Ex Parte NG

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2016

13590695 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/590,695 08/21/2012
129113 7590 06/28/2016
Motorola, a Lenovo Company
222 West Merchandise Mart Plaza
Chicago, IL 60654
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Boon Loong NG
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.
8017-1436-2 5972
EXAMINER
YANG, ZHAO HUI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2016 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.lenovo@motorola.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BOON LOONG NG
Appeal2016-003268
Application 13/590,695
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--11, 13-15, 17-24, 26, and
29. Claims 3, 12, 16, 25, 27, 28, and 30-32 have been canceled. (See App.
Br. 3.) 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 We refer to Appellant's Specification ("Spec.") filed Aug. 21, 2012
(claiming benefit of PCT/JP2010/055144, filed Mar. 17, 2010 and
Australian Patent App. No. 2009901196, filed Mar. 19, 2009); Appeal Brief
("App. Br,") filed Aug. 27, 2015; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed Feb. 3,
2016. We also refer to the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed Dec. 3,
2015, and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) ("Final Act.") mailed Dec.
26, 2014.
Appeal2016-003268
Application 13/590,695
Appellarzt 's Irzverztiorz
The invention at issue on appeal concerns wireless communication
systems and methods for implementing wireless communication systems.
The system/method transmits signals including channel quality indicator
(CQI) reference signals from a base station to a wireless device in a
subframe, where the subframe comprises a resource block and orthogonal
frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbols. The last OFDM symbol
in the resource block conveys the CQI reference signal (CQI-RS) and a
different OFDM symbol of the resource block conveys a Cell-Specific
Reference Signal (CRS), in order to avoid interference (collision) between
the signals. (Spec. 1:13-16; 2:5-28; 4:8-29; Abstract.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method implemented in a wireless communications
system, the method comprising:
transmitting from a base station to a user equipment (UE)
one or more channel quality indicator (CQI) reference signals in
a subframe; and
transmitting from the user equipment to the base station a
report determined according to said one or more CQI reference
signals,
wherein the CQI reference signal transmission is repeated
at a CQI reference signal transmission period,
wherein a subframe offset is provided relative to subframe
0 for the CQI reference signal transmission,
wherein the subframe comprises a resource block and a
last orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol
in the resource block conveys the CQI reference signal, and
2
Appeal2016-003268
Application 13/590,695
wherein the CQI reference signal transmission avoids
collision with each of the group consisting of a Cell-specific
Reference Signal (CRS), a Dedicated Reference Signal (DRS), a
Physical Broadcast Channel (PECH), and a synchronization
signal, by i) the CQI reference signal being conveyed by the last
OFDM symbol of the resource block of the sub.frame, and ii) the
Cell-specific Reference Signal (CRS) being conveyed by another
OFDM symbol of the resource block, the another OFDM symbol
being different .from the last OFDM symbol conveying the CQI
reference signal, such that the CQI reference signal and the Cell-
specific Reference Signal (CRS) are located in different OFDM
symbols of the same resource block and are at the same antenna
port.
Re} ections on Appeal2
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 21, 22, 24,
and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maeda (WIPO
Publication WO 2007 /14503 5, published Dec. 21, 2007), Onggosanusi (US
2009/0238256 Al; published Sept. 24, 2009 (filed Mar. 17, 2009, claiming
benefit of US 61/038,869, filed Mar. 24, 2008)), and Noh (US
2011/0237270 Al; published Sept. 29, 2011 (filed Dec. 2, 2009, claiming
benefit of 61/119 ,3 57, filed Dec. 2, 2008) ). 3
2 The Examiner inadvertently includes a rejection of canceled claim 25 in
the Final Rejection (Final Act. 32). Appellant includes the rejection of claim
25 in the "Status of Claims" (App. Br. 3). Claim 25 was canceled in the
Request for Continued Examination (RCE) and Amendment filed April 25,
2014. (See RCE and Amendment 9; Non-Final rejection mailed Sept. 2,
2014 pp. 1-2; App. Br. 3.) We do not address the rejection of canceled
claim 25. We also note Appellant cancels claim 27 and 28 concurrent with
the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 3).
3 The Examiner notes that Maeda is published in Japanese, but US Patent
No. 8,149,749 is used as the English translation for mapping purposes.
Also, claims 27 and 28 were canceled by Appellant concurrent with the
3
Appeal2016-003268
Application 13/590,695
2. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maeda, Onggosanusi, Noh, and 3GPP
(3GPP, Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Physical
Channels and Modulation (Release 8), TS 36.211, V8.5.0, published Dec.
2008).
3. The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Maeda, Onggosanusi, Noh, Cudak (US
2006/0009227 Al; published Jan. 12, 2006), and Inoue (US 8,259,657 B2;
issued Sept. 4, 2012 (filed June 19, 2007)).
4. The Examiner rejects claims 10 and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maeda, Onggosanusi, Noh, and Cudak.
5. The Examiner rejects claims 13 and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maeda, Onggosanusi, Noh, Gorokhov
(US 2010/0091893 Al; published Apr. 15, 2010 (filed Jan. 5, 2009)).
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellant's
contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the dispositive
issue before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of Maeda,
Onggosanusi, and Noh would have collectively taught or suggested "the CQI
reference signal being conveyed by the last OFDM symbol of the resource
block of the subframe, and ... the Cell-specific Reference Signal (CRS)
being conveyed by another OFDM symbol of the resource block" within the
Appeal Brief (supra). Accordingly we do not address claims 27 and 28. We
amend the rejection for clarity and consistency of the record.
4
Appeal2016-003268
Application 13/590,695
meaning of Appellant's claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claim
14?
ANALYSIS
The§ 103 Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 21, 22, 24, and 29
Appellant contends that Maeda, Onggosanusi, and Noh do not teach
the disputed features of independent claim 1 (App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 1-2)
or independent claim 14 (App. Br. 9). Specifically, Appellant contends that
Noh does not teach a CQI reference signal (CQI-RS) in the last symbol of
the resource block and a CRS in a different symbol of the same resource
block (App. Br. 7-9) and that Noh "does not disclose the arrangement of the
CQI reference signal and the Cell-specific Reference Signal being located in
different OFDM symbols in the same resource blade' (App. Br. 9).
Appellant persuades us of error in the obviousness rejection of claim
1. Appellant's independent claims 1 and 14 each require a CQI reference
signal (CQI-RS) in the last symbol of the resource block and a CRS in a
different symbol of the same resource block - "the CQI reference signal
being conveyed by the last OFDM symbol of the resource block of the
subframe, and ... the Cell-specific Reference Signal (CRS) being conveyed
by another OFDM symbol of the resource block" (claim 1 ). As explained by
Appellant (supra), the cited portions of Noh do not describe such a symbol
arrangement.
The Examiner asserts that Noh's Channel State Information-
Reference Signal (CSI-RS) corresponds to Appellant's recited CQI-RS and
that the CSI-RS is conveyed by the last symbol (Final Act. 7-8 (Noh i-f 132;
Fig. 12)). The Examiner further asserts that Noh's Dedicated Reference
5
Appeal2016-003268
Application 13/590,695
Signal (DRS) corresponds to Appellant's recited Cell-specific Reference
Signal (CRS) and that the DRS is conveyed by a different OFDM symbol in
the same resource block (Final Act. 8 (Noh i-f 161; Fig. 32)). (See Ans. 2--4.)
The portions of Noh cited by the Examiner as describing Cell-specific
Reference Signals (CRSs), however, do not discuss CRSs as recited in
Appellant's claim 1. The Examiner confines the rejection to Noh' s
dedicated reference signals (DRSs). The DRSs cited by the Examiner
describe signals utilized for demodulation, not signal quality measurement.
(See Noh Fig. 32; i-fi-135-36, 196.) Thus, we cannot agree with the
Examiner's interpretation ofNoh.4
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Maeda, Onggosanusi, and Noh teach the
4 We concur with the Examiner that Noh (see Noh i-fi-1132, 134; Fig. 12)
describes a Channel State Information-Reference Signal (CSI-RS)
corresponding to Appellant's recited CQI-RS and which is conveyed by the
last OFDM symbol of a resource block. (See Noh Fig. 12 (cell 1, slot 1,
symbol 7 (I=6)); i-fi-1132, 134.)
We address only the reasoning and conclusions of the Examiner presented
in the rejection and the arguments made by Appellant. We make no findings
with respect to uncited portions of the prior art before us. We note,
however, that Noh appears to describe Common Reference Signals (CRSs)
(Noh i-fi-1132-134; Fig. 12, elements 0, 1, 2, 3) used for channel
measurement (Noh i-fi-135-36, 132-134), which correspond to Appellant's
recited Cell-specific Reference Signals (CRSs) (see Spec. 3:30--4:2; 4:8-29;
Fig. lB, 2).
In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider
whether the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art in view of the noted portions of Noh. Although the Board is authorized
to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn
when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02.
6
Appeal2016-003268
Application 13/590,695
disputed limitations of Appellant's claim 1. Independent claim 14 includes
limitations of commensurate scope and was rejected using the same
reasoning. Claims 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 15, 21, 22, 24, and 29 depend on claims 1
and 14, respectively. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 21, 22, 24, and 29 over Maeda,
Onggosanusi, and Noh.
The§ 103 Rejections of Claims 5-7, 10, 13, 17-20, 23, and 26
With respect to the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 5-7,
10, 13, 17-20, 23, and 26, rejected as obvious over Maeda, Onggosanusi,
and Noh as well as 3GPP, Cudak, Inoue, Gorokhov, and Krishnamurthy, we
reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections for the same reasons set forth
with respect to claim 1 (supra). The Examiner improperly cites Noh's DRSs
as teaching the recited CRSs. (See Final Act. 21-32.) Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 5-7, 10, 13, 17-20,
23, and 26.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2,
4--11, 13-15, 17-24, 26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--11, 13-15, 17-
24, 26, and 29.
REVERSED
7