Ex Parte Lin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2018

13648603 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/648,603 10/10/2012
57035 7590 11/28/2018
KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC
Attention: Tricia Riddle
430 Davis Drive
Suite 150
Morrisville, NC 27560
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Xintian E. Lin
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.
P21283C7/1020P21283C7 1039
EXAMINER
TORRES, JUAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/28/2018 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):
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
docketing@kdbfirm.com
intel@kdbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XINTIAN E. LIN and QINGHUA LI
Appeal2018-005009
Application 13/648,603 1
Technology Center 2600
Before LARRY J. HUME, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3---6, 8-12, 26, and 28-30, which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Intel Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2018-005009
Application 13/648,603
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates generally
to communication systems, and more particularly to a codebook generation
system and associated methods. See Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a processor circuit arranged to select a precoding matrix
for a transmitter of a remote device based on channel conditions
of a communication channel for a closed-loop multiple-input
and multiple-output (MIMO) orthogonal frequency-division
multiple access (OFDMA) system, the precoding matrix
dynamically constructed by selection of one or more vectors
from stored vector codebook and application of a transform to
the one or more vectors by the processor circuit, and the
transmitter of the remote device capable of utilizing multiple
transmitter antennae (Nt) and multiple spatial channels (N s ).
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 3---6, 8-12, 26, and 28-30 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Applicants' Admitted Prior Art
(Spec. 1: 15-2: 12) ("AAPA") and Tong (US 2008/0108310 Al, published
May 8, 2008) (using Figure 7 of Giaimo (US 2004/0090924 Al, published
May 13, 2004) to show the typical structure of an 802.11 system).
Alternatively, claims 1, 3---6, 8-12, 26, and 28-30 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA and "Unified
MIMO Pre-Coding based on Givens Rotation," IEEE C802.16e-04/5I6, 1-
11 (November 4, 2004) ("Ansari") (using Giaimo's Figure 7 to show the
typical structure of an 802.11 system).
Alternatively, claims 1, 3---6, 8-12, 26, and 28-30 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA and "Channel
2
Appeal2018-005009
Application 13/648,603
Feedback Quantization Methods for MISO and MIMO Systems," Vol. 2,
15th IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio
Communications PIMRC 2004, 805-809 (September 5-8, 2004) ("Roh")
(using Giaimo's Figure 7 to show the typical structure of an 802.11 system).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants'
contention that the Examiner erred in determining the cited portions of
AAPA and Tong (or alternatively, AAPA and Ansari; or AAPA and Roh)2
collectively teach "the precoding matrix dynamically constructed by
selection of one or more vectors from stored vector codebook and
application of a transform to the one or more vectors by the processor
circuit," as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added). See Br. 10-12.
The Examiner cites AAPA's page 1, line 15 through page 2, line 12
for teaching the italicized claim limitation. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 21-22.
However, the Examiner does not specifically map the "dynamically"
constructed precoding matrix. Nor does the Examiner explain why AAPA
describes "dynamically" constructing the precoding matrix.
Further, we have reviewed the cited AAPA's portions, and they do not
describe the "precoding matrix dynamically constructed," as required by
claim 1. To the contrary, the cited AAPA's excerpts describe storing-not
"dynamically" constructing-the precoding matrix. See AAP A ,r 4
( explaining prior to Appellants' invention, "the receiver will typically feed
2 In alternative rejections, the Examiner cites Ansari (or Roh) instead of
Tong. Our analysis and conclusion remain the same regardless of whether
the Examiner cites Tong, Ansari, or Roh as the secondary reference.
3
Appeal2018-005009
Application 13/648,603
back only an index (instead of the actual matrix entries) that points to the
appropriate codeword in the codebook( s) stored at the transmitter"). In
contrast, the Specification describes the invention "dynamically generat[ es]
the matrix codebooks rather than having them stored on the mobile device."
Spec. ,r 8.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Each of independent claims 6 and 26 recites a claim limitation that is
substantively similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claims 6 and
26. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 6 and 26.
We also reverse the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 3-5, 8-12, and 28-30.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3---6, 8-12, 26,
and 28-30.
REVERSED
4