Ex Parte Nam et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 22, 2016

12650898 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/650,898
106809 7590
Docket Clerk - SAMS
P.O. Drawer 800889
Dallas, TX 75380
12/31/2009
04/26/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Young-Han Nam
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.
2009.02.001.WSO 8116
EXAMINER
FOTAKIS, ARISTOCRATIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2633
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2016 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):
patents@munckwilson.com
munckwilson@gmail.com
patent.srad@samsung.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOUNG-HAN NAM,
JIANZHONG ZHANG,
and JIN-KYU HAN 1
Appeal2014-006192
Application 12/650,898
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12-15, 17-20, and 22-24. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal2014-006192
Application 12/650,898
Invention
The application relates to wireless communication and allocating
reference signals based on a reference signal pattern, such as in Orthogonal
Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) systems. Spec. Abstract.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 10, and 24 are exemplary and reproduced below with key
limitations emphasized:
1. A base station, comprising:
a downlink transmit path comprising circuitry configured
to transmit a plurality of reference signals in two or more
resource blocks, each resource block comprising a plurality of
OFDM symbols, each of the OFDM symbols comprising a
plurality of subcarriers, and each subcarrier of each OFDM
symbol comprises a resource element; and
a reference signal allocator configured to allocate the
plurality of reference signals to selected resource elements of the
two or more resource blocks according to a reference signal
pattern, wherein the reference signal pattern is applied to the two
or more resource blocks when a transmission rank is greater
than a threshold number,
wherein a same pre-coding matrix is applied across the
two or more resource blocks.
10. A base station, comprising:
a downlink transmit path comprising circuitry configured
to transmit a plurality of cell-specific reference signals across a
plurality of resource blocks; and
a reference signal allocator configured to allocate the
plurality of cell-specific reference signals in an fth resource
block and in every ith resource block starting from the fth
resource block in the plurality of resource blocks,
2
Appeal2014-006192
Application 12/650,898
wherein i and fare integers and f is a resource block offset
based at least partly upon a Cell_ ID of a base station, and
wherein the reference signal allocator is configured to allocate
the plurality of cell-specific reference signals in the fth resource
block and in every ith resource block starting from the fth
resource block using a same cell-specific reference signal
pattern.
24. A method in accordance with Claim 20, wherein the offset
f is calculated using the follow equation:
f =(Cell_ID )mod(i).
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over LG Electronics, Downlink Reference
Signal for Higher Order MIMD, Rl-090218, 3GPP TSG RAN WGI
Meeting #55bis (Jan. 12-17, 2009), available at http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/
tsg_ran/WG l_RL1/TSGR1_55b/Docs/Rl-090218.zip ("Rl-090218") in
view of Pan (US 2008/0260059 Al, published Oct. 23, 2008) and further in
view of Onggosanusi et al. (US 2008/0219370 Al, published Sept. 11,
2008). Final Act. 4.
The Examiner rejects claims 10, 12-15, 17-20, and 22-24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gaal et al. (US 2009/0181692
Al, published July 16, 2009) in view of Scheim et al. (US 2008/0233966
Al, published Sept. 25, 2008). Final Act. 6.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that RI -090218 in view of
Onggosanusi teaches or suggests a "reference signal pattern is applied to the
3
Appeal2014-006192
Application I2/650,898
two or more resource blocks when a transmission rank is greater than a
threshold number," as recited in claim I?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Gaal teaches or suggests
"cell specific reference signals," as recited in claim IO?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding that Gaal teaches or suggests
"f=(Cell_ID)mod(i)," as recited in claim 24?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8
In rejecting claim I, the Examiner finds Onggosanusi teaches
allocated resource blocks that "have been scheduled," but not necessarily
how that scheduling happens: "Onggosanusi does not mention the reference
signal pattern." Ans. 3--4 (citing Onggosanusi i-f 32). Instead, the Examiner
relies upon RI-0920 I 8 as teaching the application of a reference signal
pattern. Ans. 3. The Examiner further identifies one specific example in
which "Onggosanusi teaches that a transmission rank-2 is seiected in
subframe I when Rank Indicator (RI) = 2 is reported back." Ans. 3 (citing
Onggosanusi i-f 35); see also Final Act. 2.
Appellants argue that the prior art RI -0920 I 8 teaches that a reference
signal pattern is "applied to all" resource blocks and hence is "not
conditional" in when the pattern is applied. Reply Br. 6. Appellants also
contend the Examiner erred because Onggosanusi describes "merely
selecting rank-2 when a rank indicator (RI)=2" which does not teach or
suggest a threshold number and hence also is not conditional. App. Br. I 8.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We agree with both
parties that RI-0920 I 8 teaches applying a reference signal pattern for all
resource blocks, at least for certain antenna ports. Reply Br. 6; Ans. 3; RI-
4
Appeal2014-006192
Application 12/650,898
092018 at 3. Nevertheless, we find this satisfies what Appellants have
termed the "conditional" as currently written. As the Examiner correctly
notes, "the claim does not recite what would happen if the transmission rank
was not greater than the threshold number," and the Examiner determines
the threshold number "can be any number." Ans. 4. Claim 1 states "the
reference signal pattern is applied to the two or more resource blocks when a
transmission rank is greater than a threshold number." Under the broadest
reasonable interpretation, this recitation requires only a system capable of
applying the reference signal pattern if the threshold is exceeded; it does not
preclude applying the same reference signal pattern if the threshold is not
exceeded. Therefore, the combined system of Onggosanusi and Rl-092018,
which always applies the same reference signal pattern, would fall within the
broadest reasonable interpretation of this results-driven claim language. We
are not persuaded by Appellants that "when" must be interpreted as "only
when" or that the claims as written require structure performing an actuai
comparison to the threshold. Thus, Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive
of error.
We have considered Appellants' other arguments but also do not find
them persuasive. For example, Appellants' arguments regarding
Onggosanusi's codewords or particular example of RI=2 are moot because
the Examiner relied on Rl-092018 as teaching the "when" limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar
reasons. See App. Br. 21.
5
Appeal2014-006192
Application 12/650,898
Claims 10, 12-15, 17-20, and 22-24
In rejecting claim 10, the Examiner finds that "Gaal teaches of a cell
specific cyclic shift"; the same paragraph of Gaal teaches a reference signal;
and "a cell specific cyclic shift applied to a reference signal would provide a
cell specific reference signal that has been cyclically shifted." Ans. 5 (citing
Gaal ii 55).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "a cyclic shift is not a
reference signal." App. Br. 21. Appellants' arguments fail to address
persuasively the Examiner's findings. Specifically, Appellants argue the
cited portions of Gaal fail to disclose anything cell specific other than a
cyclic shift. Reply Br. 8 (citing Gaal Abstract, ii 55). However, the
Examiner does not rely on a cyclic shift alone. Rather, the Examiner finds,
and we agree, that "a cell specific cyclic shift applied to a reference signal
would provide a cell specific reference signal [because it] has been
cyciicaiiy shifted." Ans. 5 (citing Gaai if 55) (emphasis added). Appeiiants
have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in
the Examiner's findings. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Gaal
teaches or suggests "cell specific reference signals," as found in claim 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10, and
claims 12-15, 17-20, and 22-24, which Appellants argue are patentable for
similar reasons. See App. Br. 21.
Claim 24
Claim 24 involves one further issue in addition to the one above.
The Examiner's Final Rejection cites to ii 61 of Gaal for disclosing the
limitation "f =(Cell_ID)mod(i)," as found in claim 24. Final Act. 8.
6
Appeal2014-006192
Application 12/650,898
Appellants' Appeal Brief argues that the Examiner's rejection did not
include any explanation and that i-f 61 fails to teach this limitation. 2 App. Br.
22.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner's Answer identifies a specific
formula from a different paragraph of Gaal (i-f 63) as teaching this limitation.
Ans. 6-7.
We agree the formula identified in Gaal, reproduced below, teaches or
suggests the claimed offset f.
ti = (f Ss·i+b " zb) mod 12
b=O
Specifically, the equation in Gaal' s paragraph 63 describes shift offset
ti as a function of a summation representing cell identification value
Cell_ID, where the modulo operation is performed on the sum using 12, an
integer. Appellants do not persuasively distinguish the claimed function for
calculating offset f from Gaal' s function for calculating shift offset ti.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Gaal teaches or suggests
"f=(Cell_ID)mod(i)," as found in claim 24.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 24.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10,
12-15, 17-20, and 22-24.
2 The Final Rejection cites the same paragraph for similar limitations in
claims 14 and 19. Final Act. 8. Appellants' Appeal Brief, however, only
raises this issue with respect to claim 24. App. Br. 22.
7
Appeal2014-006192
Application 12/650,898
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
8