Ex Parte Khan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 2, 2016

12007586 (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/007,586
106809 7590
Docket Clerk - SAMS
P.O. Drawer 800889
Dallas, TX 75380
0111112008
05/25/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Farooq Khan
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.
P58387 9860
EXAMINER
BEDNASH, JOSEPH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2016 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):
patents@munckwilson.com
munckwilson@gmail.com
patent.srad@samsung.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte F AROOQ KHAN, JIANN-AN TSAI, JIANZHONG ZHANG, and
YINONGDING
Appeal2014-005880
Application 12/007,586
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, LARRY J. HUME, and SCOTT B. HOWARD,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-005880
Application 12/007,586
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphasis added to
the disputed portions of the claim, reads as follows:
1. A method for transmission, the method comprising:
demultiplexing information to be transmitted into a
plurality of stream blocks;
inserting a respective cyclic redundancy check to each of
the stream blocks;
encoding each of the stream blocks according to a
corresponding coding scheme;
modulating each of the stream blocks according to a
corresponding modulation scheme;
demultiplexing the stream blocks to generate a plurality
of sets of symbols, with each stream block being demultiplexed
into a set of symbols;
determining weaker channels having weaker channel
estimates from among a plurality of channels; and
transmitting the plurality of symbols via a plurality of
antenna ports, wherein the weaker channels are mapped to a
subset of a plurality of physical antennas according to a spacing
between each of the physical antennas, each set of symbols being
transmitted via a subset of the plurality of antenna ports.
2
Appeal2014-005880
Application 12/007,586
Examiner ;s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 17 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tong et al. (US 2008/0108310 Al; published
May 8, 2008), Wallace et al. (US 6,473,467 Bl; issued Oct. 29, 2002), 3GPP
TS 36.211, 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification
Group Radio Access Network; Physical Channels and Modulation (Release
8) (Mar. 2007) (hereinafter "DI), Jung et al. (US 2006/0093060 Al;
published May 4, 2006), and 3GPP TSG RAN WGI, E-UTRA Open Loop
Transmit Diversity Performance in Correlated Channels, St. Louis, Mo.
(Feb. 12-16, 2007) (hereinafter, "D2"). Final Act. 2-7.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 4--7 and 21-23 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tong, Wallace, Jung, and D2.
Final Act. 7-12.
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tong, Wallace, Jung, and D2.
Final Act. 12-17.
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 20 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tong, Wallace, Jung, D2, and DI. Final
Act. 17-19.
(5) The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 24 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tong, Wallace, Jung, D2, and Alamouti et al
(US 2004/0234003 Al; published Nov. 25, 2004). Final Act. 19-23.
(6) The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 25 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tong, Wallace, Jung, D2, Alamouti, Hottinen
(US 2005/0020215 Al; published Jan. 27, 2005). Final Act. 24--25.
3
Appeal2014-005880
Application 12/007,586
(7) The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 26 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tong, Wallace, Jung, D2, Alamouti, Aghvami
(US 2006/0193245 Al; published Aug. 31, 2006), and Paulraj (US
6,377,632 Bl; issued Apr. 23, 2002). Final Act. 25-27.
(8) The Examiner rejected claims 14 and 27 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tong, Jung, D2, Alamouti. Final Act. 27-31.
(9) The Examiner rejected claims 15 and 28 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tong, Jung, D2, Alamouti, Hottinen. Final
Act. 31-32.
(10) The Examiner rejected claims 16 and 29 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tong, Jung, D2, Alamouti, Aghvami, Paulraj.
Final Act. 32-34.
Principal Issue on Appeal1
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 26-37)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-9), the following principal issue is
presented on appeal:
Appellants present detailed arguments on the merits only with respect
to claim 1 (App. Br. 26-33; Reply Br. 2-9). Appellants rely on the
arguments presented for claim 1 as to the patentability of remaining
independent claim 17, which contains similar features (App. Br. 33).
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims
(claims 1-3 and 17) rejected for obviousness over the combination of Tong,
Wallace, DI, Jung, and D2.
With regard to the rejection of (i) claims 4--7 and 21-23 over the
combination of Tong, Wallace, Jung, and D2; (ii) claims 8, 9, 18, and 19
over the combination of Tong, Wallace, Jung, and D2; (iii) claims 10 and 20
over the combination of Tong, Wallace, Jung, D2, and DI; (iv) claims 11
and 24 over the combination of Tong, Wallace, Jung, D2, and Alamouti; ( v)
claims 12 and 25 over the combination of Tong, Wallace, Jung, D2,
Alamouti, and Hottinen; (vi) claims 13 and 16 over the combination of
4
Appeal2014-005880
Application I2/007,586
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-3 and 17 as being obvious
over the combination of Tong, Wallace, DI, Jung, and D2 because the
combination fails to teach or suggest:
determining weaker channels having weaker channel estimates
from among a plurality of channels; and transmitting the plurality
of symbols via a plurality of antenna ports, wherein the weaker
channels are mapped to a subset of a plurality of physical
antennas according to a spacing between each of the physical
antennas, each set of symbols being transmitted via a subset of
the plurality of antenna ports,
as recited in representative independent claim I, and as similarly recited in
independent claim I 7?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 2-34) in light
of Appellants' contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 26-37) and the
Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-9) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the
Examiner's response (Ans. 2-I8) to Appellants' arguments in the Appeal
Brief. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions.
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and adopt
as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-34), and (2) the reasons
Tong, Wallace, Jung, D2, Alamouti, Aghvami, and Paulraj; (vii) claims I4
and 27 over the combination of Tong, Jung, D2, and Alamouti; (viii) claims
I 5 and 28 over the combination of Tong, Jung, D2, Alamouti, and Hottinen;
and (ix) claims I 6 and 29 over the combination of Tong, Jung, D2,
Alamouti, Aghvami, and Paulraj, Appellants rely on the arguments already
presented with respect representative claim I, and additionally argue that the
various tertiary references applied do not cure the deficiencies of the base
combination of Tong, Wallace, DI, Jung, and D2 (App. Br. 33-37; Reply
Br. 9).
5
Appeal2014-005880
Application 12/007,586
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-18). We highlight and amplify certain
teachings and suggestions of the references, as well as certain ones of
Appellants' arguments as follows.
Appellants' contention (App Br. 29-31) that weaker channels do not
necessarily have weaker channel estimates is not persuasive. As the
Examiner correctly notes (Ans. 2-8), the Specification (i-fi-f 10 and 53)
describes channels having reduced signal density as having weaker channel
estimates. Therefore, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
relying on Tong (i1i190, 153) as disclosing channels having reduced signals
also have weaker channel estimates or D 1 (p. 15, Fig. 5) as teaching a step to
determine which channels have the weaker channel estimates.
Appellants' further contention (App. Br. 31-33) that Jung and D2 fail
to teach or suggest "wherein the weaker channels are mapped to a subset of
a plurality of physical antennas according to a spacing between each of the
physical antennas, each set of symbols being transmitted via a subset of the
plurality of antenna ports" is also not persuasive. Jung (Fig. 2; i1i131-33)
teaches or suggests mapping channels to a series of physical antennas and
would be motivated to do so to achieve higher transmission efficiency (Jung:
i1i1 8 and 11 ). D2 (pp. 1 and 3) teaches or suggests increasing antenna
spacing improves transmission performance. The combination of Jung and
D2, therefore, teach or suggest mapping weaker channels to a subset of a
plurality of physical antennas according to a physical spacing between each
of the antennas. Appellants have failed to show otherwise.
6
Appeal2014-005880
Application I2/007,586
In light of our agreement with the Examiner's findings, Appellants'
contentions that the combination of Tong, Wallace, DI, Jung, and D2 fails to
teach or suggest:
determining weaker channels having weaker channel estimates
from among a plurality of channels; and transmitting the plurality
of symbols via a plurality of antenna ports, wherein the weaker
channels are mapped to a subset of a plurality of physical
antennas according to a spacing between each of the physical
antennas, each set of symbols being transmitted via a subset of
the plurality of antenna ports,
as recited in representative independent claim I, and as similarly recited in
independent claim I 7 are not persuasive.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims I-3 and I 7 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a). For similar reasons, and we
also sustain the Examiner's remaining obviousness rejections of claims 4-I6
and I8-29 (which also rely on various combinations of Tong, Wallace, DI,
Jung, D2 and other tertiary references).
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims I-3 and I 7 as being
obvious over the combination of Tong, Wallace, DI, Jung, D2 because the
combination teaches or suggests:
determining weaker channels having weaker channel estimates
from among a plurality of channels; and transmitting the plurality
of symbols via a plurality of antenna ports, wherein the weaker
channels are mapped to a subset of a plurality of physical
antennas according to a spacing between each of the physical
antennas, each set of symbols being transmitted via a subset of
the plurality of antenna ports,
as recited in representative independent claim I, and as similarly recited in
independent claim I 7. For similar reasons, the Examiner has also not erred
7
Appeal2014-005880
Application 12/007,586
in rejecting claims 4--16 and 18-29, which recite similar features to those
discussed with regard to independent claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
8