Ex Parte Song et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2016

13142121 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/142,121 06/24/2011
48116 7590 09/16/2016
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yang Song
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.
LUTZ 201270US01 9780
EXAMINER
NEFF, MICHAEL R
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2016 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@faysharpe.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITEn STATES PATENT ANn TRA.nEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YANG SONG, XIAOLONG ZHU, and DONG LI
Appeal2015-003042
Application 13/142,121
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, KEVIN C. TROCK, and ADAM J. PYONIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 28, 43, 48, 49, 51, and 53. 1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Claims 6, 7, 10, 44--47, and 50 have been objected to, claims
4, 5, 13 and 52 have been allowed, and claims 2, 3, 12, 14--27, and 29--42
have been canceled. See App. Br. 4.
Appeal2015-003042
Application 13/142,121
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure is directed to a codebook-based multi-base
station unite pre-coding method, mobile terminal, and base station.
Spec., Title. Claims 1 and 28 are independent and subject to this appeal.
Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference:
1. A codebook-based multi-base station unite pre-coding
method, comprising:
a mobile terminal estimating channels from multiple
different cooperating base stations to obtain a unite channel
matrix He including elements from the multiple different
cooperating base stations;
the mobile terminal, based on the estimated unite channel
matrix, selecting an optimal unite pre-coding matrix We from a
pre-coding matrix codebook;
the mobile terminal feeding an index of the unite pre-
coding matrix back to the cooperating base stations;
the corresponding cooperating base station, based on the
received index of the unite pre-coding matrix; selecting a unite
pre-coding matrix from the pre-coding matrix codebook, and
performing unite pre-coding on data using the unite pre-coding
matrix before sending the data to the mobile terminal;
wherein the unite channel matrix He is an inner pre-coded
equivalent unite channel matrix.
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 8, 9, 11, and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mondal (US 2010/0150266 Al; June 17, 2010),
Forck (US 2011/0305195 Al; Dec. 15, 2011), and Eichinger (US
2010/0189079 Al; July 29, 2010). Final Act. 3, 8.
2
Appeal2015-003042
Application 13/142,121
Claims 28, 48, 49, 51, and 53 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mondal and Forck. 3 Final Act. 6.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions in the Final
Action and Examiner's Answer as our own, to the extent they are consistent
with our analysis below. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
A. Independent Claims 1and28
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting the independent
claims, because:
[C]laims 1 and 28 clearly provide that the mobile terminal
estimates the channels to obtain the unite channel matrix,
whereas Forck merely discloses generating a matrix at a base
station, and not at the user terminal. Moreover, Mondal involves
a single base station, and there is no disclosure of a mobile
terminal in Mondal estimating channels from multiple different
cooperating base stations obtain a channel matrix including
elements from the multiple different cooperating base stations as
claimed.
App. Br. 9. Particularly, Appellants contend "Forck provides no teaching of
a mobile terminal estimating channels from multiple base stations to obtain a
channel matrix as claimed." Id. at 11.
2 The Examiner refers to claim 49 in the rejection of claim 53. See Final
Act. 8. We treat this as harmless error.
3 The preamble of the rejections of claims 48, 49, 51, and 53 refers to
Eichinger (see Final Act. 7-8); however, as Eichinger is not otherwise cited,
we consider these claims as solely rejected under Mondal and Forck.
3
Appeal2015-003042
Application 13/142,121
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive of error because they attack
the references individually, and thus fail to address the Examiner's findings.
To justify combining reference teachings in support of a
rejection it is not necessary that a device shown in one reference
can be physically inserted into the device shown in the
other. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (internal citations omitted).
Further, "one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references." Id. at 426. Here, the Examiner correctly finds Mondal teaches
a mobile terminal estimates channels (see Mondal Fig. 3, i-fi-152, 72), and
Forck teaches estimating channels from multiple base stations to obtain a
unite channel matrix (see Forck i-fi-130, 42, 52, 72). See Final Act. 3--4. The
Examiner finds, therefore, that the combination of references teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations. Id.
We are not persuaded the Examiner's combination of Mondal and
Forck is improper. See App. Br. 14; Ans. 11-12. The Examiner explains
that both references are "analogous arts" and the combination would "allow
for the more efficient and effective implementation of the cooperation and
associated processing requirements for the cooperative base station design."
See Final Act. 4, Ans. 11. We find the Examiner's explanation constitutes
articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to justify the
legal conclusion of obviousness. In contrast, Appellants fail to provide
4
Appeal2015-003042
Application 13/142,121
sufficient evidence or reasoning to persuade us that requiring Mondal' s
mobile terminal to perform channel estimation as taught by Forck was
"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or
"represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations
removed). Nor have Appellants presented evidence that any of their
incorporations of known limitations yielded more than expected results. See
Ans. 12.
Thus, Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner erred in finding the
combined teachings of Mondal and Forck suggest, to one of ordinary skill in
the art, the mobile station estimation as recited by independent claims 1 and
28. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims, and dependent
claims 8, 9, 11, 43, 48, 49, and 51, which are not separately argued. See
App. Br. 15.
B. Dependent Claim 53
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 53,
because "claim 53 depends from independent claim 1 and recites that the
mobile terminal estimating channels from multiple different cooperating
base stations is a single mobile terminal," whereas the cited figure of Forck
"does not show any mobile terminals, but instead shows ... connections
between" base stations and/or gateways. App. Br. 10; see also Forck Fig. 2.
We agree with the Examiner, however, that the combination of
Mondal and Forck teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 53. See Final
Act. 6. As cited by the Examiner, Mondal teaches a single mobile station
will estimate channels; the Examiner additionally cites Forck, which teaches
5
Appeal2015-003042
Application 13/142,121
processing may be performed by each device separately. See Final Act. 8;
see also Forck i-f 6 (referring to Forck Fig. 2); Mondal Figs. 3, 6. Therefore,
Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner erred in finding the limitations
recited by claim 53 are obvious in view of Mondal and Forck.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 28, 43, 48, 49, 51, and
5 3 is 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