Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 25, 2022

2021000500 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 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. 16/395,073 04/25/2019 Md Saifur Rahman 2018.04.023.SR0 8720 106809 7590 03/25/2022 Docket Clerk - SAMS P.O. Drawer 800889 Dallas, TX 75380 EXAMINER YU, LIHONG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2631 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2022 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): munckwilson@gmail.com patent.srad@samsung.com patents@munckwilson.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MD SAIFUR RAHMAN and EKO ONGGOSANUSI ________________ Appeal 2021-000500 Application 16/395,073 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17.1 The Examiner has objected to claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-20, but otherwise indicated that these claims contain allowable subject matter if rewritten in independent form. Final Act. 6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000500 Application 16/395,073 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to estimating channel conditions in a wireless communication system. Spec. ¶¶ 2-3. In order to correctly estimate the channel conditions, a user equipment (UE) reports information about channel measurement, such as channel state information (CSI) to a base station. Id. The base station uses this information to select appropriate communication parameters to promote efficient and effective wireless communication with the UE. Id. Claim 1 illustrates the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A user equipment (UE) for a channel state information (CSI) feedback in a wireless communication system, the UE comprising: a transceiver configured to receive, from a base station (BS), CSI feedback configuration information including a number (K0) of coefficients for the CSI feedback; and a processor operably connected to the transceiver, the processor configured to derive, based on the CSI feedback configuration information, the CSI feedback including K1 coefficients that are a subset of a total of Q coefficients, wherein K1 < K0 and K0 < Q, wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit, to the BS, the CSI feedback including the K1 coefficients over an uplink channel. The Examiner’s Rejection Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waters (US 2008/0019457 A1; Jan. 24, 2008). Final Act. 4-6. Appeal 2021-000500 Application 16/395,073 3 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Waters discloses “a transceiver configured to receive, from a base station (BS), CSI feedback configuration information including a number (K0) of coefficients for the CSI feedback” and wherein “K0 < Q,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4-5; Ans. 3-5. In particular, the Examiner finds Waters discloses the UE receives a channel response matrix that includes HC coefficients, which the Examiner finds discloses the claimed Q coefficients. Ans. 5 (citing Waters ¶ 30). The Examiner also finds the HC coefficients of the channel response matrix disclose the K0 coefficients limitation. Ans. 5. The Examiner also finds the UE computes a triangle matrix and feeds the triangle matrix back to the base station. Id. The triangle matrix is a compressed version of the channel response matrix and has fewer coefficients. Id. The Examiner finds the coefficients of the triangle matrix disclose the K0 coefficients limitation, and under this rationale “K0 < Q,” as recited in claim 1. Id. Appellant argues the Examiner errs because Waters does not disclose that the UE receives the number K0 of coefficients from the base station. See Appeal Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 6-7. In particular, Appellant argues that the HC coefficients of the channel response matrix cannot satisfy both the K0 and Q coefficients limitations. Reply Br. 9. Appellant argues Waters discloses the UE feeding back fewer coefficients to the base station, but these are generated by the UE in computing the triangle matrix, not received from the base station. See id. Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds the UE receives the channel response matrix from the base station and the Appeal 2021-000500 Application 16/395,073 4 channel response matrix has HC coefficients. Ans. 4 (citing Waters ¶ 30). The Examiner finds this discloses the claimed K0 coefficients. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner also finds the channel response matrix’s HC coefficients disclose the Q coefficients limitation. Ans. 5. The Examiner does not explain how the received HC coefficients can satisfy both the K0 and Q coefficients limitations where claim 1 recites “K0 < Q.” However, in the Answer, the Examiner also finds the compressed triangle matrix has fewer coefficients than the channel response matrix and that this discloses the claimed K0 coefficients. Ans. 5. But the Examiner does not explain how the compression function, which is performed by the user equipment, produces K0 coefficients where that number is “receive[d] from a base station” as recited in claim 1. In other words, if we accept the Examiner’s finding that the triangle matrix contains fewer than Q coefficients, the Examiner still fails to explain how this number of coefficients satisfies the K0 coefficients limitations recited in claim 1 because the Examiner does not explain how this smaller number of coefficients is received from the base station. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown that Waters discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. We note that claim 1 recites a user equipment (an apparatus) that includes components configured to perform various steps that reconfigure the operation of the UE according to the information received, as described above. For these reasons, and on the record before us, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of independent claim 1.2 Claim 8 recites a base station 2 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Appeal 2021-000500 Application 16/395,073 5 (also an apparatus) that is configured to perform related operations with substantially the same limitations. Claim 15 recites a method performing substantially the same limitations. Because claims 8 and 15 recite commensurate subject matter, we also do not sustain the anticipation rejection of independent claims 8 and 15 for the same reasons. We also do not sustain the anticipation rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 for the same reasons. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 102(a)(1) Waters 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 REVERSED