Ex Parte Gaal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 19, 2016

12765806 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121765,806 04/22/2010
23696 7590 08/23/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter Gaal
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.
092052U2 1173
EXAMINER
BOLOURCHI, NADER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2016 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 PETER GAAL, XIAOXIA ZHANG, W ANSHI CHEN,
XILIANG LUO, and JUAN MONTOJO
Appeal2015-000112 1
Application 12/765,806
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner'sFinalRejectionofclaims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, and
21-32. Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20 have been canceled.
App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as QUALCOMM
INCORPORATED. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-000112
Application 12/765,806
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to communicating signaling for
uplink transmissions. In particular, a rank indication (RI) is included in an
unprecoded reference signal (RS) previously generated in a channel
transmission such that the RI can be detected upon transmitting the RS to an
access terminal. Spec. i-f 10, Fig. 4.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A method of communicating signaling for uplink
transmissions, comprising:
generating an unprecoded reference signal (RS);
including rank indication (RI) in the unprecoded RS, such that the
unprecoded RS comprises the RI, thereby enabling the RI to be detected
from the unprecoded RS; and transmitting the unprecoded RS to an access
terminal.
Rejections on Appeal
Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21-32 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rl-090103, "Discussions on DL
RS Design for Higher Order MIMO," Samsung, 3GPP TSG RAN WG 1
#55bis, Ljubliana, Slovenia, Jan. 12-16, 2009 ("Samsung", hereinafter).
2
Appeal2015-000112
Application 12/765,806
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 9-12, and the Reply Brief, pages 2-8.2
Written Description Rejection
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in concluding that the recitation
of "generating a range of candidate estimated Ris based on the unprecoded
RS," as recited in independent claim 32, is not supported by the original
Specification. App. Br. 9-10, Reply Br. 3--4. According to Appellants, the
disclosures in the Specification that "an AP may estimate a RI based on a
received unprecoded RS" and "an AP may employ a range of candidate
estimated Ris" describe that an AP may employ a range of candidates
estimated Ris based on unprecoded RS. Id. (quoting Spec. i-fi-189, 90).
Therefore, Appellants submit that the originally filed Specification supports
the disputed limitation. Id. This argument is not persuasive.
Although the cited portions of Appellants' originally-filed
Specification support employing a range of candidate Ris estimated from an
unprecoded RS, we agree with the Examiner that they do not support
generating the range of candidate estimated Ris. Ans. 25. That is,
employing the range of candidates merely requires using a set of existing
candidate Ris, whereas generating the range of candidate Ris requires
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Feb. 13, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed Sep. 8,
2014) and the Answer (mailed July 7, 2014) for their respective details. We
have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3
Appeal2015-000112
Application 12/765,806
creating the set of candidate Rls. Because Appellants have failed to point to
at least a portion of the originally-filed Specification that supports creating
the set of candidate Ris, we find no error in the Examiner's conclusion that
the disputed claim limitation is not supported by the Specification. We,
therefore, sustain the written description rejection of claim 32.
Obviousness Rejection
Appellants argue that Samsung does not teach or suggest including an
RI in the unprecoded RS. App. Br. 10-11. According to Appellants, "even
assuming that the RS and the RI are both signaled in the PDCCH, such that
the RI is included with the RS in the PDCCH, such arrangement is not the
same as including the RI in the unprecoded RS". Id. at 11, Reply Br. 5.
This argument is persuasive.
We do not agree with the Examiner that Samsung's disclosure of "the
transmit RI is signaled in the PDCCI-H to enable rank-dependent RS
design" teaches that the RI is included in the RS. Ans. 28 (quoting Samsung
Sec. 4, Issue 4, last line.) At best, the cited portion of Samsung teaches
signaling or transmitting the RI in the PDDCI-H can help with the design of
the RS. However, such a disclosure nowhere teaches or suggests that the RI
and RS are transmitted together, let alone that the RI is included in the RS.
Because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection, we need not reach Appellants' remaining arguments.
Consequently, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Because claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 21-32 recite the
disputed limitations of claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner's prior art
rejection of the cited claims for the same reasons set forth above in our
discussion of claim 1.
4
Appeal2015-000112
Application 12/765,806
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's written description rejection of claim 32.
However, we reverse the Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7,
9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 21-32.
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
5