Ex Parte Kwon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2017

14036105 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2017)

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.
14/036,105 09/25/2013 Hwan-Joon Kwon 0201-1468-1 8485
02/15/201768103 7590
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
EXAMINER
DSOUZA, JOSEPH FRANCIS A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2017 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):
u sdocketing @ j effersonip .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 2016-006166
Application 14/036,105
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-006166
Application 14/036,105
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to feeding back channel quality
information from a mobile station to a base station, sub-band-by-sub-band
channel quality information is measured and channel-by-channel quality
information of a number of channels is transmitted in order of sub-bands of
better channel quality information. The average channel quality information
for a total band is measured and transmitted. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for feeding back channel quality information (CQI),
at a mobile station, in a wireless communication system based on
Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA), the
method comprising:
receiving, at the mobile station, a signal from a base station;
calculating, at the mobile station, a wideband CQI for an entire
band based on the signal, the entire band including at least one
sub-band;
calculating, at the mobile station, at least one sub-band CQI for
the at least one sub-band based on the signal;
transmitting the calculated wideband CQI for the entire band and
the calculated at least one sub-band CQI for the at least one sub­
band at a same transmission time interval.
2
Appeal 2016-006166
Application 14/036,105
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Braun US 2006/0057965 A1 Mar. 16,2006
Love US 2007/0026810 A1 Feb. 1, 2007
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 11,21, and 30 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting as being unpatentable over various claims in U.S. Patent
No. 8,565,328.
Claims 1, 3—7, 11, 13—17, 21—26, and 30-35 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C § 102(e) as being anticipated by Love.
Claims 2 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Love in view of Braun.
Claims 8—10, 18—20, 27—29, and 36—38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§103 (a) as being unpatentable over Love.
ISSUES
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Love
discloses the limitation of: “transmitting the calculated wideband CQI for
the entire band and the calculated at least one sub-band CQI for the at least
one sub-band at a same transmission time interval,” as recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and Final Action and
we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if Appellants
3
Appeal 2016-006166
Application 14/036,105
failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not unilaterally
review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d
1307, 1313—14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (The Board may treat arguments Appellants
failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived).
Double Patenting
We summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 11,21,
and 30 under double patenting because Appellants did not address this
rejection.
Claims 1, 3—7, 11, 13—17, 21—26, and 30—35 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C§ 102(e)
Appellants argue that Love does not disclose the limitation of
“transmitting the calculated wideband CQI for the entire band and the
calculated at least one sub-band CQI for the at least one sub-band at a same
transmission time interval” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 7—10).
Appellants particularly argue that Love discloses CQI reports sent at
the same transmission time interval being CQIs for each channel (i.e., SB
CQIs), and thus not constituting the wideband and sub-band CQI (App. Br. 8
citing to para. 23). Appellants further assert that all the CQIs of step 330 of
Figure 3 are FS CQIs, and therefore Love fails to teach transmission at the
same interval of a wideband CQI and at least one sub-band CQI (App. Br.
9). Appellants argue that the additional information sent in Love refers to a
bit map, not the wideband and sub-band CQIs sent at the same transmission
time interval (App. Br. 9).
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. Love discloses a
Frequency Selective (FS) mode, wherein “each of the plurality offrequency
4
Appeal 2016-006166
Application 14/036,105
bands measured may be a narrowband channel where the totality of
narrowband information may still represent a wide band measurement''
(para. 15 (emphasis added); Ans. 11—12). The CQI for each of the plurality
of frequency bands may be termed FS (or narrowband) CQIs (para. 15). In
other words, Love discloses that in the FS mode each of the plurality of
frequency bands measured are narrowband channels and the totality of the
narrowband measurement represents a wideband measurement. Thus, in the
embodiment wherein all the narrowband channels are measured, the
wideband measurement is also represented. Accordingly, when the
measurement report is sent, that report would include the narrowband
channels measured and the wideband measurement (i.e., the aggregation of
all the narrowband channels) (see Ans. 13, 2nd bullet).
We further agree with the Examiner’s alternate analysis, wherein
Love teaches a hybrid reporting of FS and Frequency Non-Selective (FNS)
modes (para. 15, Ans. 11—12). The term “hybrid” is defined, in pertinent
part, as “something that is a mixture of two different things.” Cambridge
Dictionary of American English at
http://dictionary.Cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hybrid (last visited
February 6th, 2017).
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 CQIfor 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
5
Appeal 2016-006166
Application 14/036,105
one or more sub-bands (FS mode) and the CQI of the wideband (FNS mode)
are reported at the same time.
We do not agree with Appellants’ response in the Reply Brief arguing
that “hybrid” would mean switching between the two modes rather than
combining the two modes or that the modes operate sequentially rather than
concurrently (Reply Br. 3). Love discloses that the link may operate in
frequency selective (FS) or a frequency non-selective (FNS) mode, or in
other modes, hybrid or semi-selective'1'’ (Love para. 15, emphasis added).
Thus, hybrid must mean something other than sequentially or alternative
modes. Paragraph 16 of Love, contrary to Appellants’ arguments, does not
address the hybrid mode but rather appears to address the frequency selective
(FS) or a frequency non-selective (FNS) mode wherein the FS and FNS are
selected alternatively.
We further disagree with Appellants’ response in the Reply Brief
stating that Love measures but does not transmit the measurements (see
Reply Br. 2). Figure 3 of Love shows measurement of CQIs (310) and
sending a report (330), wherein that report includes CQI measurement
values (see para. 25). Thus, Love discloses not just measuring but also
transmitting measurements.
Appellants rely on the same arguments for the dependent claims.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same
reasons the rejection of claims 3—7, 11, 13—17, 21—26, and 30-35 is
affirmed.
Claims 2, 8—10, 12, 18—20, and 27—29 rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103
We also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 8—10, 12, 18—20,
and 27—29, not argued separately, for the same reasons stated above.
6
Appeal 2016-006166
Application 14/036,105
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Love discloses the limitation
of: “transmitting the calculated wideband CQI for the entire band and the
calculated at least one sub-band CQI for the at least one sub-band at a same
transmission time interval,” as recited in claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—38 is
affirmed.
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
7