Ex Parte KAZMI et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 21, 201815097710 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 15/097,710 04/13/2016 Muhammad KAZMI 113648 7590 08/23/2018 Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC P.O. Box 7999 Fredericksburg, VA 22404-7999 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. Ol 10-356-CON-3/P25409US5 5292 EXAMINER SKRIPNIKOV, ALEX ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2416 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2018 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): Mailroom@ppblaw.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MUHAMMAD KAZMI, JINGYI LIAO, RONG HU, and STEP AN WAGER Appeal2018-002559 Application 15/097, 710 1 Technology Center 2600 Before MARC S. HOFF, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1 and 11. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 have been indicated to contain allowable subject matter. Final Act. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed Aug. 25, 2017, the Answer 1 According to Appellants the real party in interest is TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL). App. Br. 2. Appeal2018-002559 Application 15/097,710 ("Ans.") mailed Nov. 17, 2017, and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed Jan. 17, 2018, for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments actually raised by Appellants in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(vii). Appellants 'Invention Appellants' invention relates generally to a method for limiting the Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) reporting in a telecommunication system. See Spec., page 1, 11. 20-22. Claims 1 and 11 read as follows: (App. Br. 9-11 ): 1. A method for limiting Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) reporting from a User Equipment to a network node, comprising: selecting between at least a first CQ I reporting mode and a second CQI reporting mode; determining that at least one CQ I reporting trigger rule is satisfied, wherein the at least one CQI reporting trigger rule depends at least on whether the first or the second CQ I reporting mode is selected; transmitting, responsive to the determination that at least one CQ I reporting trigger rules [sic] is satisfied, at least one CQ I report to said network node by said User Equipment. 11. A method at a network node for limiting Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) reporting from a User Equipment to the network node, comprising: determining rules for triggering reporting of CQis specified for the User Equipment; and transmitting CQI specific information to the User Equipment, wherein the CQI specific information includes the rules for triggering reporting of CQis specified for the User Equipment, 2 Appeal2018-002559 Application 15/097,710 wherein the rules for triggering reporting of CQis include at least one first rule applied in a first CQI reporting mode and at least one second rule applied in a second CQI reporting mode. The Examiner's Rejection Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) as being anticipated by Jersenius et al. (US 2010/0202306 Al, pub: Aug. 12, 2010). Final Act. 2. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 11 in light of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to each argument presented by Appellants on pages 3 through 8 of the Answer. We have reviewed this response and concur with the Examiner's findings and conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Final Action and Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 3-8. We have considered Appellants' Reply Brief, but find it unpersuasive to rebut the Examiner's responses. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. 3 Appeal2018-002559 Application 15/097,710 Claim 1 Based on Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 turns on whether Jersenius discloses "selecting between at least a first CQI reporting mode and a second CQI reporting mode," as recited in independent claim 1 (hereinafter "selecting limitation," see App. Br. 5-6). The Examiner finds that the selecting limitation is disclosed in Jersenius as explained on pages 3 through 6 of the Answer. In particular, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that: The eNodeB chooses a type of transport format out of a predefined set of transport format types stored therein accordingly, such as a type defining "only CQI", i.e. 100% or 95-100% CQI, or another type defining a lesser amount of CQI, for example 5-10% CQI or type 1 format.[] (Jersenius [0076]). Ans. 4 ( original emphasis omitted). In other words, the Jersenius system chooses (i.e., selects) CQI type/size based on the uplink grant. Id. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Jersenius. Claim 11 Based on Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 turns on whether Jersenius discloses "first rule applied in a first CQI reporting mode and at least one second rule applied in a second CQI reporting mode," as recited in independent claim 11 (see App. Br. 7). 4 Appeal2018-002559 Application 15/097,710 Jersenius discloses: [0009] A CQI reporting trigger may be expressed in terms of a logical expression involving timers, events, and conditions. A simple periodic CQI reporting trigger will just consist of a periodic timer and a rule that a certain CQI report shall be transmitted every time the timer expires. J ersenius, ,r 9 ( emphasis added) The Examiner finds, and we agree: CRT 301 of Fig. 3 and CRT 401 of Fig. 4 are expected to be those of the multiple CRT 806 illustrated on Fig. 6. It is clear from Jersenius [0007]-[0008] and [0064] that eNobe B will deliver CQI reporting trigger set (CRTS) consisting of CQI reporting triggers (CRT) to UE "the criteria for when and how to deliver different types of CQI reports, typically defined as specified above with reference to FIG. 2, configured as a CRTS by eNodeB is delivered to and received by the UE." Jersenius [0078] discloses "once the availability of an uplink grant comprising a transport format indicating a required amount of channel state feedback information, and/or, if applicable, the validity of the remaining CRT criteria, has been determined by the determining unit 802, a CQI report of the required size is generated by the generating unit 801. The CQI report is then transmitted to the eNodeB 700 via a transmitting unit 807 of the transceiver unit 805 on the resource allocated in the grant." "FIG. 2 illustrates a table of a CQI trigger configuration for a UE. The table comprises a plurality of CQI reporting triggers, CRT 1-n, configured for the UE. Each CRT is associated with one of the CQI report types, CQI A-X" (Jersenius [0008]). Ans. 7-8 ( emphasis in original omitted). In other words, Jersenius explicitly discloses different rules for different CQI reports. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). 5 Appeal2018-002559 Application 15/097,710 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102( e) as being anticipated by J ersenius. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation