Ex Parte Fujil

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2017

14429330 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2017)

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.
14/429,330 03/18/2015 Masaaki Fujil P20402-US
(SAMS05-20402)
7943
23990 7590
DOCKET CLERK
P.O. DRAWER 800889
DAT!.AS, TX 75380
EXAMINER
BURD, KEVIN MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2017 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):
patents @ munckwilson. com
munckwilson @ gmail. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MASAAKI FUJIL
(Applicant: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.)
Appeal 2017-003206
Application 14/429,330
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2017-003206
Application 14/429,330
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to a communication device and
signal detection method. Spec. ^ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. A communication device comprising:
a phased-array antenna, in which a plurality of antenna
elements are arranged on a plane, wherein the phased-array antenna is
configured to receive a signal transmitted from one or more
transmission devices;
a signal converter comprising a plurality of beamformers,
wherein each of the plurality of beamformers is configured to:
synthesize a received signal received at one or more
antenna elements for one or more sub-arrays formed by
grouping the plurality of antenna elements, and convert the
signal synthesized for the one or more sub-arrays into a
baseband signal; and
a signal processor configured to detect, based on the
baseband signal for the one or more sub-arrays for each
resource block, a transmission signal transmitted from each of
the one or more transmission devices, wherein the baseband
signal is received from each of the plurality of beamformers.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Guo et al. (US 2012/0033761
Al; published Feb. 9, 2012) (“Guo”) and Bjerke et al. (US 2007/0116143
Al; published May 24, 2007) (“Bjerke”).
2
Appeal 2017-003206
Application 14/429,330
Claims 3-5 and 9-11 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Guo, Bjerke, and DuPree (US
5,175,558; issued Dec. 29, 1992).
Claims 6, 12, 13, and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Guo, Bjerke, and
Nakaya et al. (US 2010/0323732 Al; published Dec. 23, 2010) (“Nakaya”).
Claims 14-16 and 18-20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Guo, Bjerke,
Dupree, and Nakaya.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 7
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Guo and
Bjerke teaches or suggests “a signal converter comprising a plurality of
beamformers, wherein each of the plurality of beamformers is configured to:
synthesize a received signal received at one or more antenna elements for
one or more sub-arrays formed by grouping the plurality of antenna
elements,” as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claim 7?
The Examiner relies on Guo to teach or suggest the disputed
limitation. Final Act. 5. Appellant argues “Gwo merely discloses that each
digital branch includes an analogue beamforming sub-array and a signal
chain adapted to convert the output of the sub-array to baseband.” App. Br.
13; see also Reply Br. 4, 5. Appellant further argues Guo does not teach or
suggest the disputed limitation, but, on the other hand, also states “Gwo
discloses that a signal converter comprises a plurality of beamformers,
3
Appeal 2017-003206
Application 14/429,330
wherein each of the plurality of beamformers is configured to: synthesize a
received signal received at one or more antenna elements for one or more
sub-arrays formed by grouping the plurality of antenna elements.” App. Br.
12.
We are agree with the Examiner’s findings. See Final Act. 4-6, Ans.
11-15. Appellant merely recites the claim language and repeats the
language in Guo’s disclosure, but does not sufficiently explain why the
Examiner’s detailed findings are in error, or why Guo’s disclosure as shown
in Figure 1 does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Moreover,
Appellant presents contradictory positions. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred.
Issue 2\ Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Guo and
Bjerke teaches or suggests “a signal processor configured to detect, based on
the baseband signal for the one or more sub-arrays for each resource block, a
transmission signal transmitted from each of the one or more transmission
devices, wherein the baseband signal is received from each of the plurality
of beamformers,” as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately
recited in independent claim 7?
Appellant argues “Bjerke does not disclose or suggest a signal
processor configured to detect, based on the baseband signal for the one or
more sub-arrays for each resource block, a transmission signal transmitted
from each of the one or more transmission devices.” App. Br. 15.
According to Appellant, “Bjerke merely mentions ‘beamforming mode of
MIMO.’ Merely mentioning a ‘beamforming mode of MIMO’ in Bjerke
does not provide a sufficient teaching or suggestion for the signal processor
4
Appeal 2017-003206
Application 14/429,330
of Claim 1.” App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 7. Appellant further argues
“[njeither Guo nor Bjerke disclose detecting the transmission signal for the
one or more sub-arrays for each resource block on a relationship among the
resource block, the beamformer, and the sub-array antenna.” App. Br. 16;
see also Reply Br. 6-7.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and we agree with
the Examiner’s findings. Final Act. 2-6; Ans. 13-20. The Examiner has
presented detailed findings and relies extensively on the Guo reference to
teach or suggest the disputed limitation (Ans. 13-20), but finds Guo does
not explicitly recite “detecting” a signal, although the disclosed search
strategies in Guo are used to detect the signal (Ans. 13, 15-16). The
Examiner, therefore, relies on Bjerke, which explicitly describes detecting
and decoding a signal, to teach or suggest the recited “detect.” Ans. 14, 16.
Therefore, the Examiner finds the disputed limitation is taught or suggested
by the combination of Guo and Bjerke. Appellant’s arguments, which
address Bjerke and Guo in isolation, therefore, do not address the
combination as relied upon by the Examiner. Nonobviousness cannot be
established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, Appellant does
not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred.
5
Appeal 2017-003206
Application 14/429,330
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in combining Guo and Bjerke?
Appellant argues “the Examiner has relied on impermissible hindsight
to make the asserted combination and rejection.” App. Br. 16. Appellant
further argues:
The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner
suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification
obvious unless the prior art has suggested the desirability of the
modification. In other words, unless some teaching exists in
the prior art for the suggested modification, merely asserting
that such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art is improper and cannot be used to meet the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness ....
Absent some teaching, suggestion or incentive in the prior art,
Guo and Bjerke cannot be properly modified to form the
claimed invention.
App. Br. 16-17.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s
arguments are directed to the teaching, suggestion, or motivation standard
where there must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the references
themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill
in the art, to modify the reference or to combine the teachings. Such a
standard is no longer required. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
415 (2007) (“We begin by rejecting the rigid [application and requirement of
a TSM to combine known elements in order to show obviousness]”). The
proper inquiry is whether the Examiner has articulated adequate reasoning
based on a rational underpinning to explain why a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have been led to combine Guo and Bjerke. See id.at 418.
In this case, the Examiner has provided a reasoning with rational
underpinnings as required by the guidelines in KSR, which Appellant has not
6
Appeal 2017-003206
Application 14/429,330
persuasively challenged, or even addressed. See Ans. 15-16; In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 88 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Further, although Appellant contends that the combination is no more
than impermissible hindsight based on Appellant’s own Specification, this
contention is not persuasive because Appellant does not identify, nor do we
discern, any knowledge that the Examiner relied upon that was gleaned only
from Appellant’s disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of
ordinary skill at the time of the invention. Thus, the Examiner is correct to
note that so long as a conclusion of obviousness is based on a reconstruction
that “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of
ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not
include knowledge gleaned only from [Appellant’s] disclosure, such a
reconstruction is proper.” Ans. 21 (citing In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392
(CCPA 1971)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 1 and 7 for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 2 and 8
Issue 4: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Guo and
Bjerke teaches or suggests “upon detecting an error from a detected certain
transmission signal in the error detector, generate a soft replica signal of the
transmission signal based on a log-likelihood ratio (LLR) of each bit of the
detected transmission signal,” as recited in dependent claim 2 and
commensurately recited in dependent claim 8?
The Examiner relies on paragraph 57 of Bjerke to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation. Final Act. 6. Appellant argues the “[t]he cited portion
7
Appeal 2017-003206
Application 14/429,330
of Bjerke contains no teaching or suggesting regarding ‘generating a soft
replica signal of the transmission signal based on LLR.” App. Br. 18; see
also Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded. Paragraph 57 of Bjerke describes “MIMO
detector is a MAP detector that minimizes the error probability for each code
bit and provides a soft decision for each code bit. The MAP detector
provides soft decisions often expressed as LLRs.” Appellant merely recites
the claim language and repeats the language in paragraph 57, but does not
sufficiently explain why the Examiner’s findings are in error, or why this
disclosure does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Issue 5: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Guo and
Bjerke teaches or suggests “cancel interference caused by an interference
signal from the baseband signal using the soft replica signal” and “detect
each of the transmission signals by using again the SISO-MLD,” as recited
in dependent claim 2 and commensurately recited in dependent claim 8?
The Examiner relies on Figure 4 of Bjerke, which “shows the
feedback to the MIMO detector of the processor receiving the feedback
signal from the decoder.” Final Act. 6 (emphasis omitted). In addition, the
Examiner relies on paragraphs 55 and 128 of Bjerke. Ans. 22. The
Examiner finds “[t]he minimizing of error probability cancels the result of
the interference that created the error that was detected.” Ans. 23.
Appellant argues “the cited portion of Bjerke merely states ‘feedback
to the MIMO detector of the processor receiving the feedback signal from
the detector.’” Appellant further argues “[t]he cited portion of Bjerke
8
Appeal 2017-003206
Application 14/429,330
contains no teaching or suggestion] regarding ‘cancel interference using the
soft replica signal and detect each of the transmission signals using the SISO
MLD.’” App. Br. 18.
We are persuaded the Examiner erred. Specifically, the Examiner has
not sufficiently explained how the cited portions of Bjerke teach or suggest
the disputed limitation. See Ans. 22-23. We, therefore, do not sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 2 and 8. For
the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 11, which depend from
claims 2 and 8.
Claims 6, 12, 13, 17
Issue 6: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Guo,
Bjerke, and Nakaya teaches or suggests “set a coding rate and a modulation
level of a transmission signal,” as recited in dependent claim 6 and
commensurately recited in dependent claims 12, 13, and 17?
The Examiner relies on Nakaya to teach or suggest the disputed
limitation. Final Act. 11-12, citing Nakaya Fig. 9A, 4. Appellant argues
“Nakaya merely discloses that the modulation and coding level is used for
realizing high transmission efficiency. In contrast, Claims 6, 12, 13, and 17
recite calculating SINR for each of the baseband signals and setting a coding
rate and a modulation level of a transmission signal and calculating the
SINR assuming no interference signal component caused by a transmission
signal transmitted from another transmission device.” App. Br. 22-23; see
also Reply Br. 23-24. Appellant argues the claims “recite two step
calculations using SINR with/without interference transmitted from two
9
Appeal 2017-003206
Application 14/429,330
different devices, and setting a coding rate and modulation level of two
different signals.” App. Br. 23.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and we agree with
the Examiner’s findings. See Ans. 25-26. Here, Nakaya teaches “us[ing]
[a] downlink signal to measure SINR” and “deciding] a modulation and
coding level of the downlink direction based on the SINR.” Nakaya ^ 4.
We agree with the Examiner that “[t]his calculation will take place whether
there is no interference caused by a transmission signal from other
transmission devices or whether there is interference cause[d] by other
devices.” Ans. 25. Appellant has not persuasively challenged the
Examiner’s findings. Rather, Appellant merely repeats the language in
Nakaya’s disclosure without sufficiently explaining why Nakaya does not
teach or suggest the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred, and we,
therefore, sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claims 6, 12, 13, and 17. Appellant presents substantially the same
arguments for dependent claims 14-16 and 18-20 (App. Br. 23-24).
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claims 14-16 and 18-20 for the same reasons.
10
Appeal 2017-003206
Application 14/429,330
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 12, and 13-20.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-5 and 8-11.
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