Ex Parte Yoo et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 22, 201613195711 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/195,711 08/01/2011 15757 7590 06/24/2016 Qualcomm /Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP 2200 Ross A venue Suite 3600 Dallas, TX 75201-7932 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Taesang Yoo 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. QLXX.P0006US/ll l 08246 2431 EXAMINER WONG, XAVIER S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2413 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/24/2016 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): ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com doipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TAESANG YOO and TAO LUO Appeal2015-002096 Application 13/195, 711 Technology Center 2400 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-002096 Application 13/195,711 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1--44. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Exemplary Claims Exemplary claims 1 and 5 under appeal read as follows (emphasis added): 1. A method of wireless communication, comprising: initializing a current channel estimate using a previous channel estimate computed for a previous subframe; selecting a target cell from a plurality of cells; canceling interfering signals of non-target cells of said plurality of cells from a received signal in said target cell, said canceling resulting in a remaining signal; filtering said remaining signal using a channel estimator; and updating said current channel estimate of said target cell using said filtered remaining signal 5. The method of claim 1 further comprising: calculating a correlation between a current subframe and said previous subframe; and modifying said previous channel estimate according to said correlation. 2 Appeal2015-002096 Application 13/195,711 Rejections 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1--44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Chen et al. (US 7,760,698 B2) and Ki et al. (US 2011/0038407 Al). 1 Appellants ' Contentions 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: The Final Office Action rejects claim 1 by incorrectly asserting that reporting channel conditions by reporting a difference between a previous channel estimate and a current channel estimate is equivalent to "initializing a current channel estimate using a previous channel estimate computed for a previous subframe." The Final Office Action relies on Chen to disclose the above feature at col. 19, 11. 42-47, .... See the Final Office Action at pp. 2,3. However, Applicant respectfully contends that Chen fails to teach or suggest this feature. For example, at col. 19, 11. 42-47, Chen discusses that a difference between a previous channel estimate and a current channel estimate can be time division multiplexed with sector selector information in a reporting procedure in order to reduce bit rate and improve reverse link capacity. See Chen, col. 19, 11. 42-47 (emphasis added). Reporting a difference between a current channel estimate and a previous channel estimate, as taught by Chen, is not the same as initializing a current channel estimate using a previous channel estimate computed for a prev10us subframe, as required by the independent claims. 1 Separate patentability is argued for claims 1 and 5. Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2--4 and 6--44. As to claims 2--4, 6-10, 12-15, 17- 21, 23-26, 28-32, 34--37, and 39--43, we group them with claim 1. As to claims 11, 16, 22, 27, 33, 38, and 44, we group them with claim 5. We note that Appellants' arguments group claim 44 with claim 1. However, the subject matter of claim 44 corresponds to that of claim 5. For this reason, we group claim 44 with claim 5. Except for our ultimate decision, claims 2- 4 and 6--44 are not discussed further herein. 3 Appeal2015-002096 Application 13/195,711 App. Br. 8. 2. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: The Final Office Action rejects claim 5 by incorrectly asserting that continuing to report channel conditions for a fixed number of slots when a sector select value changes is equivalent to "modifying said previous channel estimate according to said correlation." The Final Office Action relies on Chen to disclose the above feature at col. 20, 11. 26-30. See the Final Office Action at p. 5. However, Applicant respectfully contends that Chen fails to teach or suggest this feature. App. Br. 10. Issues on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1 and 5 as being obvious? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner;s rejections in light of Appellants; Appeal Brief arguments that the Examiner has erred. As to Appellants' above contention 2, covering claim 5, we agree. As to Appellants' above contention 1, covering claim 1, we disagree. We agree with the Examiner that Chen's discussion of an R-CHESS channel shows that a current channel estimate can be initialized using a previous channel estimate. Chen col. 19, 11. 42--47; L'iCHE. Further, even if we were to agree with Appellants as to this argument that Chen fails to teach or suggest this feature, claim 1 would still remain obvious over the combination of Chen and Ki. Appellants overlook that the Examiner also cites to i-f 105 of Ki which an artisan would recognize teaches the argued feature on its face. "In a second iteration, the channel estimator 4 Appeal2015-002096 Application 13/195,711 selector 920 provides the output signal 911 of the signal memory & re-adder 910 to the multi-cell channel estimator 410 .... "Ki i-f 105, first sentence. An artisan would recognize that signal 911 is a previous channel estimate computed for a previous subframe (Ki i-fi-197-100) being used to initialize a current channel estimate (Ki i-fi-1103-107). CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1--4, 6-10, 12-15, 17-21, 23-26, 28-32, 34--37, and 39--43 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5, 11, 16, 22, 27, 33, 38, and 44 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (3) Claims 5, 11, 16, 22, 27, 33, 38, and 44 have not been shown to be unpatentable. (4) Claims 1--4, 6-10, 12-15, 17-21, 23-26, 28-32, 34--37, and 39- 43 are not patentable. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6-10, 12-15, 17-21, 23-26, 28-32, 34--37, and 39--43 is affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 5, 11, 16, 22, 27, 33, 38, and 44 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. 5 Appeal2015-002096 Application 13/195,711 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation