11945141 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2019)

Ex Parte KIM et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 7, 2019

11945141 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 11/945,141 11/26/2007 66547 7590 06/11/2019 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 2IOE Melville, NY 11747 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Eung-Sun KIM 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. 678-1776 DIV 6835 EXAMINER KIM,KEVIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2632 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/11/2019 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): pto@farrelliplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte EUNG-SUN KIM, JONG-HYEUK LEE, JAE- RAK CHUNG, HO-JIN KIM, JOO-HWAN CHUN, KYUNG- CHUN LEE, and IL-HAN KIM 1 Appeal2017-007305 Application 11/945, 141 Technology Center 2600 Before JENNIFER S. BISK, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. BISK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 8, 13, 18, 23, and 28-35, which are all claims pending in the application. Appellants have canceled claims 1-7, 9-12, 14--17, 19-22, 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2017-007305 Application 11/945, 141 and 24--27. Appeal Br. 9-11 (Claims App'x). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. BACKGROUND2 Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to a "method for assigning a pilot channel to estimate a downlink channel in a mobile communication system having multiple transmission and/or reception antennas." Spec. 1: 15-18. Claim 8, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal ( emphasis added to contested limitation): 8. A method for transmitting pilot signals in a communication system supporting a plurality of antennas, the method compnsmg: identifying a frequency resource; identifying N pilot sequences to be assigned to N antenna ports; assigning the identified N pilot sequences to the N antenna ports; and transmitting the N pilot sequences through the frequency resource and the N antenna ports, wherein the N is an integer greater than or equal to 1, and the N pilot sequences are orthogonal sequences, wherein an element of each pilot sequence to be assigned to a corresponding antenna port is determined according to time, and 2 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Specification filed November 26, 2007 ("Spec."), the Final Rejection mailed May 24, 2016 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed October 24, 2016 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed February 7, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed April 3, 2017 ("Reply Br.") 2 Appeal2017-007305 Application 11/945, 141 wherein the N pilot sequences are identified from predefined L sequences having length L, where L is an integer greater than or equal to 1. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App'x). REJECTION Claims 8, 13, 18, 23, and 28-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of US 2003/0129985 Al, published July 10, 2003 ("Naden"), US 6,804,264 Bl, issued Oct. 12, 2004 ("Song"), and US 2004/0179627 Al, published Sept. 16, 2004 ("Ketchum"). Final Act. 2---6. ANALYSIS Rejection of Claims 8, 13, 18, 23, and 28-35 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 The Examiner rejects claims 8, 13, 18, 23, and 28-35 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as obvious over a combination ofNaden, Song, and Ketchum. Final Act. 2-6. Based on Appellants' arguments ( Appeal Br. 5-8) and our discretion under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv), we decide the appeal of this rejection on the basis of representative claim 8. The Examiner relies on Naden as teaching "wherein the N pilot sequences are identified from predefined L sequences having length L, 3 Appeal2017-007305 Application 11/945, 141 where L is an integer greater than or equal to 1" ("predefined L sequences having length L limitation"). Final Act. 4; 3 Ans. 2--4. Appellants argue that although Naden shows two pilots, Pl and P2, "Naden is silent with respect to the length of Pl and P2." Appeal Br. 7. Accordingly, Appellants assert that Naden does not teach or suggest the predefined L sequences having length L limitation. The Examiner disagrees with Appellants' contention. Ans. 2--4. According to the Examiner, "the very fact that [Naden] does not limit the length of each of the pilot sequences tells one skilled in the art that any length is possible such as 2, 4, ... , N, where N is a positive integer." Ans. 3. The Examiner also points out that Naden teaches that a base station could have two or more antennas. Id. ( citing N aden ,r 51 ). Thus, the Examiner concludes that "two or more pilot sequences can be used because each antenna uses one pilot sequence" and "any number of pilot sequences may be used with any length of sequence, possible combinations include a case where the number of pilot sequences (2, 4, ... , N) is the same as the length of a sequence (2, 4, ... , N)." Id. (citing Naden Fig. 2). Appellants contend that the Examiner's explanation does not show that the predefined L sequences having length L limitation is taught by Naden, but instead shows only that "it could happen." Reply Br. 2. In particular, Appellants emphasize that the Examiner states that the limitation "is not excluded." Id. at 3 (quoting Ans. 3). 3 In the Final Rejection, the Examiner discusses the predefined L sequences having length L limitation under a header for claims 9, 10, 19, and 20. Final Act. 3--4. However, in an amendment filed and entered concurrently with the Appeal Brief, Appellants added this limitation to claims 8, 13, 18, and 23 and cancelled claims 9, 10, 19, and 20. Appeal Br. 5; Ans. 2. 4 Appeal2017-007305 Application 11/945, 141 We agree with Appellants. Like Appellants, we understand the Examiner to rely on the fact that Naden teaches the use of multiple pilot sequences of any length. Ans. 3--4. The Examiner, however, does not explain how this disclosure would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the number of sequences would be equal to the length of the sequences. Ans. 3. In fact, we find no suggestion in Naden that the length of the sequences has any relation to the number of sequences. We, therefore, do not agree that the Examiner has shown that N aden teaches or suggests the predefined L sequences having length L limitation. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner's finding that claims 8, 13, 18, and 23 would have been obvious over a combination ofNaden, Song, and Ketchum. The same is true for claims 28-35, which depend from claims 8, 13, 18, and 23. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting the claims. REVERSED 5