Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

14351180 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/351,180 04/11/2014
29683 7590 08/23/2018
Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC
4 RESEARCH DRIVE, Suite 202
SHELTON, CT 06484-6212
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JingxiuLiu
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.
863.0944.Ul(US) 9334
EXAMINER
AJID, ABDELTIF
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2478
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):
USPTO@HSPATENT.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JINGXIU LIU and XUEGANG HUANG
Appeal2018-002876
Application 14/3 51,180 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, HUNG H. BUI, and AARON W. MOORE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-13, which are all the claims
pending in the application. Claim 4 is cancelled. Claims App'x. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE. 2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Solutions and
Networks Oy. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed May 30,
2017; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed October 12, 2017; Final Office
Action ("Final Act.") mailed November 18, 2016; and original Specification
("Spec.") filed April 11, 2014.
Appeal2018-002876
Application 14/3 51, 180
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "a method for allocating a
transmission mode to a user equipment for a radio transmission within a
cellular network between the user equipment [UE] and a base station [BS],
wherein the user equipment [UE] is adapted to communicate with the base
station [BS] in the allocated transmission mode via a communication
channel." Abstract. Because "different transmission modes are designed for
user equipments (UEs) in different scenarios ( channel condition, moving
speed, etc.) and different UE capabilities" (Spec. 1:16-18) and "[t]hese
capabilities may change over time' (Spec. 2:20), "an adaptive allocation of
transmission modes based on determined current capabilities of a UE" is
necessary for overall spectrum efficiency (Spec. 2:28-32).
Claims 1, 11, and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in
italics:
1. A method comprising:
determining, by a base station, [ 1] CQIISINR information
indicative of the quality of the communication channel between
the base station and a user equipment;
receiving, by the base station, [2] feedback CQIISINR
information from the user equipment indicative of the quality of
the communication channel determined by the user equipment;
using an outer loop link adaptation (OLLA) algorithm to
determine [3] a compensation value based on the CQIISINR
information and the feedback CQIISINR information, wherein
the compensation value is an OLLA offset for compensating for
a difference between the CQI/SINR information and the
feedback CQI/SINR information;
determining an adapted transmission mode for the user
equipment based on the compensation value; and
2
Appeal2018-002876
Application 14/3 51, 180
allocating the adapted transmission mode to the user
equipment.
App. Br. 12 (Claims App'x.) (bracketing added).
Evidence Considered
JEONG et al. US 2007 /0115796 Al May 24, 2007
SAY ANA et al. US 2008/0273490 Al Nov. 6, 2008
MEDAPALLI et al. US 2009/0310550 Al Dec. 17, 2009
OTERI et al. US 2010/0284454 Al Nov. 11, 2010
NORY et al. US 2013/0044664 Al Feb.21,2013
EXAMINER'S REJECTI0NS 3
(1) Claims 1-3 and 11-12 [sic, 11-13] 4 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Medapalli and Oteri. Final
Act. 3-10.
(2) Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
obvious over Medapalli, Oteri, and Nory. Final Act. 10.
(3) Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
obvious over Medapalli, Oteri, Nory, and Sayana. Final Act. 10-11.
3 Claim 7 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite (Final Act. 2-3). However, the
Examiner withdrew the§ 112 rejection (Ans. 4). As such, we need not
address this rejection on appeal.
4 Claim 13 was added by Appellants in the Appeal Brief and the Examiner
entered such a claim in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 4). Claim 13 contains
identical limitations of claim 1, except the preamble is recited in the form of
the so-called Beauregard format. For purposes of completeness, claim 13
will be addressed along with claim 1 herein.
3
Appeal2018-002876
Application 14/3 51, 180
(4) Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Medapalli, Oteri, Nory, and Jeong. Final Act. 11.
(5) Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Medapalli, Oteri, and Magnusson. Final Act. 11-13.
DISCUSSION
In support of the obviousness rejection of claim 1 and, similarly,
claims 11 and 13, the Examiner finds Medapalli discloses most major
aspects of Appellants' invention, including disputed limitations:
[1] "determining ... CQI/SINR information indicative of the
quality of the communication channel between the base station
and a user equipment" (Medapalli ,r 21 );
[2] "receiving ... feedback CQI/SINR information from the
user equipment indicative of the quality of the communication
channel determined by the user equipment" (Medapalli ,r,r 3, 11 );
and
[3] "determin[ing] a compensation value based on the
CQI/SINR information and the feedback CQI/SINR information,
wherein the compensation value is an OLLA offset for
compensating for a difference between the CQI/SINR
information and the feedback CQI/SINR information"
(Medapalli ,r,r 26, 28).
Final Act. 4--5 ( emphasis added and omitted). According to the Examiner,
(1) Medapalli's "correction parameter" teaches the claimed "CQI/SINR
information"; (2) Medapalli's "first channel quality parameter" teaches the
claimed "feedback CQI/SINR information"; and (3) Medapalli's "second
channel quality parameter" teaches the claimed "compensation value [] an
OLLA offset for compensating for a difference between the CQI/SINR
information and the feedback CQI/SINR information." Ans. 8.
4
Appeal2018-002876
Application 14/3 51, 180
The Examiner acknowledges Medapalli does not expressly teach, but
relies on Oteri for expressly teaching, the use of "an outer loop link
adaptation (OLLA) algorithm" to determine the compensation value in order
to support the conclusion of obviousness, i.e., "to adjust a behavior of the
link adaptation based on the SINR reports and the packet errors and re-
transmissions (actual values or estimates)." Final Act. 5---6 (citing Oteri ,r,r
77-78).
Appellants dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding
Medapalli and Medapalli's alleged teachings of: (1) the "CQI/SINR
information," (2) the "feedback CQI/SINR information," and (3) the
"compensation value based on the CQI/SINR information and the feedback
CQI/SINR information" recited in claims 1, 11, and 13. App. Br. 9-10. In
particular, Appellants argue Medapalli's:
"correction value indicates an amount of variation that may be
made in a first channel quality parameter." This indicates that
the correction parameter would be smaller than the number it
corrects, and is not compensating for the difference between two
values for "CQ I/SINR information." Medapalli' s correction
parameter is different from the claimed "COI/SINR
information", and relates to a different range than does the
"COI/SINR information" and the "feedback COI/SINR
information of the present invention and claims.
App. Br. 10 (citing Medapalli ,r 22). In order words, Appellants argue
Medapalli' s correction parameter is not and cannot be the same as the
claimed "CQI/SINR information." App. Br. 10.
In response, the Examiner has taken the position that the term
"CQI/SINR information" can be broadly interpreted to encompass
Medapalli' s "correct parameter" because Medapalli' s "correct parameter is
5
Appeal2018-002876
Application 14/3 51, 180
[an] estimation of channel quality [ computed based on the first channel
quality parameter and an error rate related to the communication link]" or "a
value of a channel between a UE and base station [BS]." Ans. 7 (citing
Medapalli ,r,r 21, 25).
We do not agree with the Examiner's position. At the outset, we note
the term "CQI/SINR information," as well as the terms "feedback CQI/SINR
information" and "compensation value [as] an OLLA offset for
compensating for a difference between the CQI/SINR information and the
feedback CQI/SINR information," recited in claims 1, 11, and 13, albeit
given their broadest reasonable interpretation, must still be interpreted
consistent with Appellants' Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "[T]he proper BRI construction is not
just the broadest construction, but rather the broadest reasonable
construction in light of the specification." In re Man Mach. Interface Techs.
LLC, No. 2015-1562, 2016 WL 1567181, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing
Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015))
("A construction that is 'unreasonably broad' and which does not
'reasonably reflect the plain language and disclosure' will not pass
muster.").
In this case, the term "CQI/SINR information" is specifically defined
as "information indicative of the quality of the communication channel
between the base station [BS] and a user equipment [UE]." Claims 1, 11,
and 13; Spec. 9: 17-18, 13:22-23, 17:24--25.
In contrast to Appellants' claimed "CQI/SINR information,"
Medapalli' s "correction value" is computed "based on [ 1] the first channel
6
Appeal2018-002876
Application 14/3 51, 180
quality parameter and [2] one or more transmission parameters" shown in
Figure 2, as reproduced below with additional markings for illustration:
Start
Compute a lrit P:b@nBi qyffi~Jty P@r@mltlr based
on one or more channel quality parameters
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- 204
Determine a qualifying transmission unit to
immeffite.l&rr&timneirimltlrbased on the first
channel quality parameter and one or more
transmission paramters
Schedule a transmission mode of a
communication link based on the second channel
quality parameter
Stop
Medapalli' s Figure 2 shows a method for link adaptation in a wireless
communication network.
As correctly recognized by Appellants, Medapalli' s "correction
parameter indicates an amount of variation that may be made in the first
quality channel parameter." App. Br. 10 (citing Medapalli ,r 22). According
Medapalli,
"the correction parameter may be computed based on the first
channel quality parameter and an error rate related to the
communication link. The error rate may be one of a burst error
rate, a packet error rate, and a block error rate. For example, a
correction parameter is computed based on an average PCINR
value and a packet error rate. The error rate is associated with a
7
Appeal2018-002876
Application 14/3 51, 180
channel quality parameter of the one or more channel quality
parameters. The relationship between the error rate and the
channel quality parameter is determined based on an error rate
table. It will be apparent to a person skilled in the art that the
error rate table may be replaced by a mathematical equation. The
correction parameter may be an offset to the first channel quality
parameter in the error rate table. For example, an average PCINR
value is 20 dB and a correction parameter is 4 dB. The correction
parameter of 4 dB is an offset to the average PCINR value of 20
dB. The offset may be one of an increment and a decrement to
the average PCINR value of 20 dB."
Medapalli ,r 25. In other words, Medapalli's "correction parameter" is "an
offset (i.e., error rate associated with a channel quality parameter) to the first
channel quality parameter" (i.e., feedback CQI/SINR information received
from the UE at the BS). As such, we agree with Appellants that Medapalli's
"correction parameter" is not and cannot be broadly interpreted as the
claimed "CQI/SINR information." App. Br. 10.
Separately, Appellants' claimed term "compensation value" is
specifically defined as "an OLLA offset for compensating for a difference
between the CQI/SINR information and the feedback CQI/SINR
information." Claims 1, 11, and 13; Spec. 6:15-25.
In contrast to Appellants' claimed "compensation value," Medapalli's
"second channel quality parameter is estimated based on [ 1] the first channel
quality parameter and [2] the correction parameter." Medapalli ,r 26.
According to Medapalli, "the second channel quality parameter may be
estimated by offsetting the first channel quality parameter by the correction
parameter." Medapalli ,r 26. However, we do not agree with the Examiner
that Appellants' claimed "compensation value" is the same as Medapalli' s
"second channel quality parameter" because Medapalli' s "second channel
quality parameter" does not compensate "for a difference between the
8
Appeal2018-002876
Application 14/3 51, 180
CQI/SINR information and the feedback CQI/SINR information," as recited
in claims 1, 11, and 13. See Spec. 6: 15-25.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 13, and respective dependent
claims 2-3 and 12. Because the Examiner does not find that any of the
additional references cures the deficiency discussed above, we also do not
sustain the Examiner's rejections of: (1) claim 5 as being obvious over
Medapalli, Oteri, and Nory; (2) claim 6 as being obvious over Medapalli,
Oteri, Nory, and Sayana; (3) claim 7 as being obvious over Medapalli, Oteri,
Nory, and Jeong; and (4) claims 8-10 as being obvious over Medapalli,
Oteri, and Magnusson.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3 and
5-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
9