Ex Parte Sarkar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 9, 2016

12244629 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/244,629 10/02/2008
23696 7590 06/13/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sandip Sarkar
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.
080005 2341
EXAMINER
TSVEY, GENNADIY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANDIP SARKAR
Appeal2014-007441
Application 12/244,629
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-007441
Application 12/244,629
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4--15, and 36, which are all of the claims now pending. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to "[t]echniques for performing calibration
and beamforming in a wireless communication system." (Abstract.) Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method for wireless communication, comprising:
periodically performing calibration in each calibration inter-
val to obtain a calibration vector for a Node B, wherein periodi-
cally performing calibration comprises selecting a set of user
equipments (UEs) to perform calibration, wherein the set ofUEs
is selected based on channel quality indicators (CQis) received
from the UEs; and
performing beamforming for at least one UE in each calibra-
tion interval and applying the calibration vector obtained for the
calibration interval.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Li et al.
Tanaka et al.
US 2006/0146725 Al July 6, 2006
US 2006/0183504 Al Aug. 17, 2006
1 Appellant identifies Qualcomm Incorporated as the real party in interest.
(See App. Br. 3.)
2
Appeal2014-007441
Application 12/244,629
Naguib et al.
Harrison et al.
Yun et al.
US 2007/0099670 Al May 3, 2007
US 2008/0032633 Al Feb. 7, 2008
US 2009/0130986 Al May 21, 2009
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4--15, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Li, Tanaka, and Naguib, "and in view of facts well known
in the art as may be evidenced by alternatively [Harrison] or [Yun]." (Final
Act. 10-18.)
APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS
Appellant argues that the rejections were improper for the following
reasons:
1. "Li, Tanaka, and Naguib fail to teach or even suggest that
'periodically performing calibration comprises selecting a set of user
equipments (UEs) to perform calibration, wherein the set of UEs is selected
based on channel quality indicators (CQ!s) receivedfrom the UEs"' and
"Harrison and Yun are both silent regarding calibration at all and certainly
fail to teach or suggest a Node B selecting a set of UEs to perform
calibration based on CQ!s received from the UEs." (App. Br. 8-9.)
2. "[T]he Examiner is using impermissible hindsight analysis
using Appellant's application as a guide for combining the features of the
cited references" and "has attempted to combine a large number of disparate
references in order to allegedly arrive at the claim language using the
teachings disclosed in the subject application to render obvious that which
the cited references do not disclose, teach, or even suggest." (App. Br. 10.)
3
Appeal2014-007441
Application 12/244,629
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Li teaches a method for wireless
communication that includes (a) periodically performing calibration in each
calibration interval to obtain a calibration vector for a Node B and (b)
performing beamforming for at least one UE in each calibration interval and
applying the calibration vector obtained for the calibration interval. (See
Final Act. 10-11.)
The Examiner further found that, although "Li does not explicitly
disclose 'wherein periodically performing calibration comprises selecting a
set of user equipments (UEs) to perform calibration, wherein the set ofUEs
is selected based on channel quality indicators (CQis) received from the
UEs," Tanaka does disclose selecting a UE to perform calibration, where the
UE is selected based on the quality of signals received from the UEs and the
quality of signals may be based on signal strength. (See Final Act. 11.) The
Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious "to combine the
teaching of Tanaka of selecting particular user terminal for calibration based
on quality of the signal received, with the teaching of Li," as "[d]oing so
would have ensured selection of [a] suitable terminal for calibration and
reduced possible calibration errors." (See id. 11-12.)
The Examiner further found that Naguib teaches a "similar method of
calibrating and beamforming wherein the access point performs calibration
for a number ('set') of access terminals for subsequent transmissions,
wherein the process involves receipt of channel estimates from access
terminals," wherein the "calibration may be calculated to some access
terminals (thus necessitating 'selection' of a subset of the access terminals)."
(See Final Act. 12.) The Examiner found that it would have been obvious to
4
Appeal2014-007441
Application 12/244,629
combine Naguib's individual calibration with Li and Tanaka because
"[ d]oing so would have provided higher immunity to noise and error for
each individual channel to each individual access terminal." Id.
Appellant does not dispute the foregoing Examiner findings, which
we agree with and adopt.
The issue, then, is whether it would have been obvious to modify the
Li/Tanaka/Naguib combination such that the set ofUEs is selected based on
channel quality indicators "received from the UEs," as recited in claim 1.
We agree with the Examiner that, given the teachings in Harrison and Yun
of transmitting CQI from user terminals for the purpose of selecting user
terminals, 2 such a variation would have been obvious to one of skill in the
art, as it would have provided the advantage of "freeing up some computing
resources at the base station and transferring the calculation to user terminals
which do that anyway" and because the "base station would have performed
selection based on downlink quality metrics, rather than uplink, and thus
take into consideration any condition which may interfere with the reception
of signal at the user terminal especially in those cases when [the] wireless
channel is not reciprocal in both directions." (Final Act. 14.)
2 See Harrison i-f 25 ("[C]ontroller 118 of transmitting device 110 receives
the CQI reports [and] selects the receiving devices to which it will schedule
the transmission of data. In one example, selecting the receiving devices
involves determining which receiving devices have channels ... that are of
sufficient quality to transmit data."); Yun i-f 3 ("[A] user equipment (UE) 12
measures channel quality by using signals transmitted on a downlink
channel from a base station 11 (101). The user equipment 12 reports the
measured value to the base station 11 (102) .... The base station 11
performs scheduling such as user equipment selection ... by using the
received CQI information.").
5
Appeal2014-007441
Application 12/244,629
Appellant's contention 1 is unpersuasive because the argument does
not address the combination articulated by the Examiner. See In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot
be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is
based upon the teachings of a combination of references."). Harrison and
Yun need not teach calibration or a Node B selecting a set ofUEs to perform
calibration based on CQis because those teachings are found in the
combination of Li, Tanaka, and Naguib.
We also find Appellant's contention 2 unpersuasive. The hindsight
argument is unconvincing because, as detailed above, the combination is
supported by an articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning. See In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). And the argument that the
Examiner has "combine[ d] a large number of disparate references" does not
show Examiner error because Appellant fails to explain how these
references are improperly "disparate," and because it is well-settled that
"[t]he criterion ... is not the number of references, but what they would
have meant to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention." See In
re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The Examiner has provided
a thorough explanation of how this set of references renders the claims
obvious, and that explanation is unrebutted.
Finally, we are not swayed by the argument that "if the Examiner is
not citing Harrison and Yun to overcome the deficiencies of Li, Tanaka, and
Naguib . .. a primafacie case of obviousness has clearly not been
established." (App. Br. 10.) Because the Examiner identified specific
teachings in the art corresponding to each element of the claims, and
6
Appeal2014-007441
Application 12/244,629
provided explicit and rational motivations to combine, we find that prima
facie obviousness has been established.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--15, and 36 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
7