Ex Parte Hui et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2013

11763192 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2013)

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.
11/763,192 06/14/2007 Dennis Hui 4015-5712 / P23596-US1 3182
24112 7590 12/11/2013
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
PATEL, DHAVAL V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/11/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DENNIS HUI and LEONID KRASNY
____________

Appeal 2011-012996
Application 11/763,192
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-5, 7-22, and 24-33.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

1 Claims 6 and 23 are objected to as depending on a rejected base claim, but
would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. As a result, claims 6
and 23 are not before us.
Appeal 2011-012996
Application 11/763,192

2
In reaching the decision, we have considered only the arguments that
Appellants actually raised. Arguments that Appellants did not make are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2010).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present invention relates to wireless communication systems. See
generally Spec., 1. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of controlling transmission from a multi-antenna
transmitter comprising:
generating an initial set of template channel realizations;
determining second-order statistics for actual channel realizations at a
targeted receiver;
adapting the initial set of template channel realizations as a function
of the second-order channel statistics to obtain a set of virtual channel
realizations that reflect the second-order channel statistics of the actual
channel realizations; and
determining one or more transmission control parameters as a
function of the set of virtual channel realizations for controlling transmission
to the targeted receiver.

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 17-22, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Giannakis (US 2004/0066761), and Wang (US
2007/0174038). Ans. 4-11.
Claims 7 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Giannakis, Wang, and Han (EP 1780925). Ans. 11-12.
Claims 11-14 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Giannakis, Wang and Sampath (Linear Precoding
Appeal 2011-012996
Application 11/763,192

3
for Space-Time Coded Systems With Known Fading Correlations, Sampath
et al., June 2002). Ans. 12-15.
Claims 15, 16, 32, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Giannakis and Wang. Ans. 15-17.

ISSUE
The dispositive issue2 presented by Appellants’ contentions is: Under
35 U.S.C. § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Giannakis and
Wang collectively teach “adapting the initial set of template channel
realizations as a function of the second-order channel statistics to obtain a
set of virtual channel realizations” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
On this record, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1.
The Examiner finds that
Giannakis discloses adapting the initial set of template channel
realizations (page 3, [0031] discloses random vector and [0034]
discloses Gaussian distributed vectors, page 3, [0041] discloses
independent identically distributed Gaussian distributed
samples) as a function of the second-order channel statistics
(page 3, [0034] discloses the statistical property is described by
the mean and covariance matrix of h based on the channel
feedback, and [0042] discloses determining feedback quality,
[0046], covariance feedback, page 7, [0107], covariance
feedback, page 7, [01222]) to obtain virtual channel realizations
that reflect the second-order channel statistics of the actual
channel realizations (page 7, [0123] discloses eigenvectors
coincide with the eigenvectors of the channel’s correlation

2 Appellants raise additional issues. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional issues.
Appeal 2011-012996
Application 11/763,192

4
matrix, and [0124] discloses optimal covariance contains Eigen
beams, page 8, [0139] and [0130] discloses precoding matrix
with as function of the covariance matrix and also Eigen-beam
information for power loading for diagonal matrix with the
orhonormal column, [0141] also discloses received signal wit
the covariance matrix, channel matrix and optimal Eigen-beam
information, so, here, the virtual channel is based on the initial
information as well as covariance matrix, U)[.]

Ans. 20-21. The Examiner also cites Wang’s paragraphs 41, 43, and 44.
See Ans. 22.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejections are inconsistent: the
Examiner first asserts that Giannakis teaches adapting the initial set of
template channel realizations as a function of the second-order channel
statistics to obtain a set of virtual channel realizations, but later
acknowledges Giannakis does not teach that claim limitation after all. See
App. Br. 8. Appellants contend that instead of explaining how Giannakis
teaches the claimed limitation, the rejections simply include a hodgepodge
naming of disparate teachings in Giannakis. See App. Br. 14. Appellants
further contend that Wang does not teach the claimed limitation either
because Wang teaches precoders, not channel realizations, and certainly not
virtual channel realizations. See App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 5.
We agree with Appellants that the cited Giannakis and Wang passages
do not teach “adapting the initial set of template channel realizations as a
function of the second-order channel statistics to obtain a set of virtual
channel realizations.” The Examiner does not adequately explain, and we do
not see, how the cited passages teach the claimed limitation. We agree with
Appellants that the Examiner cites disparate teachings in Giannakis, but does
Appeal 2011-012996
Application 11/763,192

5
not adequately explain how such disparate teachings fit together to teach the
claimed limitation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1,
and claim 17 that includes a similar claim limitation; and their corresponding
dependent claims.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-22, and 24-33 is
reversed.

REVERSED

dw