Ex Parte Barbieri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 19, 2017

13084154 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2017)

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.
13/084,154 04/11/2011 Alan Barbieri 101609 9599
23696 7590 05/23/2017
OTTAT mMM TNmRPORATFD
EXAMINER
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
NGUYEN, TU X
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2017 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALAN BARBIERI, TINGFANG JI, PARAG ARUN AGASHE,
YONGBIN WEI, TAESANG YOO, TAO LUO,
MADHAVAN SRINIVASAN VAJAPEYAM, HAO XU, and
ALEKSANDAR DAMNJANOVIC
Appeal 2017-001992
Application 13/084,154
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, AARON W. MOORE, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-001992
Application 13/084,154
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3—7, 9, 10, 12—14, 16—18, 20, 21, 23, and 24, which are all of the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to “[tjechniques for estimating and
reporting [a] channel quality indicator.” (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced
below, exemplifies the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for wireless communication, comprising:
receiving, from a base station, signaling conveying resources
allocated to the base station,
determining, based on the received signaling, at least one
resource allocated to the base station and having reduced or no
interference from at least one interfering base station; and
determining a channel quality indicator (CQI) based on the at
least one resource.
THE REFERENCES AND THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 3—4, 7—8, 10, 13—14, 18, 21, and 24 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Sankar et al. (US 2009/0264142;
published Oct. 22, 2009). (See Final Act. 3—5.)
1 Appellants identify Qualcomm Incorporated as the real party in interest.
(See App. Br. 3.)
2
Appeal 2017-001992
Application 13/084,154
2. Claims 5—6, 9, 12, 16—17, and 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sankar and Chou et al. (US
2010/0222062; published Sept. 2, 2010). (See Final Act. 5—6.)
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejections are in error for the
following reasons:
1. Sankar does not “disclose ‘receiving signaling conveying
resources allocated to a base station’ as recited in claim 1 and similar
features recited in claims 7, 10, and 13.” (App. Br. 9.)
2. Sankar does not disclose ‘determining, based on the received
signal, at least one resource allocated to the base station and having reduced
or no interference from at least one interfering base station’ as recited in
claim 1 and similar features recited in claims 7, 10, and 14.” (App. Br. 10.)
3. “Regarding claim 4 . . . Sankar does not disclose that ‘the CQI
is determined by excluding resources allocated to the at least one interfering
base station’ as recited in claim 4.” (App. Br. 11.)
4. “Sankar does not disclose ‘receiving a channel quality indicator
(CQI) determined by the UE based on at least one resource of the resources
allocated to the base station via the signaling, the resources having reduced
or no interference from at least one interfering base station’ as recited in
claim 14 and similar features recited in claims 18, 21, and 24.” (App.
Br. 11.)
3
Appeal 2017-001992
Application 13/084,154
ANALYSIS
Appellants’ claim 1 is directed to a method that includes (a) receiving,
from a base station, signaling conveying resources allocated to the base
station; (b) determining, based on the received signaling, at least one
resource allocated to the base station and having reduced or no interference
from at least one interfering base station; and (c) determining a channel
quality indicator (CQI) based on the at least one resource.
Sankar describes a “wireless communication system” that “can
mitigate the effects of intercell interference by establishing one or more
coordinated downlink (DL) zones.” (Sankar 133.) “Each coordinated DL
zone is a portion of the downlink resources . . . that is coordinated across
multiple base stations” and “[t]he zone may represent a portion of available
resources.” {Id. f 33—34.) The reference explains that “a base station . . .
can determine a level of interference experienced by a subscriber station . . .
and allocate downlink resources in the coordinated downlink zone to the
subscriber station for communicating the downlink information based on the
level of interference.” {Id. 136.) In particular, “the base station . . . can be
configured to receive a channel quality indicator (CQI) value from each of
the subscriber stations ... for which it is the serving base station” and
“perform interference analysis by comparing particular CQI values against
thresholds associated with the CQI type.” {Id. 137.)
Claims 1, 3, 5—7, 9, 10, 12—13, 16, 17, 20, and 23
With respect to claims 1,7, 10, and 13, Appellants argue that Sankar
does not disclose “receiving signaling conveying resources allocated to a
base station” because “the used subchannel bitmap of Sankar identifies
subchannels in the coordinated downlink zone that are allocated to
4
Appeal 2017-001992
Application 13/084,154
subscriber stations in the downlink zone” and “the identification of used
subchannels in a coordinated downlink zone does not disclose “receiving
signaling conveying resources allocated to a base station.” (App. Br. 9—10.)
We are not persuaded of error. The reference explains that “[t]he base
station . . . schedules or otherwise allocates downlink resources to the
subscriber station based on the subscriber station capabilities” and “may
selectively allocate resources within a coordinated DL zone if the subscriber
station supports such a zone and if the level of interference experienced by
the subscriber station warrants such an allocation.” (Sankar 1102; see Ans.
3.) We find this sufficient to show that the subscriber station “receiv[es]
signaling conveying resources allocated to a base station,” as claimed. That
the used subchannel bitmap tracks the availability of subcarriers and times
does not change the fact that resources are allocated. Moreover, we do not
agree with Appellants that “the Examiner has shifted the interpretation of the
‘received signal’ from the ‘used subchannel bitmap’ of Sankar to
‘identifiable signal source[s]’ described in Sankar paragraph [0111].”
(Reply Br. 3.) The Final Action cited paragraphs 33—35, which describe the
coordinated DL zones, where “the term ‘zone’ . . . refers to a logical portion
of the signal” and “may represent a portion of available resources.” (Final
Act. 33-35.)
Appellants’ second argument with respect to these claims is that “the
comparison of CQI values against a threshold value to determine whether an
interference condition exists at a subscriber station is not ‘determining,
based on the received signal, at least one resource allocated to the base
station and having reduced or no interference from at least one interfering
base station.’” (App. Br. 10.) We do not agree. As set forth by the
5
Appeal 2017-001992
Application 13/084,154
Examiner, the purpose of comparing CQI values to the threshold is to
determine whether to assign an allocated resource to user equipment based
on whether the allocated resource has a sufficiently low level of interference
(see Ans. 3—4), which involves determining “at least one resource” having
“reduced or no interference,” particularly where the claim provides no basis
for determining what it means to be “reduced.” The comparison is “based
on” the received signal, which includes the resources.
As we are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ arguments addressed
above, we sustain the Section 102 rejection of claims 1, 7, 10, and 13, as
well as the Section 102 rejection of claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 16, 17, 20, and 23,
for which no separate arguments are made.
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, Appellants argue that Sankar “fails to teach or
suggest that ‘the CQI is determined by excluding resources allocated to the
at least one interfering base station’” because, although it “teaches that a
subscriber station determines CQI for the serving base station,” it “does not
disclose (or even suggest) what resources are used in determining CQI.”
(App. Br. 11.) The Examiner responds that Sankar’s “subscriber station
estimates only the strongest signals and [leaves] out other signals . . .
considered] to be weak.” (Ans. 4, citing Sankar || 114—5.) Therefore,
Sankar determines the CQI by excluding resources allocated to the base
station. Because Appellants do not contest this finding (see Reply Br. 4),
they fail to show error and we, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 14, 18, 21, and 24
Regarding claims 14, 18, 21, and 24, which recite “receiving a
channel quality indicator (CQI) determined by the UE based on at least one
6
Appeal 2017-001992
Application 13/084,154
resource of the resources allocated to the base station via the signaling, the
resources having reduced or no interference from at least one interfering
base station,” Appellants assert that Sankar is “silent as to which resources
(e.g., resources allocated to the serving base station and having reduced or
no interference from at least one interfering base station) a subscriber station
calculates CQI for.” (App. Br. 11—12.) We are not persuaded of error. As
described above, Sankar describes the base station receiving a CQI value
from each of the subscriber stations, and resources that pass the threshold
comparison would have “reduced or no interference from at least one
interfering base station.” The rejections of claims 14, 18, 21, and 24 are,
therefore, sustained.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 3—7, 9, 10, 12—14, 16—18, 20, 21, 23, and
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7