Hammarwall, David

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 15, 2020

15653975 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2020)

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.
15/653,975 07/19/2017 David Hammarwall 4015-9998 / P37510-US4 4254
24112 7590 01/15/2020
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
NOORISTANY, SULAIMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2415
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/15/2020 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 DAVID HAMMARWALL
Appeal 2019-000768
Application 15/653,975
Technology Center 2400
BEFORE JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–17. Appeal Br. 5. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ). Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000768
Application 15/653,975

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to a method for reporting Channel State Information
(CSI) in a Long Term Evolution (LTE) system. Spec., Abstract, ¶ 2. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, in a wireless device, for reporting Channel
State Information (CSI), the wireless device being comprised in
a wireless communications system, the method comprising:
receiving a CSI process configuration and a request for
CSI from a network node;
determining a CSI reference resource based on a number
of configured CSI processes; and
reporting CSI for one or more CSI processes, wherein the
CSI reflects a state of a channel for the CSI reference resource.
REJECTION
Claims 1–17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Seo (US 2013/0301465 A1, Nov. 14, 2013) or, in the
alternative, under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Seo and
Geirhofer (US 2013/0258965 A1, Oct. 3, 2013). Final Act. 2
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
ANALYSIS
Rejection under § 102 over Seo
Appellant contends claim 1 is patentable over Seo because Seo fails to
disclose “determining a CSI reference resource based on a number of
configured CSI processes,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7–10; Reply
Br. 2. Appellant concedes that Seo discloses “determin[ing] a CSI reference
resource.” Appeal Br. 7 (“Seo determines a CSI reference resource (e.g., a
Appeal 2019-000768
Application 15/653,975

3
CQI reference resource).”). Accordingly, the sole question before us is
whether Seo determines the CSI reference resource “based on a number of
configured CSI processes.”
Appellant contends, “Seo’s approach to determining a CQI reference
resource using periodic CQI reporting relies exclusively on the number of
subframes until a CSI report is due and the type of those subframes, without
relying at all on the number of configured CSI processes.” Id. Appellant
contends that Seo instead describes a different kind of CQI reporting: “[Seo]
determine[s] . . . a value that is a minimum value from among values greater
than 4 and corresponds to a valid downlink subframe in the case of periodic
CQI reporting.” Id. (citing Seo ¶ 130). Appellant concludes that Seo’s
approach therefore “suffer[s] from one of the very problems addressed by
the present application in describing a conventional LTE approach.” Id. at
7–8 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 86–87).
Appellant also contends, “Seo’s teachings regarding how it
determines a virtual CQI reference resource also fail to read on Applicant’s
claims, because Seo does not teach determining a virtual CQI reference
resource based on a number of configured CSI processes.” Id. at 9.
Specifically, Appellant contends that the CSI-RS (CSI reference signal)
pattern in Seo’s Figures 8 and 9 does not “equate[] to or otherwise
correspond[] to a number of ‘configured CSI processes.’ In fact, Seo never
even uses the term ‘CSI process.’” Id. at 10.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Seo discloses the disputed
limitation. Final Act. 6, Ans. 3–4. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Seo
discloses in Fig. 8 that the received CSI-RSs are “considered as same as the
number of configured CSI processes,” which are used to “determine signal
Appeal 2019-000768
Application 15/653,975

4
characteristics in the virtual CQI reference resource.” Final Act. 6 (also
citing Seo ¶¶ 147–150). The Examiner also finds Seo’s “interference
measurement resource[s]” correspond to “CSI processes”: “an interference
measurement resource set may mean REs [resource elements] that represent
interference characteristics . . . (herein considered same as . . . determined
based on a number of configured CSI processes).” Id. (citing Seo, Fig. 9).
We begin by construing “CSI process.” During examination of a
patent application, we give pending claims their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Specification provides a
definition for CSI process: “For the purpose of this disclosure, a CSI process
is defined as the reporting process of CSI (e.g., CQI and potentially
associated PMI/RI) for a particular effective channel, and an interference
measurement resource.” Spec. ¶ 41 (emphasis added). The Specification
defines “effective channel” as “a reference signal resource comprising one
or more multiple associated reference sequences.” Id. (emphasis added). In
other words, a CSI process includes a reference signal resource (e.g., a CSI-
RS) and an interference measurement resource.
Notably, the Specification also appears to equate CSI processes and
CSI-RS: “The length of the time window may e.g. be dependent on the total
number of CSI processes, or the number of CSI-RS resources, configured for
the wireless device. For instance, a CSI reference resource may depend on
the number of configured CSI-RS resources or number of CSI processes.”
Id. ¶ 91 (emphasis added). Another example “accounts for the additional
processing time that is required in the wireless device for the larger number
of CSI-RS (or CSI processes).” Id. ¶ 101 (emphasis added). It is sufficient
Appeal 2019-000768
Application 15/653,975

5
for our purposes to determine that under the broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the Specification, “CSI process” includes either a
CSI-RS and an interference measurement resource or a CSI-RS alone.
Seo discloses CSI processes as claimed. In Figure 8 of Seo,
reproduced below, Seo calculates a virtual CQI reference resource based on
two CSI-RS signals and interference measurements:

See Seo ¶¶ 146–148. Specifically, Figure 8 of Seo depicts an “example of
setting a CQI reference resource.” Id. ¶ 34. In Figure 8, Seo discloses that a
“virtual CQI reference resource has the same signal characteristics as those
of a specific subframe and the same interference characteristics as those of
another specific subframe.” Seo ¶ 146. Seo’s “UE can measure signal
characteristics from a CSI-RS.” Id. ¶ 147. Seo’s UE also “determine[s]
interference characteristics in the virtual CQI reference resource based on
the measured interference characteristics.” Id. ¶ 148.
Because Seo teaches determining a virtual CQI reference resource
based on CSI-RS and interference measurements, we agree with the
Examiner that Seo teaches determining a virtual CQI reference resource (i.e.,
Appeal 2019-000768
Application 15/653,975

6
a CSI reference resource) based on configured CSI processes, under the
broadest reasonable interpretation of that term.
Seo also teaches determining the CSI reference resource based on a
number of configured CSI processes. Specifically, Seo determines its virtual
CQI reference resource using (i.e., broadly “based on”) at least two CSI-RS
measurements. See Seo, Fig. 8. Two CSI-RS measurements (alone or with
the corresponding interference measurements) represents “a number” of
configured CSI processes, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a
number.” Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Seo teaches
“determining a CSI references resource based on a number of configured
CSI processes.”
Appellant’s argument that Seo “relies exclusively on the number of
subframes until a CSI report is due and the type of those subframes, without
relying at all on the number of configured CSI processes” is unpersuasive, as
it relies on a narrow interpretation not reflected in the claims. See Appeal
Br. 7. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 1.
Appellant also contends that Seo fails to disclose claim 2’s “wherein
the determining the CSI reference resource comprises determining the CSI
reference resource further based on a number of configured CSI-RS
resources.” Appeal Br. 12–13. Appellant contends that Seo discloses
“conventional . . . CSI reporting.” Id. at 12. According to Appellant, “[t]he
existence of CSI-RS resources for this CSI reporting says nothing about how
a particular CSI reference resource is determined.” Id.
In the Final Action, the Examiner cites Seo paragraphs [120] and
[179] to address claim 2. Final Act. 3. In the Answer, the Examiner
Appeal 2019-000768
Application 15/653,975

7
expands upon this reasoning, applying Figures 8 and 9 of Seo (and
corresponding paragraphs) to reject claim 2. Ans. 6–7. Appellant contends,
“[t]hese new citations of Seo as with previous citations to Seo addressed by
Applicant merely discuss the existence of a CSI-RS pattern and what is
conventionally known that resource patterns are described for performing
interference measurements for CSI reporting.” Reply Br. 4. Appellant does
not persuasively distinguish Seo. For similar reasons as we discuss above
for claim 1, we agree with the Examiner that Seo Figure 8 teaches claim 2’s
“determining the CSI reference resource further based on a number of
configured CSI-RS resources.” Specifically, Seo’s Figure 8 teaches
determining a “virtual CQI reference resource” based on two CSI-RS signal
measurements. See Seo, Fig. 8, ¶¶ 146–148. We, therefore, also sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 2.
Appellant’s arguments regarding the rejection of independent claims
10 and 17 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellant does not
argue separate patentability for the dependent claims apart from claim 2.
See Appeal Br. 14. We therefore also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 3–17. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Rejection under § 103 over Seo and Geirhofer
Appellant’s arguments against the Seo-Geirhofer combination solely
address the teachings of Geirhofer, contending that “Geirhofer also fails to
teach determining a CSI reference resource based on a number of configured
CSI processes.” Appeal Br. 10. However, the Examiner did not rely on
Geirhofer in the Final Action for this limitation, but relied on Seo instead,
for reasons discussed above. Final Act. 2–3. Although the Examiner newly
Appeal 2019-000768
Application 15/653,975

8
relied on Geirhofer for the disputed limitation in the Answer, and Appellant
contests this new finding in its Reply Brief, whether Geirhofer discloses this
limitation is irrelevant because Seo discloses it. Ans. 4–5; Reply Br. 2–4.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1.
Appellant also contends Geirhofer does not teach the limitation of
claim 2. Appeal Br. 13. The Examiner cited paragraph 85 of Geirhofer to
address claim 2. Final Act. 3. However, since we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Seo discloses this limitation, for reasons discussed
above, Appellant’s argument attempting to distinguish Geirhofer is
unpersuasive.
Appellant’s arguments regarding the rejection of independent claims
10 and 17 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellant does not
argue separate patentability for the dependent claims apart from claim 2.
See Appeal Br. 14. We therefore also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 2–17. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–17 102 Seo 1–17
1–17 103 Seo, Geirhofer 1–17
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED