14660614 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

Ex Parte Kwon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 21, 2018

14660614 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/660,614 03/17/2015 68103 7590 08/23/2018 Jefferson IP Law, LLP 1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420 Washington, DC 20036 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hwan-Joon Kwon 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. 0201-1468-2 1086 EXAMINER DSOUZA, JOSEPH FRANCIS A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2632 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): usdocketing@jeffersonip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HWAN-JOON KWON, KYEONG-IN JEONG, JIN-KYU HAN, and DONG-HEE KIM Appeal 2017-011038 Application 14/660,614 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, SCOTT E. BAIN, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. Appeal 2017-011038 Application 14/660,614 DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. The claims are directed to an apparatus and method for feeding back channel quality information, and a scheduling apparatus and method using the same, in a wireless communication system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for transmitting channel quality indicator (CQI) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: obtaining, at a mobile station, a wideband CQI; transmitting, at the mobile station, the wideband CQI; obtaining, at the mobile station, a sub-band CQI for a sub- band selected by the mobile station; and transmitting, at the mobile station, both the sub-band CQI and index for the sub-band, wherein a period for a wideband CQI report is based on N times of a period for at least one sub-band CQI report, and wherein N is an integer number greater than 1. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (See App. Br. 2). 2 Appeal 2017-011038 Application 14/660,614 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Braun et al. Love et al. US 2006/0057965 Al US 2007/0026810 Al REJECTIONS Mar. 16, 2006 Feb. 1, 2007 The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 were rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 6, and 16 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 8,565,328. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 recite substantially the same limitations as claims 1, 11, 6, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,565,328. (Final Act. 5). In response to the Final Rejection, Appellants filed a Terminal Disclaimer on January 18, 2017. As a result, the double-patenting rejection is MOOT. Claims 1, 2, 4--7, 9--12, 14--17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Love. (Final Act. 6). Claims 3, 8, 13, and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Love in view of Braun. (Final Act. 10). ANALYSIS Appellants contend that Love does not teach or suggest each of the claimed steps in the method of independent claim 1. (App. Br. 5-7). Additionally, Appellants contend that Love does not disclose or suggest each of the "wherein" limitations in the method of independent claim 1. (App. Br. 7- 9). 3 Appeal 2017-011038 Application 14/660,614 We note that the Examiner finds that this appeal is related to Appeal 2016-006166 (Application 14/036,105), in which the Board affirmed the anticipation rejection based upon the Love reference applied in this appeal. (Ans. 9). In the present appeal, the Examiner elaborates on the findings and reasoning of Appeal 2016-006166. The Examiner further finds: In hybrid mode, which is a combination of FS and FNS mode, CO Is of the sub band (i.e. narrowband COI) and entire band (wideband COI) is reported. Love states "Band specific FS reporting may also be used for FNS scheduling at the cost of increased COi feedback" ([0015], lines 12 - 13). That is, in FNS mode (i.e. wideband mode), FS reporting (i.e. sub band reporting) is also done. The increased COI feedback is because the COI of the specific band(s) is sent along with the COI of the wideband in FS mode. Further in FS only mode, if all sub bands are selected, then all sub bands together would comprise a wideband channel. Love states "In FS mode, each of the plurality of frequency bands measured may be a narrowband channel where the totality of narrowband information may still represent a wide band measurement" ([0015], 2nd last sentence). This clearly means that when reporting CQis is of all sub bands, the CQI of not only the sub band is sent but also the wideband CQI. (Ans. 12). Regarding Appellants' argument that Love does not explicitly disclose a period for the wideband CQI report based on N times the period for at least one sub-band CQI report, as recited in claim 1, the Examiner finds the Love reference discloses reporting the CQI periodically on a frame- by-frame basis and that one of ordinary skill in the art can transmit the 4 Appeal 2017-011038 Application 14/660,614 CQI's at different rates. (Ans. 13; see Love ,r 14). We agree with the Examiner and find Appellants' arguments to be unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's factual findings and conclusion of obviousness based upon the hybrid mode which is a combination of the FS and FNS modes, CQis of the sub band (i.e. narrowband CQI) and entire band (wideband CQI). Reply Brief Appellants attempt to distinguish the factual findings in the prior Board Decision, mailed February 15, 2017, in the '105 application. (Reply Br. 2-5). While we agree with Appellants that the claim language is not the same, Appellants do not persuasively identify how the claim limitations and the findings of fact regarding the Love reference in the prior Board decision are distinguishable. In the prior Board decision, the Board found: In FS mode, CQI of one or more sub-bands is reported (para. 15, Ans. 12). Love discloses that in the Frequency Non-Selective (FNS) mode, the plurality of frequency bands typically covers a wideband channel wherein substantially the entire bandwidth of the allocated frequency resources is considered (para. 15, Ans. 12). In FNS mode, the measured CQI for each of a plurality of frequency bands may be expressed as a single FNS (or wideband) CQI (para. 15, Ans. 11-12). Thus, in a hybrid mode the CQI of one or more sub-bands (FS mode) and the CQI of the wideband (FNS mode) are reported at the same time. (Prior Decision 5-6). With respect to the sub-band CQI and the index of the sub-band, Appellants' Background of the Invention discloses: 5 Appeal 2017-011038 Application 14/660,614 FIG. 3 is a timing diagram illustrating an operation for feeding back forward channel quality information from an MS in the OFDMA mobile communication system for performing packet data communication. . . . In the OFDMA system, each MS conventionally feeds back a pair of a sub-band index and channel quality information. . . . Thus, the MS conventionally selects several best sub- bands and feeds back sub-band indices and their channel quality information. (Spec. ,r,r 18-19). Additionally, we note that both the present invention and the disclosure of the Love reference are directed to "Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) systems, and related methods." (Love ,r 1). Consequently, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Love reference does not teach or suggest both the wideband CQI, the sub- band CQI, and the index for the sub-band because both the disclosed invention and the prior art system pertain to OFDMA. Appellants further contend that the Love reference does not disclose that "a period for a wideband CQI report is based on N times of a period for at least one sub-band CQI report, ... wherein N is an integer number greater than 1." Appellants further contend that the Examiner relied upon impermissible hindsight to conclude that a PHO SIT A at the time of the effective filing of the application would have realized the claimed subject matter based on Love. (Reply Br. 5-6). The Examiner agrees that the Love reference does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation, but finds: [ o ]ne of ordinary skill in the art can transmit the sub-band and wideband CQis at different rates. As per Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143), this is an obvious variation with a 6 Appeal 2017-011038 Application 14/660,614 high degree of success and ... quite easily accomplished by one of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner further finds that transmitting the wideband CQI less often would reduce data. (Ans. 13-14). We agree with the Examiner's conclusion and line of reasoning and find Appellants' general argument does not show error a reliance upon hindsight in formulating the obviousness rejection because the Examiner has provided a line of reasoning and identified how the teachings of the prior art references would have been combined. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. DECISION For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7