Ex Parte Onggosanusi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2017

11688756 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/688,756 03/20/2007 Eko N. Onggosanusi TI-62290 1632
23494 7590 09/27/2017
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
SHAH, TANMAY K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2017 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@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EKO N. ONGGOSANUSI, BADRI VARADARAJAN,
and ANAND G. DABAK
Appeal 2016-007665
Application 11/688,7561
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 24—30, 32^44, 46—51, and 53—70. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Examiner objected to claims
45 and 52 as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but found these
claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of
the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Texas Instruments
Incorporated. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-007665
Application 11/688,756
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “wireless communications
and, more specifically, to a receiver and a transmitter and methods of
operating a receiver and a transmitter.” Spec. 13. Claim 27 is illustrative of
subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below.
27. A transmitter having a plurality of antennas, comprising:
a feedback decoding portion configured to extract a pre­
coder selection of N pre-coders provided by a feedback signal
from a receiver, wherein the N pre-coders correspond to N
groups of resource blocks, N being an integer number of at least
1; and
a transmit portion coupled to the plurality of antennas for
applying the pre-coding selection to data to be transmitted to
the receiver.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims2 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 35, 36,
38, 42, 53, 54, 57, 61—63, 66, and 70 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Thomas et al. (US 2006/0067277 Al; published Mar. 30,
2006) (hereinafter “Thomas”).
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 26, 29, 32, 34, 37, 39-41, 55, 56,
58—60, 64, 65, and 67—69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Thomas and Kim et al. (US 2005/0232156 Al;
published Oct. 20, 2005) (hereinafter “Kim”).
2 We understand in light of the findings for claim 37 (i.e., “hav[ing]
substantially same limitations as claim 29”), which is not the subject of this
rejection, that the Examiner inadvertently included claim 37 in this rejection.
See Final Act. 5. We also note that the Examiner inadvertently excluded
claims 53, 54, 57, 61—63, 66, and 70 in the claim listing for this rejection,
but refers to these claims in the rejection’s discussion. Final Act. 6—7; see
also Ans. 7—8.
2
Appeal 2016-007665
Application 11/688,756
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 43, 44, 50, and 51 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Thomas
and Kumar (US 2001/0050926 Al; published Dec. 13, 2001).
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 46-49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Thomas, Kumar, and Kim.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner erred. We address specific findings and
arguments below.
(1) Resource blocks
Appellants argue Thomas fails to disclose “resource blocks” in
accordance with independent claims 27, 28, 35, and 36. App. Br. 10-12.
Appellants argue the Specification discloses that in the frequency domain a
system’s bandwidth can be divided into resource blocks (also called sub­
bands), which are the smallest allocation unit available to allot to user
equipment. App. Br. 11—12 (citing Spec. 1 6). The Specification further
discloses that a resource block consists of “multiple sub-carriers,” according
to Appellants. App. Br. 12 (citing Spec. 1 6 (“Each resource block consists
of Nrb contiguous OFDM/OFDMA sub-carriers.”)); see also Reply Br. 2—3.
Moreover, Appellants contend they are not arguing that these claims require
Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexed (“OFDM”) sub-carriers, but
rather cite to this portion of paragraph six of the Speciation “within the
context of highlighting the teaching of a resource block.” Reply Br. 2—3.
As to Thomas, Appellants argue it fails to disclose “resource
block[s],” or that “‘each resource block consists of. . . multiple
subcarriers,”’ but instead discloses “frequency domain weighting on
3
Appeal 2016-007665
Application 11/688,756
individual subcarriers.” App. Br. 12 (citing Thomas 122—23, Figs. 2—3); see
also Reply Br. 4—5. Appellants contend Thomas, thus, fails to disclose the
limitations of the claims that recite resource blocks (e.g., “wherein the N
pre-coders correspond to N groups of resource blocks” for claim 27,
“wherein one of the pre-coders correspond to a group of resource blocks” for
claim 28). App. Br. 10—11 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds Thomas discloses “resource blocks” in
accordance with the above disputed independent claims on appeal. See Ans.
2-4. The Examiner finds claims 27, 28, 35, and 36 do not recite, nor
require, OFDM sub-carriers. Ans. 3. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds
Thomas discloses grouping sub-carriers — a resource block — in OFDM
sub-carriers systems. Ans. 3^4 (citing Thomas Fig. 2,120 (disclosing the
index k on the signals and weights denotes “a subcarrier (frequency) index
(as in the case of OFDM for example)”). The Examiner also finds Thomas
discloses codebook weights are “determined over a group of frequency-
domain subcarriers for each MIMO data stream.” Ans. 3 (citing Thomas
116).
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner errs.
For example, we agree with the Examiner Thomas discloses grouping sub­
carriers (i.e., for a resource block) for determining codebook weights,
contrary to Appellants’ argument. See Thomas H 16, 20. We also are not
persuaded the Specification discloses a resource block is required to have
multiple sub-carriers. Rather, the portion of the Specification Appellants
cite (Spec. 1 6) further describes resource blocks in the context of a OFDM
system as consisting of “Nrb contiguous OFDM/OFDMA sub-carriers,” but
Appellants do not argue that these claims are not limited to OFDM systems.
4
Appeal 2016-007665
Application 11/688,756
Further, Appellants do not explain persuasively why the “sub-carriers”
portion of this further description should be chosen to limit resource blocks
when the claims do not recite OFDM systems.
(2) Pre-coder
Appellants argue Thomas fails to disclose a pre-coder in accordance
with independent claims 27, 28, 35, and 36. App. Br. 13—16; Reply Br. 4—5.
More specifically, Appellants argue Thomas instead discloses weighting a
data stream for beamforming, rather than applying a precoding matrix. App.
Br. 13 (“One of ordinary skill in the art distinguishes a pre-coder matrix
from a beamforming vector.”), 15 (citing Thomas Fig. 5, 24—25).
Appellants also argue the Examiner does not sufficiently identify where
Thomas discloses a pre-coder. See, e.g., App. Br. 15.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Thomas discloses a pre-coder in
accordance with the disputed claims. See Ans. 5 (citing Thomas ]Hf 24—25,
Fig. 5). More specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Thomas’ paragraph 24 and Figure 5 discloses a pre-coder. Paragraph 24 is
recited below:
FIG. 5 is a block diagram of a source unit using codebook
selection and power weightings. One or more data streams 501
are individually encoded (502) and modulated (503) to form the
symbol streams to be transmitted, using either the frequency or
time domain resources. Each stream is then power weighted in
504, according to the scalar weighting derived in block 505
from the feedback message.
Thomas 124 (italics emphasis added). We are unpersuaded that because the
Examiner also discusses paragraph 25, which relates to the additional
measure of beamforming, that the Examiner fails to sufficiently identify
Thomas’ disclosure of a pre-coder. See Ans. 5; Thomas 125. Thomas
5
Appeal 2016-007665
Application 11/688,756
clearly distinguishes precoding (paragraph 24) and subsequent beamforming
(paragraph 25). See Thomas Tflf 24, 25 (beginning “[t]hen, each stream is
weighted in block 506 by a beamforming vector.”). We also note Appellants
agree (App. Br. 13) that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art distinguishes a
pre-coder matrix from a beamforming vector.”
(3) Group of resource blocks
Appellants argue Thomas fails to disclose grouping multiple resource
blocks (i.e., a group of resource blocks) in accordance with independent
claims 27, 28, 35, and 36 — at best, Thomas discloses one resource block.
See App. Br. 13—14. According to Appellants, “[tjhere is simply no teaching
or suggestion in Thomas for grouping resource blocks into groups of
resource blocks in which a pre-coder selection provides a pre-coder for each
group.” App. Br. 13.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, Thomas discloses the disputed limitation. Final Act. 3 (citing
Thomas 16, 20, 22, 28; Fig. 5). The claims each provide for the
possibility of having only one pre-coder and one group of resource blocks.
See Claim App’x 1—3. Furthermore, the Specification does not expressly
limit the definition of the term “group” appearing in the claims to exclude a
group have only one item. Appellants’ arguments to the contrary are
unsupported by record evidence. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405
(CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of
evidence.”).
(4) Single pre-coder for each group
Appellants argue Thomas fails to disclose “the pre-coder selection
provides a single pre-coder for a group of contiguous resource blocks,” as
6
Appeal 2016-007665
Application 11/688,756
recited in claim 24. App. Br. 16—17. More specifically, Appellants argue
the Examiner inadequately addresses how Thomas discloses the disputed
limitation, and instead relies on speculation. App. Br. 17.
The Examiner finds Thomas discloses the disputed limitation. Ans. 6.
More specifically, the Examiner finds it is known in the art that a “OFDM
data stream contains [a] group of subcarriers for each beamformer.” Id.
(citing Thomas 16, 20, 22, 28). The Examiner also finds “[t]he invention
is . . . for MIMO transmission using limited feedback in broadband
communication systems such as OFDM, spread-OFDM, and cyclic-prefix
single carrier. The feedback is designed to improve the performance of
successive cancellation when codebook selection over a band of frequencies
or set of subcarriers is used.” Ans. 6.
We are persuaded the Examiner errs. The Examiner does not make
sufficiently specific findings to provide notice to Appellants of how Thomas
satisfies the disputed limitation. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (stating that the Office “satisfies its initial burden of production
by ‘adequately explaining] the shortcomings it perceives so that the
applicant is properly notified and able to respond’” (quoting Hyatt v. Dudas,
492 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007))). For example, the Examiner does
not explain how Thomas discloses “a single pre-coder” in accordance with
the disputed limitation. See Ans. 6.
Our above reasoning also applies with respect to Appellants’ similar
arguments directed to claims 32, 53, and 62. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 24, 53, and 62. We also do not
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 32, as the Examiner relies on
the above findings as they relate to Thomas. We also do not sustain the
7
Appeal 2016-007665
Application 11/688,756
Examiner’s rejection of claims 34 and 64, as they depend from claims 32
and 62, respectively.
(5) Broadcast or common control channel
Appellants argue Thomas fails to disclose a transmitter signaling the
number of contiguous resource blocks via a broadcast or a common control
channel, in accordance with claim 25. App. Br. 17—18; Reply Br. 7. More
specifically, Appellants argue the portions of Thomas cited by the Examiner
instead disclose a downlink channel from a base station (“BS”) to a single
subscriber station (“SS”), rather than a broadcast channel (e.g., transmitting
to multiple SSs). See Reply Br. 7 (citing Thomas 119); see also Reply Br. 8
(citing Spec. 132 (arguing the Specification equates a downlink broadcast
channel and common control channel)).
The Examiner finds Thomas discloses the disputed limitation. Ans. 6.
More specifically, the Examiner finds Thomas discloses the disputed
limitation by interpreting the downlink channel as a broadcast channel. Ans.
6 (citing Thomas 119).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The cited portion of
Thomas discloses a downlink channel between a BS and one SS. Thomas
119. The Examiner fails to support with record evidence or adequately
explain why this downlink channel should be interpreted to be a broadcast
channel.
Our above reasoning also applies with respect to Appellants’ similar
arguments directed to claims 33, 54, and 63. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 25, 33, 54, and 63.
8
Appeal 2016-007665
Application 11/688,756
(6) Contiguous resource blocks
Appellants argue the combination of Thomas and Kim fails to teach or
suggest “the transmitter determines a number of contiguous resource blocks
based on a request from the receiver,” as recited in claims 26. App. Br. 25—
26. More specifically, Appellants argue Kim instead teaches ‘“contiguous
subcarriers’” and not “‘contiguous resource blocks.’” App. Br. 25 (citing
Final Act. 8 (citing Kim || 12, 40; Fig. 4)).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of Kim and
Thomas teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 8. More
specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Kim teaches or suggests
contiguous subcarriers in accordance with the claims. See id. (citing Kim
12, 40; Fig. 4); see also Kim 140 (describing Fig. 4 as “a diagram for
describing a grouping of contiguous subcarriers”). As to Thomas, and as
discussed above, Thomas discloses resource blocks (i.e., grouping
subcarriers). See supra § 1. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments that Thomas and Kim’s combined teachings fail to
teach or suggest contiguous resource blocks.
Our above reasoning also applies with respect to Appellants’ similar
arguments directed to claim 55. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of claims 26 and 55.
(7) Signaling support
Appellants argue the combination of Thomas and Kim fails to teach or
suggest “the grouping of the resource blocks is variable or fixed based on
signaling support,” as recited in claim 29. App. Br. 26—27. More
specifically, Appellants argue the combination, and Kim in particular, fails
9
Appeal 2016-007665
Application 11/688,756
to teach or suggest that the grouping is based on signaling support. App. Br.
27 (citing Kim 141).
The Examiner finds the combination of Thomas and Kim teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 9. More specifically, the Examiner
finds Kim teaches or suggests “the grouping of the resource blocks is
variable or fixed based on signaling support.” Id. (citing Kim Fig. 4
showing grouping of sub-carriers which is fixed or variable); 141).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner does not
sufficiently explain how the cited portions of Kim teach or suggest that the
grouping is based on signaling support. See Kim Fig. 4; 141. Although
Kim teaches or suggests determining which groups to place contiguous
subchannels within, the cited portions of Kim fail to teach or suggest what
the grouping is based on. See id.
Our above reasoning also applies with respect to Appellants’ similar
arguments directed to claims 37, 56, and 65. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 29, 37, 56, and 65.
(8) Based on channel estimates and CQI information
Appellants argue the combination of Thomas and Kim fails to teach or
suggest “the pre-coder transmission is based on channel estimates and
[Channel Quality Information (‘CQI’)] . . . information,” as recited in claim
39. App. Br. 31—32. More specifically, Appellants argue the cited portions
of Kim fail to teach or suggest “that the pre-coder transmission is based on
‘channel estimates’ AND ‘CQI information.’” App. Br. 31 (citing Kim
134).
The Examiner finds the combination of Thomas and Kim teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 10. More specifically, the Examiner
10
Appeal 2016-007665
Application 11/688,756
finds Kim teaches or suggests the disputed limitation via Kim’s teaching that
the pre-coder transmission is based on channel state information (“CSI”)
feedback and time varying channel environment information. Id. (citing
Kim 134; Fig. 3).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner does not
sufficiently explain how the cited portions of Kim teach or suggest that the
pre-coder transmissions are based on channel estimates and CQI. See Kim
Fig. 3; 134; see also Spec. 5, 7 (describing channel estimates and CQIs).
Further, the Examiner fails to tether the finding of “time varying channel
environment” information to Kim’s teachings. Kim | 34.
Our above reasoning also applies with respect to Appellants’ similar
arguments directed to claims 46, 58, and 67. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 39, 58, and 67. We also do not
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 46, as the Examiner relies on
the above findings as they relate to Kim. We also do not sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 40, 41, 47, 48, 59, 60, 68, and 69, as
they depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 39, 46, 58, and 67.
(9) Defined bandwidth
Appellants argue Thomas fails to disclose “each of the resource
blocks represents a defined bandwidth,” as recited in claim 42. App. Br. 19.
More specifically, Appellants argue Thomas “makes no association between
‘resource blocks’ and ‘bandwidth’.” App. Br. 19 (citing Thomas 132).
Appellants also argue it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art what
Thomas’ disclosure of “different granularities” means. Id. (citing Thomas
132).
11
Appeal 2016-007665
Application 11/688,756
The Examiner finds Thomas discloses the disputed limitation. Ans. 7.
More specifically, the Examiner finds Thomas discloses “having bandwidth
allocation; ‘For example, a single set of codebook weights and power
weights can be fed back and used for the entire bandwidth allocated to a
particular MIMO transmission to a MS (e.g., all OFDM subcarriers that
will be used for the transmission).’” Ans. 7 (quoting Thomas 132).
We are not persuaded that the Examiner errs. As discussed above,
Thomas discloses resource blocks. See Thomas 16, 20; supra § 1.
Further, Thomas discloses certain channel bandwidth is allocated to a
resource block for a particular transmission to a mobile station “(e.g., all
OFDM subcarriers that will be used for the transmission).” Thomas 132.
Thomas, thus, discloses each of the resource blocks represents a defined
bandwidth (i.e., allocated bandwidth).
Our above reasoning also applies with respect to Appellants’ similar
arguments directed to claims 49, 61 and 70. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 42, 61, and 70. We also sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 49, as the Examiner relies on the above
findings as they relate to Thomas.
(10) 180kHz bandwidth
Appellants argue the combination of Thomas and Kumar fails to teach
or suggest “each of the resource blocks represent 180kHz bandwidth,” as
recited in claim 43. App. Br. 53—57. Appellants argue Kumar simply
teaches that a subcarrier’s bandwidth is “typically between about 1 kHz and
about 15 kHz.” App. Br. 56 (citing Kumar | 63). According to Appellants,
Kumar fails to teach or suggest having twelve sub-carriers, as well as each
of the twelve sub-carriers having 15 kHz bandwidth to arrive at resource
12
Appeal 2016-007665
Application 11/688,756
blocks of 180 kHz. Id. Appellants contend the Examiner relies on
speculation and hindsight. Id.
The Examiner finds the combination of Thomas and Kumar teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 14. More specifically, the Examiner
finds Kumar teaches or suggests that sub-carriers are typically between
about 1kHz and 15kHz. Id. (citing Kumar | 63). The Examiner, thus, finds
“if there are 12 subcarriers then the bandwidth will be 180kHz.” Id.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner does not
sufficiently explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen
(i) the top end of the range for sub-carrier bandwidth (i.e., 15kHz) while also
have chosen (ii) twelve sub-carriers. The Examiner has the initial duty of
supplying the requisite factual basis and may not, because of doubts that the
invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions, or
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual basis. In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1016-17 (CCPA 1967).
Our above reasoning also applies with respect to Appellants’ similar
arguments directed to claim 50. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 43 and 50. We also do not sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 44 and 51, as they depend from claims
43 and 50, respectively.
13
Appeal 2016-007665
Application 11/688,756
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings and reasoning above, we:
(i) sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 27, 28, 35, 36, 42,
61, and 70, as well as claims 30, 38, 57, and 66, as Appellants do not
provide separate arguments for their patentability;
(ii) do not sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 24, 25, 33,
53, 54, 62, and 63;
(iii) sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 26 and 55;
(iv) do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 29, 32, 34,
37, 39, 40, 41, 56, 58, 59, 60, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69;
(v) sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 49;
(vi) do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 46-48;
and
(vii) do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 43, 44,
50,51.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 26—28, 30, 35, 36,
38,42, 49,55, 57, 61,66, and 70.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 24, 25, 29, 32—
34, 37, 39-41, 43, 44, 46-A8, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56, 58-60, 62-65, and 67-69.
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-IN-PART
14