Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2016

12999945 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/999,945 12/17/2010
48116 7590
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
09/27/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jin Liu
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.
LUTZ 201207US01 9205
EXAMINER
TORRES, JOSEPH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2112
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2016 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):
docketing@faysharpe.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIN LIU, MINGLI YOU, and XUDONG ZHU
Appeal2015-006791
Application 12/999,945
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and LARRY J.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 12, and 14. Appellants have previously
canceled claims 2, 3, 8, 13, 15-19, and withdrawn claims 9-11 and 20-22.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-006791
Application 12/999,945
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a method and
apparatus for interchanging multipath signals in a SC-FDMA system.
(Title).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A method in a multiple streams multiple codewords
multiple input multiple output (MIMO) transmitter of a single
carrier frequency-division multiple access (SCFDMA) system
for processing multipath modulated symbol sequences, the
method comprising:
rece1vmg interchanging-related information from a MIMO
receiver;
interchanging symbols of at least one error-correction codeword
of at least one of the multipath modulated symbol sequences and
symbols of at least one error-correction codeword of at least one
of the other of the multipath modulated symbol sequences so as
to obtain interchanged multipath modulated symbol sequences
based on the received interchanging-related information,
wherein the exchanging is based at least on slot of resource block
or on at least one SC-FD MA symbol of resource block;
interchanging symbols of at least one error-correction codeword
of at least one of the multipath modulated symbol sequences and
symbols of at least one error-correction codeword of at least one
of the other of the multipath modulated symbol sequences so as
to obtain interchanged multipath modulated symbol sequences,
wherein an interchanging unit is at least one slot of resource
block or at least one SC-FD MA symbol of resource block;
executing subsequent processing for the interchanged multipath
modulated symbol sequences so as to generate multipath signals
to be transmitted which are transmitted via multiple antennas.
2
Appeal2015-006791
Application 12/999,945
C. REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Ginis et al. ("Ginis")
Walton et al. ("Walton")
Walton et al.
("W alton4 21 ")
Walton et al.
("W alton82 7")
US 2003/0086514 Al
US 2003/0125040 Al
US 2006/0067421 Al
US 2007/0162827 Al
May 8, 2003
July 3, 2003
Mar. 30, 2006
July 12, 2007
Claims 1 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combinations of Walton and Walton '827.
Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Walton, Walton827 and Walton421.
Claims 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Walton, Walton827, Walton42 l and
Ginis.
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Walton and Walton827 teaches or at least suggests
"interchanging symbols ... wherein an interchanging unit is at least one slot
of resource block or at least one SC-FDMA symbol of resource block"
(claim 1 )?
3
Appeal2015-006791
Application 12/999,945
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Walton
1. Walton discloses wireless multiple-input multiple output (MIMO)
communications systems based on FDMA techniques. (i-fi-f 4, 7)
2. The coding and modulation scheme used for data transmission is
selected based on channel state information (CSI). The CSI is determined at
a receiver unit and reported to a transmitter unit, which adjusts the coding
and modulation of the data transmission based on the reported CSL (i-f 11)
3. A MIMO system's spatial processor 330 processes the received
modulation symbols based on the channel control or (CSI). (i-f 131, Fig. 3E).
Walton827
4. Walton827 discloses a MIMO system with a single subcarrier
where modulation symbols are set in the time domain with SC-FDMA.
(i-f 22).
4
Appeal2015-006791
Application 12/999,945
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the present invention "has a limited number of
error-correction encoders regardless of the number of frequency subchannels
or the number of spatial subchannels." (App. Br. 7). Appellants further
contend "the cited portions of Walton827 ... do not specifically mention the
claimed interchanging unit let alone how such an interchanging unit may be
executed (e.g., by unit of at least one slot of resource block or at least one
SC-FD MA symbol of resource block)." (App. Br. 14).
Appellants also contend:
In sum, the Office Action concedes that Walton patent does not
teach the feature of claim 1 of an interchanging unit and any
reliance on the doctrine of inherency to provide this necessary
teaching is improper.
(App. Br. 10).
Appellants moreover contend:
There is no specific disclosure in Walton, however, of receiving
interchanging-related information from a MIMO receiver and
obtaining interchanged multipath modulated symbol sequences
based on the received interchanging-related information.
(App. Br. 10-11).
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect
to independent claims 1 and 12, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our
own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. However, we
5
Appeal2015-006791
Application 12/999,945
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
Although Appellants argue the present invention "has a limited
number of error-correction encoders ... " (App. Br. 7), we find such
argument unpersuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the
claim. Claim 1 merely recites "at least one" error-correction encoders.
Under a broad but reasonable interpretation we construe claim term "at least
one" to be broader than "a limited number," as Appellants suggest. See In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We note Appellants cite to non-limiting examples of an interchanging
unit in their Specification for support (App. Br. 7), however, the claim
language does not require the limitations provided by these examples.
Our reviewing court guides: "[A ]lthough the specification often
describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly
warned against confining the claims to those embodiments ... [C]laims
may embrace 'different subject matter than is illustrated in the specific
embodiments in the specification."' Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) (citations omitted). Because "applicants
may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during
prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee." In re ICON
Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation
omitted).
As the Examiner points out, the claim language itself defines an
"interchanging unit" as "at least one slot of resource block or at least one
SC-FD MA symbol of resource block." (Ans. 4). Further, as the Examiner
6
Appeal2015-006791
Application 12/999,945
also points out, the Specification provides the same definition for "an
interchanging unit." (Id.)
Following the guidance of our reviewing court and in concurrence
with the Examiner's broad but reasonable claim construction (Ans. 4), we
decline Appellants' invitation (App. Br. 7) to read exemplary descriptions
for an interchanging unit in the Specification into claim 1.
\Ve also note the description in the Specification (10) for "an
interchanging unit" is written in the alternative, using "or." See Spec. l 0, if 4
("\Vherein the interchanging is by unit of slot of resource block or by unit of
at least one SC-FD1\1A syrnbol of resource block.").
Therefore, in the claim, the scope of "an interchanging unit" broadly
covers "at least one SC-FDIV1A symbol of resource block" or "at least one
slot of resource b1ock.''1 Given the broad definition for "an interchanging
unit" recited in claim 1, we are not persuaded the Examiner's claim
interpretation is overly broad or unreasonable.
We agree with the Examiner's finding that vValton's symbols
SN,1 ... SN,N teach or at least suggest the interchanging unit is a symbol and
\Valton82Ts modulation symbols sent in the time domain with SC-FDl\1A
teach or at least suggest "at least one SC-FDJvfA symbol of resource block.''
(FF 1----4, Ans. 3, Final Act. 7). Although Appellants contend \Valton and
\VaHon827 do not "specificaIIy mention," "teach" or have a ''specific
disclosure" of the contested limitations (App. Br. 9----11 \ we note the
Examiner's obviousness rejection is based on the cmnbined teachings and
1 When a claim covers several alternatives, the claim may be unpatentable if
any of the alternatives within the scope of the claim are taught by the prior
art. See Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
7
Appeal2015-006791
Application 12/999,945
suggestions of the cited references. The test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re 1vlerck & Co., Inc.~ 800 F.2d 1091~ 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986),
Here, we find the combination of\Vatenmm and Waterman847 would
have at least suggested the contested limitations, for essentially the same
reasons articulated by the Examiner in the Answer, and for the reasons
discussed above. (Ans. 3, Final Act 7).
We also do not find Appellants' argument regarding claim l's
limitation "receiving interchanging-related infonnation from a fv1Hv10
receiver" persuasive because . Appellants merely recite claim language
\vithout presenting a substantive argument Nor do Appellants address the
Examiner's specific findings. (App. Br. 10-12). Our reviewing court guides
that such mere conclusory statements which are unsupported by factual
evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1470 (Fed. Cir. i 997); Jn re De Blauvve, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984);
and Ex parte Belinne, 2009 \VL 2477843, at *3--4 (BP Al A .. ug. l 0, 2009)
(infl1fmative). Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the
disputed limitation "receiving interchanging-related information from a
M1fv10 receiver" is taught or at least suggested by \Valton's CSI
infonnation, which is received from a receiver and used to obtain
interchanged multipath modulated symbol sequences V1. Vn (FF 1-3,
Final Act 4).
Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded of error regarding the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness for claim 1.
8
Appeal2015-006791
Application 12/999,945
Regarding independent claim 12, rejected on the same basis as claim 1
(Final Act. 5), Appellants repeat the same arguments made in claim 1 (App.
Br. 11-16). For the same reasons as discussed above regarding claim 1, we
find that the Examiner has rebutted each of those arguments in the Answer
by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner's
findings and underlying reasoning, which we incorporate herein by
reference. Consequently, we have found no reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 12.
Dependent clairns 4-7 and 14 are not argued separately. Argurnents
not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(vii).
CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4--7, 12, and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
9