Ex Parte Xu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 21, 2017

13633667 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 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.
13/633,667 10/02/2012 Hao Xu 120051US 8469
15055 7590 04/25/2017
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
CHAU, PETER P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2017 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):
qu alcomm @ pattersonsheridan .com
PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAO XU, JUAN MONTOJO, TAO LUO, and
PETER GAAL
Appeal 2017-000590
Application 13/633,667
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-000590
Application 13/633,667
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The invention relates to “techniques that may enhance sounding
reference signal (SRS) procedures for use in coordinated multipoint (CoMP)
systems” (Spec. 125). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for wireless communication by a user
equipment (UE), comprising:
transmitting a first sounding reference signal (SRS)
intended for a first one or more base stations currently serving
the UE and associated with a first cell identifier;
transmitting a second SRS intended for a second one or
more base stations associated with a second cell identifier; and
adjusting a transmission power of the first and the second
SRS with different power control schemes.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
REFERENCES
Malladi
Kishiyama
US 2009/0073955 A1 Mar. 19, 2009
US 2010/0103867 A1 Apr. 29, 2010
US 2010/0246561 A1 Sept. 30, 2010
US 2010/0285810 A1 Nov. 11,2010
US 2011/0098054 A1 Apr. 28, 2011
US 2013/0077571 A1 Mar. 28, 2013
US 2013/0143617 A1 June 6, 2013
Shin
Ko
Gorokhov
Papasakellariou
Cea
2
Appeal 2017-000590
Application 13/633,667
Anto US 2014/0219152 A1 Aug. 7, 2014
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 8, 9, 18, 25, 26, 35, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gorokhov, Anto, and Ko.
Claims 2, 3, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gorokhov, Anto, Ko, and Shin.
Claims 4 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gorokhov, Anto, Ko, and Papasakellariou.
Claims 5, 6, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gorokhov, Anto, Ko, Papasakellariou, and Cea.
Claims 7 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gorokhov, Anto, Ko, Papasakellariou, Cea, and Malladi.
Claims 10, 17, 27, 34, 36, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gorokhov, Anto, and Kishiyama.
Claims 11, 12, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gorokhov, Anto, Kishiyama, and Shin.
Claims 13, 14, 30, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gorokhov, Anto, Kishiyama, and Cea.
Claims 15 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gorokhov, Anto, Kishiyama, Cea, Papasakellariou, and
Malladi.
Claims 16 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gorokhov, Anto, Kishiyama, and Ko.
3
Appeal 2017-000590
Application 13/633,667
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Gorokhov, Anto, and Ko
discloses all the limitations of independent claim 1 (see Final Act. 7—9).
Specifically, the Examiner finds Gorokhov teaches adjusting the
transmission power of first and second sounding reference signals (SRSs),
but does not explicitly disclose “adjusting a transmission power of the first
and the second SRS with different power control schemes,” as recited in
claim 1 (Final Act. 8). The Examiner thus relies on Anto for teaching
adjusting the transmission power of two different signals with different
power control schemes, and concludes the combination of Anto with
Gorokhov would result in the claim 1 limitation “adjusting a transmission
power of the first and the second SRS with different power control schemes”
(Final Act. 8—9; Ans. 2—5). Appellants contend Anto does not teach
different power control schemes for SRSs intended for different base
stations (see App. Br. 10). We agree with Appellants.
Gorokhov describes the following with respect to configuring SRS
transmissions from a user equipment (UE):
UE 230 can include an RRC [radio resource control] module 232
that receives RRC messages from serving base station 210 and/or
neighbor base station 220. The RRC messages can include
configuration information comprising a set of SRS configuration
parameters. In addition, the RRC module 232 can receive power
control commands from serving base station 210 and/or neighbor
base station 220. RRC module 232 can employ the configuration
information and power control commands to configure SRS
transmission of a physical layer module 234.
(Gorokhov 1 83).
In an aspect, UE 230 can receive disparate configuration
information from different members of the cooperating set. For
4
Appeal 2017-000590
Application 13/633,667
instance, UE 230 can receive first configuration information
having a first set of SRS configuration parameters from serving
base station 210 and second configuration information having a
second set of SRS configuration parameters from neighbor base
station 220. . . . SRS configuration module 402 can utilize the
first and second configuration information separately to
independently configure two SRS transmissions. For instance,
SRS configuration module 402 can utilize the first configuration
information to configure SRS transmissions to serving base
station 210 and employ the second configuration information to
transmit SRS to neighbor base station 220.
(Gorokhov 1 85).
SRS power module 404 further adjusts SRS transmit
power (e.g., incrementally increasing or decreasing transmit
power) based upon power control commands received from
serving base station 210 and/or neighbor base station 220. In one
example, SRS power module 404 utilizes power control
commands received from serving base station 210, wherein the
power control commands are generated based, in part, on
information exchanged between serving base station 210 and
neighbor base station 220. In another example, SRS power
module 404 can obtain power control commands issued from
both serving base station 210 and neighbor base station 220. In
such cases, SRS power module 404 can employ a variety of
mechanisms to combine the power control commands when
setting SRS transmit power of UE 230.
(Gorokhov 1 87). As quoted here, we find Gorokhov discloses a UE
transmitting SRSs to a serving base station and neighbor base station based
on configuration information and power control commands received from
the base stations. Further, we find Gorokhov’s UE can independently
configure the SRSs transmitted to the two base stations, but the SRS
transmit power of the UE is set based on either power commands
coordinated between the two base stations, or power commands received
5
Appeal 2017-000590
Application 13/633,667
from the two base stations and combined by the UE. Accordingly, the
Gorokhov disclosure relied upon by the Examiner does not explicitly
disclose the transmit power of the SRS intended for the serving base station
and the SRS intended for the neighbor base station are adjusted with
different power control schemes (see Final Act. 8; Gorokhov ]Hf 87—88).
That is, although Gorokhov’s UE independently configures SRSs for
transmission to two different base stations, Gorokhov does not explicitly
disclose the transmit power for the SRSs is independently adjusted because
the power commands from the two base stations are either coordinated or
combined (see Gorokhov 87—88).1
Thus, we consider whether Anto teaches the claim 1 limitation
“adjusting a transmission power of the first and the second SRS with
different power control schemes.” Anto describes “independently
controlling transmission power of SRS signals and signals comprising traffic
data from the user equipment” (Anto, Abstract). Specifically, Anto discloses
“the use of two separate closed-loop power control instances for SRS and
PUSCH power adjustment instead of one. The use of two independent loops
1 However, although not identified by the Examiner, we note Gorokhov also
discloses an “SRS transmit power offset” value among the configuration
parameters used by the UE (Gorokhov 1 84). Specifically, “~Psrs_offset is a
UE-specific configuration parameter that provides an additional power offset
for sounding reference signals above PUSCH transmissions and can be
included in configuration information signaled to UE 230” (Gorokhov 1 86).
The Examiner may wish to determine, upon further prosecution, whether
Gorokhov’s disclosure that “SRS configuration module 402 can utilize the
first and second configuration information separately to independently
configure two SRS transmissions” (Gorokhov 1 85), where the configuration
information includes an “SRS transmit power offset” (Gorokhov 1 84),
suggests the claim 1 limitation “adjusting a transmission power of the first
and the second SRS with different power control schemes.”
6
Appeal 2017-000590
Application 13/633,667
for SRS and PUSCH power adjustment is motivated in heterogeneous
networks by the need to adjust SRS and PUSCH with different criteria . . .
(Anto 1104). Further, Anto discloses “open-loop power control may be
applied to one of the data transmissions or SRS transmissions, while closed-
loop power control is applied to the other” (Anto 1120). Accordingly, Anto
discloses using different power control schemes for SRS and PUSCH (data)
transmissions, but not for two different SRS transmissions. Thus, Anto does
not disclose “adjusting a transmission power of the first and the second SRS
with different power control schemes,” as recited in claim 1.
Moreover, the Examiner has not shown how Anto’s using different
power control schemes to control the power of SRS and PUSCH
transmissions would have motivated one to use different power control
schemes for the SRSs transmitted to two different base stations in Gorokhov.
The Examiner states that “[t]he motivation is satisfying different criterias
associated with different base stations (Anto 1104) and improving power
control of a UE (Anto 1 55)” and “[kjnown work in one field of endeavor
(Anto prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or
a different one (Goro prior art) based on design incentives (satisfying
different criterias associated with different base stations and improving
power control of a UE) or other market forces” (Final Act. 8—9). However,
Anto explains that there are different needs associated with SRS and PUSCH
transmissions (see Anto ]Hf 104—105). The Examiner has not provided a
sufficient reason why one would have used different power control schemes
for two SRSs, i.e., two of the same type of signals, in view of Anto’s
teaching of using different power control schemes for an SRS and a PUSCH
transmission, i.e., two different types of signals.
7
Appeal 2017-000590
Application 13/633,667
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 10, 18, 27, and
35—38 which recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2—9,
11—17, 19-26, and 28—34 for similar reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—38 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—38 are
reversed.
REVERSED
8