Hammarwall, David et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2019

15273879 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2019)

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.
15/273,879 09/23/2016 David Hammarwall 3000-663C3 3267
27820 7590 12/02/2019
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C.
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
EXAMINER
CHENG, CHI TANG P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2019 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):
patents@wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID HAMMARWALL and GEORGE JÖNGREN
____________________

Appeal 2019-000518
Application 15/273,879
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and
IFTIKHAR AHMED, Administrative Patent Judges.

AHMED, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final
rejection of claims 1–5 and 7–19, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to “wireless communication and, more
particularly, to resource allocation for multi-antenna transmissions.” Spec.
1:11–12.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, the real party in interest is
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000518
Application 15/273,879

2
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A method for wirelessly transmitting user data and
control information using a plurality of transmission layers,
comprising:
encoding bits of a first type of control information to form
one or more control codewords of the first type of control
information;
encoding bits of a second type of control information to
form one or more control codewords of the second type of
control information;
encoding bits of user data to form one or more user data
codewords;
generating a plurality of vector symbols based on the
control codewords of the first type of control information, the
control codewords of the second type of control information, and
the user data codewords, each vector symbol comprising a
plurality of modulation symbols that are each associated with a
transmission layer over which the associated modulation symbol
will be transmitted, wherein generating the plurality of vector
symbols comprises interleaving bits of the one or more control
codewords of the first type of control information, bits of the one
or more control codewords of the second type of control
information, and bits of the one or more user data codewords
such that:
the first type of control information is carried in
modulation symbols associated with all transmission
layers in vector symbols transmitted during the subframe
that carry the first type of control information, and at least
one of the generated vector symbols that carries control
information of the second type also carries user data; and
transmitting the plurality of vector symbols to a receiver
over a plurality of transmission layers;
Appeal 2019-000518
Application 15/273,879

3
where generating the plurality of vector symbols
comprises:
segmenting at least one codeword into at least two
segments where each of the at least two segments is a
contiguous set of bits from the at least one codeword;
mapping bits of a first segment of the at least one
codeword to at least a first layer of a corresponding vector
symbol; and
mapping bits of a second segment of the at least one
codeword to at least a second layer of the corresponding
vector symbol different from the first layer.
App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).
Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8–10, 12, 14–17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Nam (US 2011/0255619 A1;
Oct. 20, 2011) and Lee (US 2010/0296603 A1; Nov. 25, 2010). Non-final
Act. 14.
Claims 2, 4, 13, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Nam, Lee, and Zhang (US 2010/0195624
A1; Aug. 5, 2010). Non-final Act. 20.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Nam, Lee, and Chugg (US 2008/0098286 A1; Apr. 24,
2008). Non-final Act. 22.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of
Nam and Lee teaches or suggests “segmenting at least one
codeword into at least two segments where each of the at least
Appeal 2019-000518
Application 15/273,879

4
two segments is a contiguous set of bits from the at least one
codeword,” as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of
Nam and Zhang teaches or suggests “control information [that]
comprises a channel quality indication (CQI) and a precoder
matrix indication (PMI),” as recited in claim 2?
3. Did the Examiner err in concluding that Nam teaches or
suggests “mapping the encoded control information onto every
layer of the vector symbol,” as recited in claim 7?
ANALYSIS
§ 103 Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 5, 8–10, 12, 14–17, 19
Independent claim 1 recites “segmenting at least one codeword into at
least two segments where each of the at least two segments is a contiguous
set of bits from the at least one codeword.” The Examiner finds that the
combination of Nam and Lee teaches or suggests this limitation. The
Examiner finds that Lee teaches this limitation because it discloses “that an
‘input codeword 701’ is demultiplexed into a ‘first half’ and a ‘second half,’
where ‘the first half of the code word [bits 0 to 5] is mapped into a first layer
and second half of the codeword [bits 6 to 11] is mapped into a second
layer.’” Final Act 17 (citing Lee ¶ 6, Fig. 7).2
Appellant contends that Lee “fail[s] to teach ‘each of the at least two
segments is a contiguous set of bits from the at least one codeword’ since
Lee teaches that the bits would be rearranged before being mapped to the

2 The Examiner incorporates findings from the Examiner’s rejection of claim
12, which recites a similar limitation, in the rejection of claim 1. Non-final
Act. 18. We therefore refer to the Examiner’s findings on claim 12 here.
Appeal 2019-000518
Application 15/273,879

5
layers.” App. Br. 12. Appellant argues that “Lee teaches that this
relationship between codewords and layers ‘cannot be used directly on the
[uplink]’ since ‘the [uplink] is likely to have Channel interleaver unit 411
located before codeword-to-layer mapping.” Id. (citing Lee ¶ 65) (emphasis
omitted). According to Appellant, “this channel interleaver would not keep
the portions of the codeword in the same place,” and “[s]ince the portions
of the codeword are not in the same place, before going through the
codeword-to-layer mapping, any segments that might have been a
contiguous set of bits would not be contiguous after passing the channel
interleaver unit.” Id.
In response, the Examiner determines that under the plain meaning of
claim, “there is no requirement that each segment’s internal bits, post-
‘segmenting,’ remain ‘contiguous,’” but rather the claim language “permit[s]
the scenario where a segment’s internal bits, after segmentation, are
scrambled or otherwise rearranged.” Ans. 4. The mapping limitations that
follow, the Examiner finds, “do not require that each of the segments, having
its ‘contiguous’ characteristic still preserved, begin[s] the codeword-to-layer
mapping process as a[] data unit with its internal integrity intact and
undisturbed.” Id.
Moreover, the Examiner determines, Lee provides examples of the
mapping which show at least six contiguous bits of a given codeword
(constituting a segment) mapped to the first layer without being scrambled.
Ans. 5–6 (citing Lee ¶ 64, Figs. 7, 9). According to the Examiner, it would
therefore be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that Lee discloses a
method “which preserves the ‘contiguous’ nature of the codeword segment
bits.” Id. at 6.
Appeal 2019-000518
Application 15/273,879

6
We are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred. Contrary to
Appellant’s assertion (App. Br. 3–4), claim 1 does not require that the
segment portions of a codeword remain in the same place throughout the
claimed method. Instead, the segmenting limitation merely recites
“segmenting at least one codeword into at least two segments where each of
the at least two segments is a contiguous set of bits from the at least one
codeword.” App. Br. 16. Appellant does not dispute that Lee’s module
“teach[es] the claimed at least two segments.” Id. at 12. The subsequent
mapping limitation merely requires “mapping bits of a first segment of the
control word to at least a first layer of a corresponding vector symbol.” Id.
at 16. Appellant fails to sufficiently explain how that subsequent limitation
requires that segmented bits remain in the same order when the bits are
mapped to a layer of a corresponding vector symbol. Nor does Appellant
sufficiently explain why Lee’s “channel interleaver would not keep the
portions of the codeword in the same place.” Id. at 12. As the Examiner
points out, Lee discloses “that the constituent bits of each respective
codeword in Figs. 7 and 9 are not repositioned or reoriented before being
input into the layer mapping process,” i.e., “the ‘contiguous’ characteristic
of each codeword segment is maintained.” Ans. 6 (citing Lee ¶ 64).
We therefore agree with the Examiner that the combination of Nam
and Lee teaches or suggests “segmenting at least one codeword into at least
two segments where each of the at least two segments is a contiguous set of
bits from the at least one codeword,” as recited in claim 1. Because
Appellant does not separately argue the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 12 and dependent claims 3, 5, 8–10, 14–17, and 19 (App. Br. 12), we
Appeal 2019-000518
Application 15/273,879

7
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 8–10, 12, 14–
17, 19.
§ 103 Rejection of Claims 2, 4, 11, 13, and 18
Claim 2 depends from independent claim 1 and recites “the second
type of control information comprises a channel quality indication (CQI) and
a precoder matrix indication (PMI)” (App. Br. 17), which the Examiner
finds is taught by the combination of Nam and Zhang. Non-final Act. 20.
The Examiner determines that Nam discloses “the second type of control
information comprises a channel quality indication (CQI) information,”
while Zhang discloses “the second type of control information comprises a
precoder matrix indication (PMI).” Id. (citing Nam ¶¶ 98–101, Figs. 6, 7;
Zhang ¶ 49). According to the Examiner, “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art,
in view of the motivation and rationale to combine presented in the rejection,
would be able to reconstruct a control signal that includes both CQI and
PMI, as recited in claim 2.” Ans. 8.
Appellant argues that Nam only teaches control information with CQI
information and Zhang only teaches control information that includes PMI.
App. Br. 8. Appellant argues that “citing two separate references which
each only teach a single piece of control information does not teach the
second type of control information including both a CQI and a PMI.” Id.
(emphasis added). Appellant further contends that “if the teachings of Nam
and Lee were modified with the teachings of Zhang, the result would be to
either replace the control information with the PMI of Zhang or to send the
PMI as another separate piece of control information.” Id. Appellant
therefore concludes that “[t]here is no teaching whatsoever of a single piece
of control information that includes both a CQI and a PMI,” (emphasis
Appeal 2019-000518
Application 15/273,879

8
added) and “claim 2 is allowable over the combination of Nam, Lee, and
Zhang.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Contrary to
Appellant’s assertion (App. Br. 12), Zhang does disclose that “[c]ontrol data
arrives at the coding units 430a-430n in the form of channel quality
information (CQI and/or PMI).” Zhang ¶ 49 (emphasis added). Further, as
Appellant concedes, Nam clearly discloses control information that includes
CQI. Nam ¶ 99. We therefore find no error in the Examiner’s determination
that the combination of Nam and Zhang teaches or suggests “control
information compris[ing] a channel quality indication (CQI) and a precoder
matrix indication (PMI),” as recited in claim 2.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 2. Because Appellant does not separately argue the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claims 4, 11, 13, and 18 (App. Br. 13), we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of those claims as well.
§ 103 Rejection of Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from independent claim 1 and recites “mapping the
encoded control information onto every layer of the vector symbol” (App.
Br. 17), which the Examiner finds is also taught by Nam. Non-final Act. 20
(citing Nam, Fig. 6).
Appellant argues that “[t]he only discussion of mapping control
information to layers [in Nam] teaches the exact opposite of claim 7: ‘all the
uplink control information (including CQI, RI and A/N bits) is carried on
only one of the layers.’” App. Br. 14 (citing Nam ¶ 57). Appellant
therefore contends that Nam does not teach or suggest mapping control
information onto every layer of the vector symbol.
Appeal 2019-000518
Application 15/273,879

9
The Examiner responds that Appellant’s cited disclosure is merely
one possible embodiment disclosed in Nam. Ans. 9 (citing Nam ¶ 57). The
Examiner finds that Nam includes other layer-mapping embodiments and
disclosures that teach the claim limitation. Id. (citing Nam ¶¶ 67, 98–101,
Fig. 7).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. As pointed out by
Appellant, Nam does disclose, with reference to Figure 6, that “[i]n an
embodiment of this disclosure, all the uplink control information (including
CQI, RI and A/N bits) is carried on only one of the layers, [when] choosing
a particular layer for carrying the uplink control information,” where the
“total number of transmission layers is denoted as N.” Nam ¶ 57. Nam
however also discloses that “the uplink control information is
mapped/allocated onto a subset of the N layers being transmitted on the
uplink in a MIMO uplink subframe,” where “[t]he size of the subset, Ns,
could be less than or equal to the total number of layers, which is denoted
by N.” Id. ¶ 67 (emphasis added). Thus, the portion of Nam relied upon by
Appellant is merely one of the disclosed embodiments in Nam where the
subset of layers that carry control information is one, whereas Nam
elsewhere discloses control information on a number of layers equal to the
total number of layers. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Nam
teaches “mapping the encoded control information onto every layer of the
vector symbol,” as recited in claim 7, and sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 7.
Other Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
Appeal 2019-000518
Application 15/273,879

10
distinctly claim the subject matter that Appellant regards as the invention.
Non-final Act. 2; App Br. 11. That rejection has since been withdrawn by
the Examiner. Ans. 2.
Further, the Examiner rejects claims 1 and 12 under non-statutory
double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No.
9,480,056 B2. Non-final Act. 4. On Appeal, Appellant states that it “will
submit a terminal disclaimer upon the indication that claims 1 and 12 are
otherwise allowable.” App. Br. 11. The Examiner responds that “aside
from a statement indicating Appellant’s willingness to submit a terminal
disclaimer, no arguments traversing these rejections have been presented.”
Ans. 2. On the current record, in the absence of a terminal disclaimer, we
sustain the Examiner’s double patenting rejection of independent claims 1
and 12.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1–5 and 7–19.
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5, 8–10,
12, 14–17, 19
103(a) Nam, Lee 1, 3, 5, 8–10,
12, 14–17, 19

2, 4, 13, 11,
18
103(a) Nam, Lee,
Zhang
2, 4, 13, 11, 18
7 103(a) Nam, Lee,
Chugg
7
1, 12 non-statutory
double patenting
1, 12
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–19
Appeal 2019-000518
Application 15/273,879

11
TIME TO RESPOND
No time for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED