HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 1, 2022

2020006483 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2022)

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. 16/248,177 01/15/2019 Xianda LIU 43968-0453001 4312 150983 7590 02/01/2022 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (Huawei Technologies) P.O. BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER PHU, PHUONG M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2632 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/01/2022 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): PATDOCTC@fr.com aipatent@huawei.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte XIANDA LIU, KUNPENG LIU, ZUKANG SHEN, and YAN CHENG ___________________ Appeal 2020-006483 Application 16/248,177 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before MARC S. HOFF, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, 18, and 19. Appeal Br. 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed February 24, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed March 30, 2020 (“Ans.”); the Final Rejection mailed August 23, 2019 (“Final Act.”), and the Specification filed January 15, 2019 (“Spec.”). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-006483 Application 16/248,177 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE INVENTION. The claims relate to methods, devices, and system that provide a codebook indication operation. See Abstract. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1, which is reproduced below: 1. A method of wireless communications, comprising: receiving, by a terminal device, transmission parameter indication information indicating an index of one codebook subset configuration of three codebook subset configurations in the terminal device from a base station, wherein the three codebook subset configurations in the terminal device are related to fully coherent, partial coherent, and incoherent respectively, the codebook subset configuration related to fully coherent includes M indexes, the codebook subset configuration related to partial coherent includes N indexes, and the codebook subset configuration related to incoherent includes K indexes, M is an integer larger than N, and N is larger than K, wherein at least first 12 indexes in the codebook subset configuration related to incoherent are associated with same transmission layers and precoding matrices as first 12 indexes in the codebook subset configuration related to partial coherent; and indexes in the codebook subset configuration related to partial coherent are associated with same transmission layers and precoding matrices with first 32 indexes in the codebook subset configuration related to fully coherent; and determining a transmission layer and precoding matrix associated with the index according to the transmission parameter indication information; transmitting, by the terminal device, data according to the transmission layer and precoding matrix. Appeal 2020-006483 Application 16/248,177 3 PRIOR ART Name3 Reference Date Rahman US 2018/0183503 A1 June 28, 2018 REJECTION4 AT ISSUE Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Rahman. Final Act. 2-8. ANALYSIS 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), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be forfeit. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection in view of the findings in the Final Rejection and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. 3 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named inventor/author only. 4 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2020-006483 Application 16/248,177 4 CLAIMS 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, 18, AND 19: ANTICIPATION BY RAHMAN. Appellant argues these claims as a group and designate Claim 1 as representative. Appeal Br. 9 (“Provisional Application 478 has not been shown to disclose . . . as recited in claim 1. . . . Rahman is not entitled to any earlier filing date of the provisional applications, and is thus disqualified as prior art under U.S.C. §102(a)(2) against the present application with respect to the pending claims.”). Therefore, we decide the appeal of the § 103 rejection on the basis of representative Claim 1 and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite, inter alia: at least first 12 indexes in the codebook subset configuration related to incoherent are associated with same transmission layers and precoding matrices as first 12 indexes in the codebook subset configuration related to partial coherent: and indexes in the codebook subset configuration related to partial coherent are associated with same transmission layers and precoding matrices with first 32 indexes in the codebook subset configuration related to fully coherent. Final Act. 9. The Examiner finds the present Application was filed prior to Rahman and acknowledges Appellant’s argument that none of the 13 priority documents, upon which Rahman relies, provide written description support for this disputed limitation. Id. The Examiner finds Rahman relies upon Provisional Application No. 62/593,478 (the “’478 Provisional”), filed on Dec. 1, 2017 which provides the required written description support. Id. Appellant contends the ’478 Provisional generally discloses Table 62 related to a TPMI/TRI indication payload, but that Table 62 only discloses a Appeal 2020-006483 Application 16/248,177 5 quantity of pre-coding matrices and a number of bits that are to be used to describe “Full coherent,” “Partial coherent,” and “Incoherent” capabilities. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues the ’478 Provisional fails to disclose, either explicitly, or inherently: that the indexes used to indicate “Incoherent” are associated with same transmission layers and precoding matrices as indexes used to indicate “Partial coherent”; or indexes used to indicate “Partial coherent” are associated with same transmission layers and precoding matrices as indexes used to indicate “Full coherent.” Id. Therefore, Appellant argues: As such, Provisional Application 478 has not been shown to disclose that “first 12 indexes in the codebook subset configuration related to incoherent are associated with same transmission layers and precoding matrices as first 12 indexes in the codebook subset configuration related to partial coherent; and indexes in the codebook subset configuration related to partial coherent are associated with same transmission layers and precoding matrices with first 32 indexes in the codebook subset configuration related to fully coherent” (Emphasis added) as recited in claim 1. Id. Thus, Appellant argues, Rahman is not entitled to the earlier filing date and is disqualified as prior art under § 102(a)(2). Id. Appellant does not file a reply brief. The Examiner sets forth the ’478 Provisional disclosure of pages 38- 39 (see Ans. 4-5) and page 68 (see Ans. 5) to find Rahman discloses the term “rank” and its association with “partial coherent transmission,” “non- coherent transmission,” and “full coherent transmission.” See Ans. 7-8. The Examiner equates a “transmission rank” with a “transmission layer.” Appeal 2020-006483 Application 16/248,177 6 Ans. 8 (“[T]he total 32 precoding matrices of the second codebook subset configuration are associated with the same transmission layers/ranks”). Appellant does not file a Reply Brief. Because the Examiner has at least minimally equated the claimed “transmission layer” to the disclosed “rank,” the burden has shifted to Appellant to argue their non-equivalence. Because Appellant so declines, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. DECISION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, 18, 19 102 Rahman 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, 18, 19 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED