Ex Parte Luo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 13, 2018

13371407 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/371,407 02/11/2012
15055 7590 08/15/2018
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
XiliangLuo
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.
l 11061US 9463
EXAMINER
SABO URI, MAZDA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2018 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):
qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com
P AIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XILIANG LUO, HAO XU,
W ANSHI CHEN, TINGF ANG JI,
PETER GAAL, and JUAN MONTOJ0 1
Appeal2018-002252
Application 13/371,407
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims
1-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify QUALCOMM Incorporated as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2018-002252
Application 13/371,407
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to mobility procedures in wireless
communications networks with multiple distributed remote radio heads, using
channel state information feedback, change in location, or mobility of the user
equipment to determine whether to update the selection of antenna ports. Spec.
,r,r 2, 5-8.
Claims 1, 9, 17, and 25 are independent. Claim 1 is representative:
1. A method for wireless communications in a logical cell comprising a base
station (BS) and one or more remote radio heads (RRHs) under control of
the BS, the method comprising:
receiving channel state information (CSI) feedback from a user
equipment (UE); and
configuring the UE in the logical cell with one or more parameters for
measuring reference signals (RSs) from one or more antenna ports
based at least in part on the CSI feedback or a change in location or
mobility of the UE, wherein the one or more parameters comprise an
association of the one or more antenna ports from antenna ports of the
BS and antenna ports of the RRHs, and a subframe configuration for
the RSs.
Re} ections on Appeal
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 6-10, 14--18, 22-26, and 30-32
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Ahmadi (US 2012/0057566 Al;
published March 8, 2012) in view ofNam (US 2010/0238877 Al; published Sept.
23, 2010). Final Act. 5-8.
The Examiner has rejected claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 19, 20, 27, and 28 under 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Ahmadi, Nam, Dravida (US 2006/0276227
2
Appeal2018-002252
Application 13/371,407
Al; published Dec. 7, 2006), and Palanki (US 2010/0311437 Al; published Dec. 9,
2010). Final Act. 8-10.
The Examiner has rejected claims 5, 13, 21, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Ahmadi, Nam, and Grant (US 2007/0286124 Al; published
Dec. 13, 2007). Final Act. 10.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites "[a] method for wireless communications in a
logical cell comprising a base station (BS) ... the method comprising ... a user
equipment (UE); and configuring the UE in the logical cell with one or more
parameters." App. Br. 15 (Claims App'x). The Examiner construes the claim
limitation "configuring the UE" to include the base station configuring the user
equipment (UE) by assigning antenna ports to serve the UE. See Final Act. 6;
Ans. 2-5. Based on this claim interpretation, the Examiner finds Ahmadi' s BS
assigns selected parameters (i.e., antenna nodes/ports) to serve the UE based on
reference signal measurements (i.e., CSI feedback) from the UE, or location or
mobility changes of the UE. Final Act. 6 ( citing Ahmadi Fig. I, ,r,r 15, 25, 30, 46,
51-53); see also Ans. 2-5.
Appellants' arguments are premised on a claim interpretation requiring
direct configuration of the UE with parameters for measuring RSs. App. Br. 10-
12. Appellants argue that Ahmadi's BS does not configure the UE by
communicating directly with the UE, but that the BS indirectly configures the UE
by redirecting RSs to the antenna nodes that are closest to the UE to serve the UE.
App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2--4. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive.
"[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d
3
Appeal2018-002252
Application 13/371,407
1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Here, the claim's plain language does not limit
configuration of the UE to direct configuration in which the BS directly
communicates the association of the antenna nodes/ports to the UE, but the claim
language also encompasses indirect configuration in which the BS communicates
the association of the antenna nodes/ports to the UE by assigning the antenna
nodes/ports to serve the UE. See Ans. 2-5. Appellants point to paragraph 83 in
the Specification in support of their arguments. App. Br. 10. Paragraph 83 of the
Specification discloses specific mobility procedures for Rel- IO UEs with higher
level reconfiguration. Spec. ,r 83. However, the Specification also discloses that
"[ m ]obility procedures followed by the UE may vary based on the release of the
UE (e.g., Rel-8/9, Rel-IO, or Rel-11 and beyond)." Spec. ,r 77. For example, the
Specification discloses that Rel-8/9 UEs follow traditional mobility procedures,
where the BS selects antenna ports to transmit reference signals based on the CSI
feedback from the UE and determines whether to update the selection based on
change in location or mobility of the UE. See Spec. ,r,r 78-81, Fig. I 4. In other
words, the Specification discloses that the UE may be indirectly configured by the
BS assigning the antenna ports to serve the UE. Thus, the plain language of the
claims and the Specification support the Examiner's position that the configuration
of the UE is not limited to direct configuration but can include indirect
configuration. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification, the BS assigning the antenna nodes to serve the UE is within the
scope of "configuring the UE" with parameters for measuring RSs.
Further, Appellants argue the BS does not configure the UE with code
division multiplexed (CDM) codes and subcarrier frequencies as the parameters for
measuring the reference signals. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 5. Appellants argue that
even if the BS were to configure the UE with the CDM codes and subcarrier
4
Appeal2018-002252
Application 13/371,407
frequencies, it is not done based on the CSI feedback or the change in location or
mobility of the UE, as claimed. Id. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner finds Ahmadi's CDM codes and subcarrier frequencies are
assigned to the antenna nodes used to transmit the references signals to the UE.
Ans. 3--4 ( citing Ahmadi ,r 46); see also Final Act. 4. Ahmadi paragraph 46
teaches the use of CDM codes with the reference signals to provide unique
identification of the antenna elements associated with the antenna node. Ahmadi
,r 46. Further, the Examiner cites to paragraphs 51-53 of Ahmadi, which teach that
the BS may receive reports from the UE that uniquely identify one of the antenna
nodes and include signal quality information of signals received by the UE from
that node. Final Act. 6 (citing Ahmadi ,r,r 51-53). Ahmadi teaches the BS, in
response to this signal quality information, can direct signals to the appropriate
antenna node. Ahmadi ,r 51. Thus, the evidence supports the Examiner's position
that the antenna nodes, which are uniquely identified by the CDM codes used to
transmit the reference signals on the subcarrier frequencies, correspond to the
claimed parameters for measuring the RSs. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 3--4. Further,
the Examiner correctly finds that the antenna nodes are assigned based on the
signal quality information (CSI feedback). See Ahmadi ,r 51. For these reasons,
Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding
Ahmadi teaches that the antenna nodes, uniquely identified by the CDM codes
used to transmit the reference signals on the subcarrier frequencies, are parameters
for measuring the RSs and that the parameters are assigned based on the CSI
feedback, as claimed. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error and sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1.
In summary, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner
erred in finding Ahmadi teaches or suggests "[a] method for wireless
5
Appeal2018-002252
Application 13/371,407
communications in a logical cell comprising a base station (BS) ... the method
comprising ... a user equipment (UE); and configuring the UE in the logical cell
with one or more parameters," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 15 (Claims App'x).
Independent claims 9, 17, and 25 include similar limitations and are argued for the
same reasons presented above for claim 1. App. Br. 13. Claims 2 and 6-8 depend
from claim 1, claims 10 and 14--16 depend from claim 9, claims 18 and 22-24
depend from claim 17, and claims 26 and 30-32 depend from claim 25; these
dependent claims are not argued separately. App. Br. 14; id. at 15-19 (Claims
App'x). For the reasons above, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 2, 6-10, 14--18, 22-26, and 30-32 over Ahmadi and Nam.
Regarding claims 3-5, 11-13, 19-21, and 27-29, Appellants argue that the
additional references (Dravida, Palanki, and Grant) do not remedy the deficiencies
of Ahmadi and Nam. App. Br. 13-14. As we find no deficiencies in the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 9, 17, and 25 as unpatentable over
Ahmadi and Nam for the reasons discussed above, we likewise sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 19, 20, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ahmadi, Nam, Dravida, and Palanki; and the
Examiner's rejection of claims 5, 13, 21, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ahmadi, Nam, and Grant.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-32 are 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
6