Ex Parte Zou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2014

10954755 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2014)

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.
10/954,755 09/30/2004 Jialin Zou LUCW:0015 Kong 11-6 4332
48671 7590 12/19/2014
FLETCHER YODER (LUCENT)
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77069
EXAMINER
PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JIALIN ZOU and HONGWEI KONG
____________

Appeal 2012-009556
Application 10/954,7551
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JAMES R. HUGHES, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16–20. (App. Br.
3.)2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Alcatel-Lucent USA
Inc. (App. Br. 3.)
2 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) filed September 30, 2004;
Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed December 27, 2011; and Reply Brief (Reply
Br.”) filed June 6, 2012. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed April 6, 2012 and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) (“Final
Act.”) mailed July 22, 2011.
Appeal 2012-009556
Application 10/954,755

2

Appellants’ Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns systems and methods for
generating quality metrics from a decoding process for a received channel
quality indicator (CQI) where the quality metrics include long-term soft
decision quality metrics associated with a quality of the received CQI and
the long-term soft decision quality metrics are generated by filtering frame
based quality metrics over a plurality of frames. (Spec. 1:7–8; 6:2–9:4;
Abstract.)
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method comprising:
generating quality metrics from a decoding process for a
received channel quality indicator (CQI), wherein the quality
metrics comprise short-term soft decision quality metrics and
long-term soft decision quality metrics that are associated with
a quality of the received CQI, wherein the long-term soft
decision quality metrics are generated by filtering frame based
quality metrics over a plurality of frames;
comparing at least one of the quality metrics to a quality
setting; and
determining whether to dynamically adjust a CQI
channel configuration based on the comparison.
Appeal 2012-009556
Application 10/954,755

3

Rejections on Appeal3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 5, 8–10, 12, 14, and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Duan (US 2005/0113106 A1
published May 26, 2005 (filed June 10, 2004)) and Rudolf
(US 2004/0110473 A1 published June 10, 2004).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Duan, Rudolf, and Gholmieh (US 2003/0129989
A1 published July 10, 2003).
3. The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Duan, Rudolf, and Yun (US 2003/0206541 A1
published Nov. 6, 2003).

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Duan and
Rudolf collectively would have taught or suggested:
generating quality metrics from a decoding process for a
received channel quality indicator (CQI), wherein the quality
metrics comprise . . . long-term soft decision quality metrics
that are associated with a quality of the received CQI, wherein

3 The Examiner has indicated that claims 7 and 17–20 include allowable
subject matter. (Ans. 4.) Accordingly, we do not address Appellants’
arguments with respect to claim 7, previously rejected under § 103 over
Duan, Rudolf, and Gholmieh, claims 17, 19, and 20, previously rejected
under § 103 over Duan, Rudolf, Sutivong, and Yun, or claim 18, previously
rejected under § 103 over Duan, Rudolf, Sutivong, Yun, and Gholmieh.
(App. Br. 10–14.)
Appeal 2012-009556
Application 10/954,755

4

the long-term soft decision quality metrics are generated by
filtering frame based quality metrics over a plurality of frames
within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 1 and the commensurate limitations
of claim 10?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Duan and Rudolf. (Final Act. 2–3, 11–13; Ans. 5–6, 11–12.)
Appellants contend, inter alia, that Duan does not teach generating long-
term soft decision quality metrics by filtering frame based quality metrics
over more than one frame. (App. Br.7–8; Reply Br. 2–3.) Specifically,
Appellants contend:
while [the cited] portion of Duan does appear to suggest that
frame error rate information taken over a hundred or more
received frames could theoretically be utilized to make rate
adjustments to the data rate of a forward supplemental channel
(see Duan, paragraph 4), there appears to be no teaching of
filtering frame based quality metrics, as recited in [claim 1].
(App. Br. 7.) Appellants further contend:
In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner has argued (for the
first time) that Duan teaches a filter 64 that is utilized to filter
frame based quality metrics. See Examiner’s Answer, page 11.
Appellants have reviewed the teachings of Duan with respect to
monitoring/filtering circuit 64 and respectfully submit that the
monitoring/filtering circuit 64 of Duan appears to filter, at best,
power data being used to transmit on a channel or power
commands related thereto. See Duan, FIG. 5; paragraphs 34
and 35. However, there is no teaching in Duan that power data
related to transmit power is a frame based quality metric or that
power commands related to power data is a frame based quality
metric (and indeed, the Examiner makes no such assertion).
(Reply. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2012-009556
Application 10/954,755

5

The Examiner takes the position that:
Duan et al. discloses a method and system comprising . . . long-
term soft decision quality metrics that are associated with a
quality of a received CQI (short term and long term data rate
adjustments based on received channel quality information,
Paragraphs 53–55), wherein the long-term soft decision quality
metrics are generated by filtering or accumulating frame based
quality metrics over a plurality of frames (rate adjustments
including long term rate adjustments are based on frame error
rate information which is a type of CQI that is taken from a
hundred or more frames, Paragraphs 4 and 61-62).
(Ans. 5–6.) The Examiner further explains that:
Duan et al. discloses monitoring channel utilization (channel
utilization is a type of quality metric, Paragraph 62 and Fig. 2
shows a monitoring/filtering circuit within the rate adaptor
circuit, Item 64)(interpreted to be the same as appellant’s
filtering frame based quality metrics) and making long term
communication resource adjustments over one or more rate
adaptations (short term adjustments are made per frame and
long term adjustments are made less frequently thus a plurality
of frames, Paragraph 61 and 62) (interpreted to be the same as
appellant’s generating long-term decision quality metrics).
(Id. at 11.) In summary, the Examiner asserts that Duan’s frame error rate
and/or channel utilization are quality metrics (“channel quality indicators”
(“CQI”)) utilized to generate rate adjustment data and that Duan describes
filtering quality metrics—channel utilization (which is purportedly
equivalent to the recited “frame based quality metrics”)—using the filtering
circuit (64) to create/generate the rate adjustments (which are equivalent to
the recited “long-term soft decision quality metrics”). (Id.)
We disagree with the Examiner’s interpretation of Duan. We agree,
instead, with Appellants that Duan’s filter circuit (64)—which is part of
Duan’s rate adaptor circuit (60) (see Fig. 2)—monitors / filters power data
Appeal 2012-009556
Application 10/954,755

6

not “frame based quality metrics” (claim 1). (Reply Br. 3; see Duan ¶¶ 30–
41; Figs. 2–7.) Specifically, Duan explains that the rate adaptor (60)
performs rate adjustments based on transmit power information that is
monitored and filtered (by filter (64)) (see Duan ¶¶ 41–42; Figs. 2, 5). The
transmit power information includes, for example, the transmission power
on a forward link (forward supplemental channel (F-SCH)). (See Duan ¶¶ 8,
26–35.) Duan describes power control commands sent by a mobile station
(14) to a radio base station (RBS) (32) in order to control the forward link
transmission power used by the RBS to transmit to the mobile station on a
forward supplemental channel (F-SCH) assigned to the mobile station. (See
Duan ¶¶ 30–35; Fig. 2.) Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the cited
portions of Duan do not describe filtering quality metrics. Nothing in the
cited portions of Duan indicates filtering of quality-related data. Instead, at
most, Duan describes monitoring quality data (CQI) and separately filtering
power data.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Duan (and Rudolf) teaches the recited features
of Appellants’ claim 1. Appellants’ independent claim 10 includes
limitations of commensurate scope. Appellants’ dependent claims 2–5, 8, 9,
11–14, and 16 depend on and stand with claims 1 and 10. Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–5, 8–14, and 16.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–
5, 8–14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2012-009556
Application 10/954,755

7

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–5, 8–14, and 16.

REVERSED

bar