Ex Parte Grant et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 9, 2012

11254172 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 9, 2012)

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.
11/254,172 10/19/2005 Stephen J. Grant P20746-US1 / 4015-5330 3746
24112 7590 04/09/2012
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
CHAMBERS, TANGELA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/09/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte STEPHEN J. GRANT, JUNG-FU CHENG,
YI-PIN ERIC WANG, KARL J. MOLNAR, and LEONID KRASNY
____________

Appeal 2010-002388
Application 11/254,172
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and GLENN J. PERRY,
Administrative Patent Judges.

PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002388
Application 11/254,172

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In a mobile communication network including a base station,1 capable
of operating in multiple transmission modes,2 and remote (e.g. mobile)
stations.3 Remote stations provide downlink4 channel quality feedback on an
uplink5 to the base station. Using this feedback, the base station controls
communications between the base station and remote stations in a manner
that takes best advantage of higher quality channels. Feedback from many
mobile stations can clutter uplink channels from the remote stations to the
base station. The invention purports to obviate feedback clutter by
providing baseline feedback for one downlink transmission mode (e.g., a
particular antenna arrangement) and follow up with additional feedback for
other downlink transmission modes (other antenna arrangements) only when
the baseline feedback exceeds a threshold. See Abstract; Spec. §§ [005]-
[006]. Claim 1 is illustrative with key limitations emphasized:
1. A method implemented by a receiving station in a mobile
communication network of controlling feedback load on an uplink
channel, said method comprising:

1 Referred to in the specification as a “transmitting station.”
2 As used in the specification, “modes” refers to combinations of its multiple
antennas.
3 Referred to in the specification as “receiving stations.”
4 Base to remote communication.
5 Remote to base communication.
Appeal 2010-002388
Application 11/254,172

3
providing channel quality feedback to a multiple antenna
transmitting station for a first downlink transmission mode
corresponding to a first antenna configuration;
generating a performance metric; and
if the performance metric exceeds a first threshold, providing
channel quality feedback to said transmitting station for one or more
additional downlink transmission modes.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Walton US 2002/0177447 A1 Nov. 28, 2002
(filed May 16, 2001)
Onggosanusi US 2005/0207367 A1 Sept. 22, 2005
(filed Mar. 21, 2005)

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-30, of which claims 1, 12, 23, and 27
are independent, under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Walton in view of
Onggosanusi. Ans. 3-7.6
Both Walton and Onggosanusi are directed to wireless networks.
Walton describes a base station 104 communicating with plural remote
stations referred to as terminal stations 106. See Walton ¶[0026]. Upon
receiving a downlink transmission from the base station, a terminal station
provides an uplink message to the base station indicating a quality measure
of the channel on which the downlink transmission was received. The base
station uses quality information collected from the terminal stations to

6 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed April 10, 2009,
the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 4, 2009, and the Reply Brief filed
September 30, 2009.
Appeal 2010-002388
Application 11/254,172

4
schedule uplink transmissions from the terminal stations so as to take
advantage of channel conditions. It does so by forming hypotheses (see
Walton Fig. 2) corresponding to groups of terminal stations (Walton Fig. 2,
step 214) for transmitting data to be uplinked to the base station. It evaluates
these hypotheses based on channel conditions and determines from those
evaluations how communication should be conducted. See Walton Fig. 2,
step 228. As uplink communications are received, channel quality is
updated so that future communication decisions become even better. See
Walton Fig. 2, step 230.
The Onggosanusi wireless network includes a base station 210 (see
Onggosanusi Fig. 2 and ¶¶ [0024]-[0025]) in communication with plural
remote stations referred to as “user equipment” 205 (UE). Each UE, upon
receiving a downlink message, (1) measures a channel condition, CQI
(Onggosanusi Fig. 3, step 325), and (2) transmits the CQI to the base station.
See Onggosanusi Fig. 3, step 330. The base station uses collective CQI data
to schedule uplink transmissions or downlink transmissions.

Claims 1 and 12
Examiner’s Findings
The Examiner applied the references first to independent claims 1 and
12 as a group because they have substantial commonality of core
requirements. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner applied the references separately to
independent claims 23 and 27 Ans. 4-7. We first address the Examiner’s
rejection as to claims 1 and 12.
The Examiner reads claims 1 and 12 on Walton in two different ways.
First, the Examiner reads claims 1 and 12 on Walton by mapping the
Appeal 2010-002388
Application 11/254,172

5
claimed “uplink” to Walton’s “downlink.” Ans. 3-4. Claim 1 is illustrative
and the Examiner’s first reading of claim 1 on Walton is summarized in the
following Table 1: 
Claim 1 The Examiner’s Application of Walton at Ans. 3-4
1. A method implemented by a receiving
station in a mobile communication network
of controlling feedback load on an uplink
channel, said method comprising:
The claimed “uplink” corresponds to Walton’s
“downlink” from base station 104 to mobile
terminals 106.
providing channel quality feedback to a
multiple antenna transmitting station for a
first downlink transmission mode
corresponding to a first antenna
configuration;

The claimed “multiple antenna transmitting station”
is equated to a group of terminals, each having at
least one antenna.

The claimed “first downlink transmission mode”
corresponds to a communication from one or more
terminals to the base station which, as a group,
constitute a first antenna configuration (uplink
communication in Walton).
generating a performance metric; and

The claimed “performance metric” corresponds to a
hypothesis (group of terminals designated for a
particular transmission) for evaluation.
if the performance metric exceeds a first
threshold, providing channel quality
feedback to said transmitting station for
one or more additional downlink
transmission modes.
Providing feedback for additional modes
corresponds to Walton’s scheduling a group of
terminals for communication to the base station

Table 1 – Examiner’s reading of claim 1 on Walton

The Examiner finds that with the above reading of claim 1 on Walton,
there is no transmitter to provide feedback from the base station to the
terminals. Ans. 4. The Examiner relies upon Onggosanusi to provide the
missing teaching. Id.
In the Examiner’s “Summary of Appellant Argument and Examiner’s
Response” portion of the Answer, beginning at page 9, the Examiner appears
to read claims 1 and 12 on Walton using a more traditional reading of
Appeal 2010-002388
Application 11/254,172

6
Walton in which Walton provides feedback from a “mobile” station
(presumably the Examiner is referring to terminals T) to the “base station”
on an “uplink.” The base station uses the information to decide how to
transmit to the mobile on the downlink.

Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants argue that: 1) neither Walton nor Onggosanusi discloses
the use of a feedback threshold to control an amount of feedback on an
uplink channel that characterizes a downlink transmission; 2) neither Walton
nor Onggosanusi compares performance with a threshold to control
feedback; and 3) neither Walton nor Onggosanusi provides channel feedback
for different transmission modes corresponding to different antenna
configurations. App. Br. 6. Thus, the issues before us are:

ISSUES
1. Do Walton and Onggosanusi collectively teach the use of a
threshold to control downlink-characterizing feedback and sending
that feedback on an uplink channel?
2. Do Walton and Onggosanusi collectively teach providing feedback
for different transmission modes and provide feedback for
“additional” transmission modes only if a baseline feedback
exceeds the threshold?

ANALYSIS
At best, the Examiner’s first reading of claim 1 on Walton is strained.
We believe that an ordinarily skilled artisan of mobile network design would
Appeal 2010-002388
Application 11/254,172

7
read Walton as transmitting on a downlink from base station 104 to
terminals T and receiving channel quality feedback from terminals T to the
base station on an uplink in order to characterize the quality of a
communication channel. We do not view Walton’s terminals as constituting
a multiple antenna base station. Nor do we view scheduling of terminals T
for transmission to be equivalent to the claimed additional feedback for
additional transmission modes. A fair and reasonable reading of Walton is
that scheduling of transmitters is the appropriate reaction to feedback (to
take advantage of channel quality previously determined and fed back to the
transmitter). It is not, itself, feedback.
The Examiner’s later reading of Walton, beginning at page 9 of the
Answer, hits closer to the mark for claim 1. We agree with the Examiner
that Walton’s base station derives a “CSI” which is a measure of channel
quality. See Walton ¶ [0112] for how CSI is calculated. The base station
uses the CSI to determine how to schedule uplink and downlink
transmissions. Furthermore, we agree that Walton teaches controlling an
amount of feedback based on CSI. See Walton ¶ [0159] infra.
The CSI is reported from the base station 104 to a terminal T using
various transmission schemes. It is explained at Walton ¶ [0159] as follows:
[0159] The CSI may be reported to the scheduled
terminal using various CSI transmission schemes. For
example, the CSI may be sent in full, differentially, or a
combination thereof. In one embodiment, CSI is reported
periodically, and differential updates are sent based on the prior
transmitted CSI. In another embodiment, the CSI is sent only
when there is a change (e.g., if the change exceeds a particular
threshold), which may lower the effective rate of the feedback
channel. As an example, the date rate and/or coding and
modulation scheme may be sent back (e.g., differentially) only
Appeal 2010-002388
Application 11/254,172

8
when they change. Other compression and feedback channel
error recovery techniques to reduce the amount of data to be fed
back for CSI may also be used and are within the scope of the
invention.
The “threshold” referred to in Walton does not correspond to the
claimed “threshold.” We interpret this portion of Walton to say that CSI
may be transmitted when a change in CSI exceeds a threshold in order to
reduce the amount of data to be fed back. This is consistent with a goal of
the claimed invention, namely to de-clutter uplink feedback.
However, we part company with the Examiner in drawing the
conclusion that Walton teaches obtaining feedback regarding a first
downlink transmission mode (a first combination of antennas) and then
deciding whether or not to obtain additional feedback corresponding to other
transmission modes (other antenna arrangements) based on comparing the
feedback for the first transmission mode with a determined threshold. The
Walton threshold is simply a threshold used to decide whether CSI feedback
has sufficiently changed from a previously transmitted level of CSI feedback
to merit updating the CSI value. There is no relationship drawn between an
initial value of CSI corresponding to one transmission mode and follow up
feedback corresponding to another transmission mode. Onggosanusi does
not cure this deficiency.
We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 based
on Walton and Onggosanusi, or of claims 2-11 dependent thereon. This
analysis applies as well to claim 12 and its dependent claims 13-22 and we
therefore do not sustain that rejection as well.

Appeal 2010-002388
Application 11/254,172

9
Claims 23 and 27
Claims 23 and 27 focus on generating a feedback threshold and
sending it to one or more remote stations, the feedback threshold to be used
to control an amount of feedback to be uplinked to the base station. There is
no claimed relationship between the “feedback threshold” and corresponding
transmission modes.
Claim 23 is illustrative (emphases added).
23. A base station in a mobile communication network comprising:
a controller configured to generate a feedback threshold based
on conditions associated with a downlink channel for one or more
remote stations; and
a transmitter configured to transmit the feedback threshold to
one or more of the remote stations to control an amount of channel
quality feedback received at a multiple antenna transmitting station
from the remote stations.

With regard to independent claims 23 and 27, the Examiner finds
(Ans. 4-5) that Walton discloses a base station (104) in communication with
terminals (106) in a communication network (Walton ¶¶ [0026]; [0028]).
Walton discusses a base station in a communication system and a controller
configured to generate a feedback threshold based on conditions associated
with a downlink channel for one or more remote stations (see Walton Fig. 5,
¶¶ [0037], [0038], [0046], [0106], [0113], [0129], [0151], [0159]) showing a
scheduler (564), i.e. controller, connected to the receiver and transmitter,
generating a hypothesis metric, i.e. performance metric, based on terminal
and system performance metrics and evaluating the hypothesis metric, e.g.
using a threshold, and based on the result schedule a group of terminals for
transmission)) and transmit the feedback threshold to one or more of the
remote stations to control an amount of channel quality feedback received at
Appeal 2010-002388
Application 11/254,172

10
a multiple antenna transmitting station from the remote stations (Walton ¶¶
[0037], [0038], [0046], [0049], [0113], [0129], [0159] (discussing that the
scheduler regulates the amount of channel quality feedback sent from the
terminals to the base system to not to impact performance)).
The Examiner finds that Walton does not disclose a transmitter to
transmit signals to the remote station. Ans. 5. The Examiner looks to
Onggosanusi to supplement Walton by teaching a transmitter. Id. (citing
Onggosanusi ¶¶ 0009-0010). The Examiner urges that it would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to
modify Walton to include a transmitter, as taught by Onggosanusi, thus
“allowing better use of the system.” Id. (citing Onggosanusi ¶ 0003).
Appellants urge that Walton does not disclose transmitting a feedback
“threshold” from a base station to a mobile station to control the amount of
channel quality feedback transmitted by the mobile station to the base
station, as required by independent claims 23 and 27. App. Br. 9-10; Reply
Br. 3-4. Providing scheduled mobile terminals with a particular rate for
transmitting data, which dictates the data rate of future transmissions from
the mobile terminal, is said not to be the same as providing the claimed
feedback threshold to a remote station. Reply Br. 3.
We agree with the Appellants. Providing a data rate to mobile
stations is an acknowledgement of the channel quality previously determined
and an instruction to communicate at a data rate consistent with that channel
quality. Providing a data rate does not suggest a “threshold” that a mobile
station should use to determine if additional feedback is sought by the base
station. We see nothing in Walton that suggests that a terminal alter its
sending of feedback to base station 104 based on a data rate sent to it by the
Appeal 2010-002388
Application 11/254,172

11
base station. Thus, it is not a “threshold” in the sense required by claims 23
and 27. We must therefore reverse the rejection of claims 23 and 27, as well
as their respective dependent claims 24-26 and 28-30.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-30 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-30 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc