Tingfang Ji et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 30, 201914567989 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/567,989 12/11/2014 Tingfang Ji PQ272.03 (81679.0579) 3391 109682 7590 08/30/2019 Holland & Hart LLP/Qualcomm P.O. Box 11583 Salt Lake City, UT 84147 EXAMINER PATEL, HARDIKKUMAR D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2473 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2019 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): ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com patentdocket@hollandhart.com qualcomm@hollandhart.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TINGFANG JI, JOHN EDWARD SMEE, JOSEPH SORIAGA, NAGA BHUSHAN, KAMBIZ AZARIAN YAZDI, KRISHNA KIRAN MUKKAVILLI, ALEXEI YURIEVITCH GOROKHOV, and PETER GAAL1 ____________ Appeal 2018-007314 Application 14/567,989 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10–12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20–26, all the pending claims in the present application.2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Qualcomm Incorporated (“Appellant”) is the Applicant, as provided for under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and is also identified in the Brief as the real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 3, 6, 9, 13, 16, and 19 are cancelled. See Appeal Br. 10–13. Appeal 2018-007314 Application 14/567,989 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Invention Appellant’s invention relates to “improve[ing] channel side information feedback (CSF) reporting” in wireless communication systems by conditioning “CSF reporting . . . on a parameter other than error probability and/or . . . on multiple parameters.” Spec. ¶¶2, 7; see ¶3.3 Exemplary Claims Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, and 20 are independent claims. Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below with limitations at issue emphasized. 1. A method of wireless communication, comprising: measuring, by a first device, a condition of a wireless channel; estimating a periodicity of at least one parameter associated with the measured condition of the wireless channel, wherein the estimated periodicity is in time or frequency; generating at least one channel side information feedback message that provides information on the at least one parameter correlated with time or frequency and the estimated periodicity; and transmitting the at least one channel side information feedback message to a second device. Appeal Br. 10 (claims appendix). 3 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”) filed December 11, 2014; (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed July 27, 2017; (3) the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed December 27, 2017; (4) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed May 10, 2018; and (5) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed July 10, 2018. Appeal 2018-007314 Application 14/567,989 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following prior art4 in rejecting the claims on appeal: Varadarajan US 2008/0013610 Al Jan. 17, 2008 Yang US 2009/0285169 A1 Nov. 19, 2009 Higuchi US 2010/0093287 A1 Apr. 15, 2010 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yang and Higuchi. See Final Act. 3–6. Claims 21–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yang, Higuchi, and Varadarajan. See Final Act. 7–11. Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejections and the issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made in the Appeal Brief are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017). ANALYSIS Issue 1: Does the Examiner err in finding the cited combination of Yang and Higuchi teaches or suggests “estimating a periodicity of at least one parameter associated with the measured condition of the wireless channel, wherein the estimated periodicity is in time or frequency,” as recited in independent claim 1? 4 All citations to the references use the first-named inventor only. Appeal 2018-007314 Application 14/567,989 4 The Examiner finds Yang’s disclosure of a mobile station (MS) that “performs channel condition measurements such as SINR [Signal power over the Interference plus Noise Ratio] during a measuring period such as transmission time interval” teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 11 (citing Yang ¶ 4); see Final Act. 3–4. Appellant disputes the Examiner’s factual findings. Appellant argues “Yang discloses performing channel measurements during certain, predefined time periods (e.g., a TTI), which are a ‘measurement period’” but “the periodicity of a TTI is not estimated because it is a predefined time period within a communication system.” Appeal Br. 5–6 (citing Yang ¶ 20). The Examiner responds that under a broadest reasonable interpretation Yang “is interpreted as during a measuring period such as TTI, channel condition is measured by the MS. Hence, the measured condition is calculated using periodicity of the time.” Ans. 11. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and analysis and adopt the findings as our own. See Ans. 11–12. The portion of Yang relied upon by the Examiner discusses a mobile station that measures channel conditions “for each and every sub-band during a measuring period, such as a Transmission Time Interval (TTI) (also known as a sub-frame) or a radio frame transmission period.” Yang ¶ 4. A TTI is generally understood in the art as being equal to the periodicity at which a Transport Block Set is transferred on a channel. See https://www.mpirical.com/glossary/tti- transmission-time-interval (last visited August 8, 2019). Yang’s mobile system must necessarily estimate the periodicity of the TTI in order to measure the channel conditions for every sub-band during each TTI. Accordingly, we find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive. Appeal 2018-007314 Application 14/567,989 5 Issue 2: Does the Examiner err in finding the cited combination of Yang and Higuchi teaches or suggests “generating at least one channel side information feedback message that provides information on the at least one parameter correlated with time or frequency and the estimated periodicity,” as recited in independent claim 1? The Examiner finds Higuchi’s discussion of a mobile system that transmits a CQI (Channel Quality Indicator) report format to a base station 10 teaches generating the feedback message, as in the disputed limitation. See Final Act 4–5 (citing Higuchi ¶¶ 68, 69); Ans. 12. Higuchi describes that the base station 10 includes a “CQI format determination section 103 [that] determines the CQI format (CQI report format (the number of transmission bits or the MCS, the CQI transmission time interval, and the CQI report cycle) based on the information of the user equipment.” Higuchi ¶ 69. Higuchi further explains that “in the determination by the CQI format determination section 103, the higher the required data rate is, the larger the number of bits to be transmitted in one sub-frame becomes, the longer the CQI transmission time interval becomes, and the shorter the CQI report cycle becomes.” Id. Appellant disputes the Examiner’s factual findings, arguing The cited portions of Higuchi discuss a base station configuration which “(receives, estimates) information of the user equipment.” See id at ¶ [0068]. The information received from the user equipment may include “information items (such as data rate, data size, and the like).” However, none of these information items are a “parameter correlated with time or frequency,” and are merely measurements and calculations provided by a user equipment, without any correlation to time or frequency. Appeal 2018-007314 Application 14/567,989 6 Appeal Br. 7. Appellant further argues “the cited portion of Higuchi is providing examples of how the determinations change under different, hypothetical circumstances . . . . The determinations themselves are based on a single set of values received from the user equipment, and do not provide information related to a correlation between a parameter and time or frequency.” Id. In response, the Examiner finds Higuchi teaches the disputed limitation because, in Higuchi, “the periodicity becomes longer as the CQI TTI becomes longer and the data rate is higher.” Ans. 12. We agree with the Examiner’s findings because we agree that one skilled in the art at the time of the invention would have understood that a periodicity is directly correlated with a data rate and a TTI, both of which are included in Higuchi’s CQI report. See Higuchi ¶¶ 68, 69. Accordingly, we agree Higuchi’s CQI report format teaches generating a “feedback message that provides information on the at least one parameter correlated with time or frequency and the estimated periodicity,” as recited in claim 1. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1, and similarly, independent claims 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, and 20, which are not argued separately from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8. Dependent claims 2, 5, 8, 12, 15, 18, and 21–26 are not argued separately and so we also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of these claims. Id. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10– 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2018-007314 Application 14/567,989 7 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation