Tingfang Ji et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 30, 2019

14567989 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 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.
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