JUNGNICKEL, MALTE SCHELLMAN, LARS THIELE,
and THOMAS WIRTH
Appeal 2016-005966
Application 13/144,577
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and KIMBERLY
McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The rejection
of claim 5 was withdrawn in the Examiner's Answer (see Ans. 20, 26). We
affirm the obviousness rejections of claims 1 and 6-13, and reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 2--4 and 14--17.
Appellants' Disclosed and Claimed Invention
Appellants' invention pertains to third generation partnership project
(3GPP) wireless telecommunication systems/networks having antennas
Appeal2016-005966
Application 13/144,577
using a multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) communication technique
(claims 1, 11, 12; Spec. 1:6-33; Fig. 1; Abstr.). More specifically,
Appellants disclose and claim a method of transmitting channel quality
information (CQI) between network elements using MIMO techniques that
produce a high spectral efficiency while lowering CQI feedback overhead
(see generally Spec. 1 :6-6:2).
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are independent. Exemplary claim 1 under
appeal, with emphases added, reads as follows, with emphases and bracketed
lettering added:
1. A method comprising:
dividing a range of possible radio channel qualities
between two network elements, a first network element and a
second network element, of a radio telecommunication network
into a fixed number (n) of quality classes,
measuring quality of a radio channel between the two
network elements,
selecting one quality class out of the fixed number of
quality classes based on the measured quality of the radio
channel,
[A] in a first transmission, transmitting from the second
network element to the first network element a first channel
quality information being indicative for the selected quality
class, and
[BJ in a second transmission which is distinct from the
first transmission, transmitting from the second network
element to the first network element a second channel
quality information being indicative for the measured quality
within the limits of the selected quality class.
Independent apparatus claims 11 and 12 recite similar features
pertaining to network elements for receiving (claim 11) and transmitting
(claim 12) the channel quality information.
2
Appeal2016-005966
Application 13/144,577
Examiner's Rejections
( 1) The Examiner rejected claims 1-7 and 9-1 7 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Imamura (US 2009/0141648 Al; published
June 4, 2009) and Zeira (US 2008/0165697 Al; published July 10, 2008).
Final Act. 3-17; Ans. 3-17. The rejection of claim 5 has been withdrawn
(see Ans. 20, 26; see also Ans. 3), and is therefore not before us on appeal.
(2) The Examiner rejected claim 8 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Imamura, Zeira, and Sousa (US 2009/0233614 Al;
published Sept. 17, 2009). Final Act. 17-18; Ans. 17-18.
Issues on Appeal
With regard to the obviousness rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 7, and 9-17
over Imamura and Zeira, Appellants primarily present arguments to
(i) independent claim 1 (App. Br. 9-17); and (ii) dependent claims 2--4, 6, 7,
and 9 (App. Br. 19-25). Appellants argue (i) claims 10-13 on the same
bases as presented for claim 1 (see App. Br. 25--40); and (ii) claims 14--17
on the same bases as presented for claims 2 and 3 (see App. Br. 40--43).
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims
consisting of claims 1 and 10-13, and our analysis will primarily address
representative independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2--4, 6, 7, and 9 in
our analysis herein.
With regard to the obviousness rejection of claim 8 over Imamura,
Zeira, and Sousa, Appellants rely on the arguments presented as to claim 1
(see App. Br. 43--44). Therefore, we will decide the outcome of the
obviousness rejection of claim 8 on the same basis as the outcome of the
obviousness rejection of claim 1.
3
Appeal2016-005966
Application 13/144,577
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 9--43)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 3-8), the following issues are presented on
appeal:
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 8, and 10-13 as being
obvious because the base combination of Imamura and Zeira fails to teach or
suggest the method of transmitting channel quality information including
method step limitations [A] and [BJ, as set forth in independent claim 1, and
the commensurate apparatus limitations set forth in remaining independent
claims 11 and 12?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 2, 3, and 14--17 because
the combination of Imamura and Zeira fails to teach or suggest channel
quality information having quality resolutions as claimed?
(3) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 4 because the combination
of Imamura and Zeira fails to teach or suggest a channel quality information
that represents a different radio transmission source as claimed?
( 4) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 6 and 7 because the
combination of Imamura and Zeira fails to teach or suggest fixed number of
quality classes as claimed?
(5) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 9 over Imamura and Zeira
because Imamura fails to teach or suggest assigning a code rate as claimed?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 3-18; Ans.
3-18) in light of Appellants' contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br.
9--43) that the Examiner has erred, in light of the Examiner's response to
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 21-35), and Appellants'
4
Appeal2016-005966
Application 13/144,577
Reply Brief (Reply Br. 3-8). We disagree with Appellants' contentions as
to (i) representative claim 1 and claims 10-13 grouped therewith; and (ii)
dependent claims 6, 7, and 9 argued separately. However, we are persuaded
by Appellants' arguments with regard to dependent claims 2--4 and 14--17
separately argued.
Representative Claim 1
With regard to representative claim 1, we adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-7; Ans. 3-7), and (2) the reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal
Brief (see Ans. 21-25), with one exception. We do not agree with the
Examiner that paragraph 46 of Imamura explicitly teaches measuring radio
channel quality; however, we do agree with the Examiner that paragraph 45
of Imamura teaches or suggests measuring channel quality by disclosing that
quality level calculating section 121 receives signal to interference and noise
ratio (SINR) values. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 4. The operation of quality level
calculating section 121 is further described in paragraph 4 3 of Imamura,
which describes that channel response estimating section 116 detects "the
frequency response of the channel on a per subcarrier basis" and then
calculates an average SINR value. In addition, Zeira also teaches or
suggests measured channel quality is sent to user equipment (WTRU 110)
via statistics about data/signals which constitute CQI, to user equipment
(WTRU 110) such as (i) instantaneous, short-term, and/or long-term
statistics, and (ii) average data rate, data load per packet, block error rate,
etc. (Zeira i-f 32). Therefore, we find no Examiner error in determining that
5
Appeal2016-005966
Application 13/144,577
the combination of Imamura and Zeira teach or suggest measuring channel
quality for purposes of CQI reporting.
With regard to claim 1, we also agree with the Examiner's findings
and conclusions pertaining to the teachings and suggestions of Imamura and
Zeira, as well as the obviousness of their combination (see Final Act. 3-7;
Ans. 3-7, 21-25). Specifically, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 24) that
Imamura teaches first CQI information indicative of a quality class (see
Imamura Fig. 4, CQI table 401 is divided into CQI groups having different
SINR qualities) and second CQI information indicative of a measured
quality within the limits of the selected quality class (see supra discussion of
quality level calculating section 121 ), and Zeira teaches splitting the CQI
information into two separate messages. We also agree with the Examiner
that "by splitting the CQI into two parts, the efficiency of the system may
actually be improved" (Ans. 24; see also Ans. 5-7, 23-25 articulating
motivation to combine).
The base combination of Imamura and Zeira teaches or suggests the
method of transmitting channel quality information including method step
limitations [A] (transmitting first CQI indicative for the selected quality
class) and [BJ (transmitting second CQI indicative for measured quality
within the limits of the selected quality class), as set forth in independent
claim 1, and the commensurate apparatus limitations set forth in remaining
independent claims 11 and 12. In general, Appellants' arguments (App. Br.
9-19) are not persuasive, because Appellants attack the references
individually, when the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 12 is based on the
reasonable combination of Imamura and Zeira. Although we agree with
Appellants that Imamura fails to disclose the transmission of two separate
6
Appeal2016-005966
Application 13/144,577
CQI reports (App. Br. 10-11 ), the Examiner relies upon Zeira for separating
the information into two different transmissions/reports (one that is
transmitted more frequently and one that is transmitted less frequently), and
rationally articulates the motivation for combining Zeira's separate
transmissions with Imamura' s CQI reporting method, such as to reduce
Imamura' s resource usage by not frequently re-transmitting information that
is unlikely to change, e.g., the CQI group ID/first channel quality
information) (see Ans. 3-7, 21-25).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
representative claim 1, as well as claims 10-13 grouped therewith, over
Imamura and Zeira. For similar reasons, and because (i) claim 8 depends
from claim 1, and contains limitations [A] and [BJ of claim 1; and (ii)
Appellants rely on the arguments for claim 1 as to the patentability of claim
8 (see App. Br. 43--44; see also Ans. 35), we also sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 8 over the same base combination of Imamura and Zeira.
Claims 2, 3, and 14-17
Each of claims 2, 14, and 16 each recite channel quality information
including a quality resolution. Each of claims 3, 15, and 17 recite a
measured radio channel quality having a quality resolution. The Examiner
relies upon Imamura's Figure 4 as showing quality resolutions for different
CQI groups (Ans. 7). Appellants argue (App. Br. 19-21, 40--43) that
Imamura, and, thus, the combination of Imamura and Zeira, fails to teach or
suggest quality resolution as claimed. We agree with Appellants'
arguments. Although Imamura's Figure 4 "illustrates the data structure of a
CQI table" (i-f 52), where the CQI groups are arranged in descending order of
SINR (see i1i153, 54), Imamura is silent as to any quality resolution. The
7
Appeal2016-005966
Application 13/144,577
Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments (see Ans. 25-26, 34--35) fails
to explain or otherwise address (i) how/why Imamura teaches or suggests
quality resolutions as claimed; (ii) whether or not Imamura' s SINR
constitutes quality resolution; and/or (iii) how/why Zeira teaches or suggests
quality resolutions as claimed.
Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 2, 3, and 14--17 because Imamura, and, thus, the
combination of Imamura and Zeira, fails to teach or suggest quality
resolution as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 3, and/or claims 14--17 (argued for the
same reasons, and containing the same disputed limitations, as respective
claims 2 and 3. See App. Br. 40-43.
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and further recites that "each further
second channel quality information represents a different radio transmission
resource" (claim 4 (emphasis added)). The Examiner relies (Ans. 7-8) upon
Imamura's Figure 5 and disclosure in paragraphs 57---60 as teaching or
suggesting this limitation, and reasons that Imamura's second CQI group
and information is reported "for each of the radio resources" (Ans. 8).
Appellants admit that Imamura describes first and second quality
information, but contend that Imamura's second CQI does not represent a
different radio transmission source as claimed (App. Br. 21-23). We agree
with Appellants' contention. Although Imamura's Figure 5 "shows the
frame configuration of a transmission frame for [a] CQI report" (i-f 57), and
Imamura discloses "generat[ing] a transmission frame for [a] CQI report"
from a selected CQI group "and CQI bits corresponding to each resource
8
Appeal2016-005966
Application 13/144,577
block (information bits to identify each CQI)" (i-f 58), Imamura is silent as to
whether or not the CQI "represents a different radio transmission resource"
as recited in claim 4 (emphasis added).
Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 4 because Imamura, and, thus, the combination of Imamura
and Zeira, fails to teach or suggest a channel quality information that
represents a different radio transmission source as claimed. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 4.
Claims 6 and 7
Claim 6 depends from claim 1, and further recites "dividing a range of
possible radio channel qualities between the two network elements into a
fixed number (n) of quality classes" (claim 6 (emphasis added)). Claim 7
depends from claim 6 and, therefore, contains the same limitation regarding
a fixed number of quality classes. With regard to dependent claims 6 and 7,
Appellants argue (App. Br. 23-24) that Imamura fails to disclose a fixed
number of quality classes as recited in claim 6. However, we agree with the
Examiner's findings (Ans. 8, 26-27) that Imamura (i-f 68; Fig. 4) discloses
that "CQI groups are preset and fixed" (i-f 68) into different groups, as shown
in Figures 4 and 7. For example, in Figure 4, CQI table 401 is divided into
several groups (e.g., CQI groups 1-6), where "CQI's of similar received
quality are put together as one group" (i-f 54)). Therefore, Imamura teaches
or suggests, "dividing a range of possible radio channel qualities between
the two network elements into a fixed number (n) of quality classes" as
recited in claim 6.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 6 and 7.
9
Appeal2016-005966
Application 13/144,577
Claim 9
Claim 9 depends from claim 1, and further recites, "assigning a
modulation mode quantization scheme to the selected quality class and/or
assigning a code rate to the [sic] selected quality class" (claim 9 (emphasis
added)). Therefore, because claim 9 recites two alternative methods of
assigning, the requirement of claim 9 is satisfied when either of (i.e., any one
of) the two alternative methods of assigning are performed.
Appellants argue (App. Br. 24--25) that Imamura (see App. Br. 24
(citing Imamura Fig. 7; i-fi-1 72-7 5)) fails to disclose the method of assigning
as claimed. Specifically, Appellants contend that "indicating ... [the
appropriate] code group [as in Imamura] is not analogous to assigning a
code rate ... [or] assigning a modulation mode quantization scheme" as
recited in claim 9. However, we agree with the Examiner's findings (see
Ans. 8, 27) that Imamura's disclosure of assigning CQis to different groups
in a table based on a coding rate (i-fi-f 68, 7 4; CQI groups 21-24 each have an
assigned "coding rate R" as shown in Figure 7 as groups 21 and 22
(elements 702 and 703) having assigned coding rates of 5/6 and%,
respectively) teaches or suggests assigning a code rate as claimed in the
second alternative method of assignment recited in claim 9.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claim 9.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 8, and 10-13 as
being obvious because the base combination of Imamura and Zeira fails to
teach or suggest the method of transmitting channel quality information
10
Appeal2016-005966
Application 13/144,577
including method step limitations [A] and [BJ, as set forth in independent
claim 1, and the commensurate apparatus limitations set forth in remaining
independent claims 11 and 12.
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2, 3, and 14--17
because the combination of Imamura and Zeira fails to teach or suggest
channel quality information having quality resolutions as claimed.
(3) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 4 because the
combination of Imamura and Zeira fails to teach or suggest a channel quality
information that represents a different radio transmission source as claimed.
(4) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 6 and 7 because the
combination of Imamura and Zeira fails to teach or suggest fixed number of
quality classes as claimed.
(5) The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 over Imamura and Zeira
because Imamura fails to teach or suggest assigning a code rate as claimed.
DECISION
The Examiner's obviousness rejections of (i) claims 1 and 6-13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed; and (ii) claims 2--4 and 14--17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
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-IN-PART
11