Ex Parte Chen

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 26, 2019

13970546 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/970,546 08/19/2013
23494 7590 02/28/2019
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
PO BOX 655474, MS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
RunhuaChen
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TI-72759 5631
EXAMINER
SHAO,HONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2019 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RUNHUA CHEN1
Appeal2017-002913
Application 13/970,546
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-29, 32--43, 46-57, and 60-63, constituting the
only claims before us on appeal. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm. 3
1 The Appeal Brief indicates the real party in interest is Texas Instruments
Incorporated. Appeal Brief 1.
2 Claims 30, 31, 44, 45, 58, and 59 were indicated as canceled by the
Amendment filed March 10, 2016.
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed August 19, 2013,
the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed December 10, 2015, the
Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed March 11, 2016, the Examiner's Answer
Appeal2017-002913
Application 13/970,546
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claimed invention relates to fall-back rate-matching and timing
for user equipment (UE) configured for downlink (DL) Coordinated Multi-
Point Transmission (CoMP). Spec. Abstract. CoMP is a feature of Long
Term Evolution (LTE) and Long Term Evolution-Advanced (LTE-A) which
is used to send and receive data to and from a UE and multiple transmission
points (i.e., eNodeBs or eNBs). Spec. ,r 14. During communication, it is
sometimes necessary for the CoMP UE with multiple-layer transmission to
fall-back to a single-layer transmit diversity (TxD)-based transmission. Fall-
back may be necessary for a variety of reasons, such as when a large number
of UEs need to be scheduled by the network in one subframe, or when the
network needs to switch a UE from one transmission mode to another, or
when the network determines channel quality has deteriorated and it is
necessary to fall-back to the more robust single-layer TxD-based
transmission scheme to ensure the downlink connection is not lost. Spec.
,r,r 32-34.
To fall-back, a CoMP UE needs to know the Cell-specific Reference
Signal (CRS) Resource Elements (EE) to use for rate-matching on the
Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH). Spec. ,r 36. Rate-matching is
used to match the fixed bit rate of the cellular transmission frame to the
varying bit rate of information transported in the frames. Rate-matching is
generally accomplished by repeating or puncturing data, that is, adding or
deleting redundant data. 3GPP TS 25.212 8.11 (2002).
According to Appellant, current fall-back Downlink Control
Information (DCI) format 1 A assumes single-cell mapping and carries no
("Ans.") mailed October 13, 2016, and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed
December 13, 2016.
2
Appeal2017-002913
Application 13/970,546
information regarding the CRS for PDSCH rate-matching. Spec. ,r 36. In a
fall-back situation, the claimed invention rate-matches on PDSCH around
the serving cell CRS or another cell whose CRS pattern is a subset of the
serving cell. Alternatively, one of a set of CRS RE may be signaled to the
UE by higher layer signaling (i.e., Radio Resource Control (RRC)). Id.
In the claimed invention, PDSCH timing is also signaled to the CoMP
UE. Spec. ,r 39. The UE may use the timing of the serving cell CRS or may
use one of multiple timing assumptions indicated by higher layer signaling.
,r 40. CRS RE and timing may be jointly encoded in the DCI format. Spec.
i139.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed invention:
1. A method for determining physical downlink shared
channel (PDSCH) rate-matching comprising:
receive a fall-back transmission from a base station at a
user equipment (UE) configured for downlink coordinated multi-
point transmission (CoMP); and
in response to the fall-back transmission, perform PDSCH
demodulation assuming PDSCH rate-matching based upon a
default cell-specific reference symbol (CRS) resource element
(RE) set.
Claims App'x 1-2.
Claim 18 is similar to claim 1 but is directed to a UE rather than a method.
Claim 10, reproduced below, is directed to a method for determining
PDSCH timing:
10. A method for determining physical downlink shared
channel (PDSCH) timing comprising:
3
Appeal2017-002913
Application 13/970,546
receive a fall-back transmission from a base station at a
user equipment (UE) configured for downlink coordinated multi-
point transmission (CoMP); and
in response to the fall-back transmission, perform PDSCH
demodulation using a default PDSCH timing assumption.
Claims App'x 3.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-9, 18-29, 32-35, 50-57, and 60-63 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) based on Gaal (US 2012/0113917 Al, pub. May 10, 2012)
and Blankenship (US 2013/0039291 Al, pub. Feb. 14, 2013). Final Act. 4--
13. ("Rejection #1").
Claims 10-17, 36-43, 46-49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
over Zhang (US 2012/0176884 Al, pub. July 12, 2012) and Blankenship.
Final Act. 13-18. ("Rejection #2").
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).
Arguments not presented on appeal are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when "the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains."
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) ("KSR"). The
question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any
4
Appeal2017-002913
Application 13/970,546
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level
of skill in the art, and ( 4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 3 83 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
REJECTION#]
A. Independent Claims 1 and 18
The Examiner finds that Gaal discloses the claimed "receive a fall-
back transmission from a base station at a user equipment (UE) configured
for downlink coordinated multi-point transmission." Final Act. 4, 9
(emphasis added). Appellant argues Gaal is limited to multiple-input
multiple-output (MIMO) ofLTE releases 8, 9, and 10, and thus could not
disclose the claimed Coordinated Multipoint Transmission (CoMP) which
was adopted later in LTE Release 11. App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 1---6. In
this regard, however, Gaal states "[i]n order to be future compatible,
particularly for Co MP ( cooperative multipoint transmissions) operation,
PDSCH muting [configuration] was agreed to be supported in LTE Rel-IO."
Gaal ,r 67. Thus, Gaal demonstrates CoMP was known in the art. Likewise,
Blankenship (i-f 41) indicates Co MP was known. Those of ordinary skill in
the art understand that development of 3GPP standards require many months
or years before finalization as a release. Thus, the general concepts that later
became the CoMP standard required development long before their adoption
by 3GPP as a final release. Accordingly, Appellant's argument is not
persuasive.
Appellant argues4 that Gaal does not disclose that the muted REs
provide protection of CSI-RS REs of the neighboring cells to facilitate DL
4 In many places in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, Appellant underlines,
bolds and/or italicizes certain parts of the claims. Merely emphasizing
5
Appeal2017-002913
Application 13/970,546
CoMP operation, nor how DL CoMP operates using the muted REs, and that
the foregoing is not inherent in Gaal's disclosure. App. Br. 18-20. Gaal's
disclosure is evaluated from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in
the art, who is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR,
550 U.S. at 420-421. Appellant's argument is not persuasive to show that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would not have known how to implement
"PDSCH rate matching around the muted REs." Gaal ,r 68.
Appellant next argues Gaal does not disclose the claimed "in response
to the fall-back transmission, perform PDSCH demodulation." App. Br. 24.
Specifically, Appellant argues Gaal fails to disclose fallback transmission or
any response thereto and only mentions PDSCH in the context of decoding a
unicast PDSCH or rate matching but not demodulation. Id. As the
Examiner found, however, Gaal discloses fallback transmission (i1i1 59, 60)
and PDSCH demodulation (i1i163, 64). Final Act. 4. A person of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood that PDSCH demodulation is needed
in a fall-back scenario. It would have been obvious to use CRS REs to
obtain the parameters necessary for demodulating the received data.
Appellant's argument does not address what would be the point of Gaal's
UE performing rate-matching around the muted PD SCH REs (i-f 68) if it did
not ultimately use the rate-matching to demodulate the associated data.
Appellant argues Gaal fails to disclose the claimed "assuming PDSCH
rate-matching based upon ... a resource element (RE) set." App. Br. 24--26.
Appellant's argument does not address that Gaal's muted REs may be
considered a "resource element set." Gaal ,r 68. In addition, Blankenship
certain claim language in some way is insufficient to constitute an argument
for patentability.
6
Appeal2017-002913
Application 13/970,546
(i-f 36, Figs. 3, 4) discloses CRS RE sets for antenna port O and antenna port
1, as shown below.
410
/
:"···"! ..----------- Control region -~···:
: . i~. =· .• cr-. .' ~~,--,-~-..---.-,-~
:-:-:~"" .. "' :·,:.~:-
}G RQ X • l tt
; :: :: ~:::
(a) Antenna port 0 (b) Ant~nna port 1
Figure 4 (prior art)
Blankenship's Figure 4 shows sets of CRS signals RO and RI in the control
region (i.e., DCI) and PDSCH for antenna ports O and 1.
Appellant contends that the Examiner admits that Gaal does not
disclose a default CRS RE set. App. Br. 26-28; Reply Br. 6-8; Final Act. 4,
10. The Specification in this case does not define what is meant by the term
"default." One dictionary defines the term as "computers: a selection
automatically used by a program in the absence of a choice made by the
user." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/default (last viewed
2/11/19). This definition accords with our understanding of what the
claimed term would have signified to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Gaal states "a Rel-IO UE may assume PDSCH rate matching around
the muted REs." Gaal ,r 68. The word "assume" in this sentence appears to
connote that the UE is to consider the muted REs as a default to use for rate-
matching. Moreover, Blankenship (i-f 36) states "cell-specific reference
signals (CRSs) can be transmitted over each antenna port on certain pre-
7
Appeal2017-002913
Application 13/970,546
defined time and frequency REs in every subframe." The word "pre-
defined" means that the UE is to assume CRS signals are carried in the pre-
defined time and frequency, and in that sense, the CRS REs are a default set
( or at least are suggestive of one). Also, in Blankenship (i-f 87), the first
transmission of CRS REs from eNB to UE may be considered a default,
which may be subsequently changed using new DCI.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in the § 103
rejection of claims 1 and 18.
Claims 2 and 7
Claim 2 recites "The method of claim 1, wherein the default CRS RE
set is the serving base station CRS RE set." Claim 7 recites a similar
feature. We select claim 2 as representative of the group of claims. 37
C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )(1 )(iv).
The Examiner finds that Blankenship discloses the claimed features.
Final Act. 5 citing Blankenship ,r 140. Appellant argues the Examiner errs
because "[ t ]here is no disclosure of the concept of CRS, CRS RE or CRS RE
set or teaching that the default CRS RE set is the serving base station CRS
RE set in [0140]." App. Br. 29--30; Reply Br. 8-9.
Blankenship (i-f 36, Figs. 3, 4) discloses CRSs in the control region
(i.e., DCI) and PDSCH for multiple antenna ports used for DL channel
estimation and demodulation. Blankenship (i-f 140) also discloses that a
serving cell uses PDCCH to transmit DCI assignment (which may imply
CRSs) to a UE. Thus, the CRS RE set is indicated by the serving base
station, and is thus a "serving base station CRS RE set." See In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[T]he PTO
is obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during
examination.") Accordingly, the Examiner does not err in finding the
8
Appeal2017-002913
Application 13/970,546
combination of Gaal and Blankenship discloses the claimed feature under
broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claims 3, 8, 22, and 5 0
Claim 3 recites "The method of claim 1, wherein the default CRS RE
set is the first CRS RE set of a plurality of CRS RE sets configured by a
radio resource control (RRC) higher layer." Claims 8, 22, and 50 recite
similar limitations. We select claim 3 as representative of the group. 37
C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )(1 )(iv).
The Examiner finds this feature disclosed in Gaal and Blankenship.
Final Act. 5 citing Gaal ,r 45, Figs. 3, 5; Blankenship ,r 36. Appellant argues
Gaal and Blankenship fails to disclose the claimed feature. App. Br. 30-31.
As we have discussed, Blankenship discloses CRS RE sets for
antenna port O and antenna port 1 (see Blankenship's Figure 4, supra) at
least one of which must be used as a default upon commencement of
communication with the eNB. Gaal (i-f 45) indicates that the RRC higher
layer (Layer 3) configures lower layers using RRC signaling between the
eNB and UE. Accordingly, Appellant's argument fails to persuade us that
the Examiner errs in finding the claimed feature disclosed by the references.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites "The method of claim 1, wherein the fall-back
transmission is on a compact downlink control information (DCI) format."
The Examiner finds this feature disclosed in Gaal (i1i159, 60) as DCI format
IA used with a fallback operation. Final Act. 5. Appellant argues that Gaal
fails to disclose that DCI format 1 A is selected because it is a compact DCI
format. App. Br. 31-32.
However, claim 4 does not mention selecting DCI format 1 A because
it is compact. As this limitation does not appear in the claim, it cannot serve
9
Appeal2017-002913
Application 13/970,546
as a basis for patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA
1982). Appellant does not dispute that DCI format IA is compact. In
addition, DCI format 1 A is recognized in the art as a compact format.
http://www.rfwireless-world.com/Terminology/L TE-DCI-format-use-
case.html (last viewed 2/11/19). Thus, we find Appellant's argument
unpersuasive to show Examiner error.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites "The method of claim 4, wherein the DCI format is
fall-back scheduling on a DCI IA format." Appellant argues claim 5 on the
same basis as claim 4. We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding
Gaal (i1i159, 60, 85) discloses the claimed feature. Final Act. 5. Gaal (i-f 59)
specifically discloses use of DCI format IA for fallback.
Claims 6, 9, and 19
Claim 6 recites:
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determine a value of a CRS resource element (RE)
signaling field in a downlink control information (DCI) signal
received from a base station; and
if no fall-back transmission is received, perform PDSCH
demodulation assuming rate-matching based upon a CRS RE set
corresponding to the value in the downlink control signal. 5
Claim 19 recites a similar limitation. Appellant argues claims 9 and 19 on
the same basis as claim 6. App. Br. 36. We select claim 6 as representative.
The Examiner finds Gaal teaches various DCI formats (1, IB, ID, 2,
2A, 2B, 2C) signaling corresponding CRS RE sets to the UE. Final Act. 6
citing Gaal (i1i155-57, 86-88). The Examiner also finds Gaal teaches
5 Examiner and Appellant are advised to consider whether "downlink control
signal" has proper antecedent basis in claim 6.
10
Appeal2017-002913
Application 13/970,546
monitoring PDCCH signaling, decoding the DCI format therein, and using
the same to decode and demodulate the corresponding PDSCH. Gaal ,r,r 55-
57, 64, 77. Appellant argues that the values of the DCI formats noted by the
Examiner are not actual values signaled in a CRS RE signaling field of the
DCI signal. App. Br. 33-34. Appellant further argues Gaal (i-f 64) does not
disclose "if no fall-back transmission is received - then perform PDSCH
demodulation." Id.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a conditional "if' step in a
method claim reads out that limitation because it is not required in its
performance. See In re Schulhauser, Appeal 2012-007847 (April 28, 2016)
(precedential). Accordingly, we do not give patentable weight to the
conditional limitation. What remains of the claim is a mere statement to
determine a value in the DCI signal. As the recited claim does not require
use the value for any purpose, this recitation lacks the weight necessary to
confer patentability.
Thus, Appellant's arguments do not persuade us the Examiner errs in
the rejection of claims 6 and 19, or of claim 9, for which no separate
arguments are made (see App. Br. 36).
Claim 20
Appellant presents the same arguments for claim 20 as presented for
claims 7 and 8. App. Br. 38--40. For the reasons stated, Appellant's
arguments are unpersuasive.
Claims 21, 23, and 51
Claim 21 recites "The method of Claim 3, wherein the plurality of
CRS RE sets configured by a radio resource control (RRC) higher layer is
four sets." Claims 23 and 51 recite similar limitations. We select claim 21
as representative.
11
Appeal2017-002913
Application 13/970,546
The Examiner concedes that Gaal and Blankenship do not disclose
four sets of CRS REs but finds this would be an obvious design choice for a
number of antenna ports to transmit the CRS sets more flexibly and reliably.
Final Act. 6-7. Appellant argues the Examiner provided no evidence that
the above limitations are "more flexible and reliable." App. Br. 40-41.
As noted Gaal (i-f 45) discloses configuring lower layers using RRC
signaling with DCI using transmit diversity (i-f 60). Furthermore, Gaal
mentions a 4 x 4 antenna configuration and Blankenship (i-f 36, Figs. 3, 4)
shows use of different CRS patterns for different antenna ports in the control
region (i.e., DCI) as well as PDSCH. Putting these disclosures together, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious to
provide four CRS RE sets, one for each of four antennas. Thus, Appellant's
argument is not persuasive.
Appellant does not explain why it would have been "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" to extend
Blankenship's disclosure of two antenna ports to four along with
corresponding sets of CRS REs configured by RRC signaling, particularly in
view of Gaal's disclosure of a 4 x 4 antenna configuration. Leapfrog
Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
("Leapfrog"). The modification from two to four antenna ports requiring
corresponding sets of CRS REs would indeed have provided greater
flexibility and reliability by providing greater transmit diversity and antenna
combinations to support communications.
Claim 24, 25, 52, and 53
Claim 24 recites "The method of Claim 1, wherein the CRS RE set
comprises a set of CRS resource elements that are associated to one or a set
12
Appeal2017-002913
Application 13/970,546
of transmission points in CoMP transmission." Claims 25, 52, and 53 recite
similar limitations. We select claim 24 as representative.
The Examiner finds Gaal (i1i167, 71) and Blankenship (i1i140-44)
disclose CoMP transmission. The Examiner also finds Gaal (i1i160-62) and
Blankenship (Table 1, ,r,r 36-38) disclose a CRS RE set. Appellant argues
Blankenship discloses MIMO transmission, not CoMP, and that Blankenship
discloses resource elements but not CoMP REs. App. Br. 41--42. Appellant
presented these arguments with respect to claims 1 and 18 and they are
unpersuasive for the same reasons.
Claims 26-29, 32, 33, 54-57, 60, and 61
Claim 26 recites "The method of Claim 1, wherein a two bit signaling
field in DCI format for CoMP scheduling is used to dynamically signal one
of four CRS RE sets for PDSCH rate-matching." Claims 27-29, 32, 33, 54--
57, 60, and 61 recite similar features and/or depend from claim 26. We
select claim 26 as representative.
The Examiner concedes Gaal and Blankenship do not disclose a two
bit signaling field in DCI or use of four CRS RE sets. Final Act. 8.
However, the Examiner finds it would be an obvious design choice to select
a two-bit field to signal four CRS sets to provide greater flexibility and
reliability. Id. The Examiner further finds Blankenship (Table 1) discloses
the claimed feature. Ans. 8. Appellant argues the Examiner provided no
evidence that using two bits to signal one of the four CRS RE sets would be
more flexible and reliable.
We do not agree with Appellant's arguments. We note that Appellant
does not respond to the Examiner's finding that Blankenship (Table 1)
discloses four formats, where each format has corresponding resource
element groups (REGs ), which teaches the claimed feature of "four CRS RE
13
Appeal2017-002913
Application 13/970,546
sets." See Ans. 8. Signaling one of four CRS RE sets provides flexibility by
allowing one of four CRS RE sets to be used by the UE depending on the
system bandwidth and the number of OFDM symbols configured for the
control region. Blankenship ,r 39. The network can signal the UE the best
CRS RE set to use to communicate with the eNB, increasing reliability of
communications between the UE and eNB. We do not agree with
Appellant's argument that implementing the signal using two bits would
require undue experimentation. App. Br. 42. We agree with the Examiner
that using two bits to indicate one of the four RE sets taught by Blankenship
was within the level of ordinary skill. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
(Fed. Cir. 1994). Accordingly, Appellant's arguments do not persuade us of
Examiner error.
Claims 34, 35, 62, 63
Claim 34 depends from claim 26 and recites "The method of Claim
26, wherein when a CRS RE set corresponds to a combination of multiple
single-cell CRS patterns, the CRS RE set is used for joint transmission from
multiple cells." Claims 35, 62, and 63 recite similar limitations. We select
claim 34 as representative.
The Examiner finds Gaal and Blankenship disclose joint transmission
from multiple cells. Final Act. 9 citing Gaal ,r,r 62, 65, 71, Fig. 2,
Blankenship ,r 41. Appellant concedes Blankenship discloses joint
transmissions from a single cell but argues the reference fails to disclose
joint transmissions from multiple cells. App. Br. 48.
We agree with the Examiner that Gaal (i-f 71) and Blankenship (i-f 42)
disclose joint transmission from multiple cells in CoMP. We also note that,
although not cited in the rejection of claim 34, Zhang (i-f 70) specifically
14
Appeal2017-002913
Application 13/970,546
mentions Joint Transmission (JT) CoMP, demonstrating it was a known
feature of CoMP. Accordingly, when Gaal and Blankenship mention Co MP,
it is understood to include JT CoMP as one aspect. In this regard, we note
that one may use extrinsic evidence to show the meaning of claim terms. In
re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390-391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (extrinsic
evidence showed those skilled in the art would have known that blood bag
was plasticized with di----2----ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP)). Thus, Appellant
fails to persuade us that the Examiner errs in the rejection.
REJECTION #2
Claim 10
Claim 10 is independent and is set forth below:
10. A method for determining physical downlink shared channel
(PDSCH) timing comprising:
receive a fall-back transmission from a base station at a
user equipment (UE) configured for downlink coordinated multi-
point transmission (CoMP); and
in response to the fall-back transmission, perform PDSCH
demodulation using a default PDSCH timing assumption.
The Examiner finds the combination of Zhang and Blankenship discloses all
features of claim 10. Final Act. 13-14. Appellant argues the cited
references fail to disclose the claimed features. App. Br. 57--63.
Specifically, Appellant argues
one having ordinary skill in the art would not confuse or equate
Zhang's "fall-back PDCCH format" with "fall-back
transmission." A fall-back format is just another format that can
be part of a transmission. Zhang describes neither a default
configuration nor a fall-back transmission.
App. Br. 59. However, Zhang discloses monitoring a fall-back PDCCH
format, and PDCCH is a control channel transmission on the down link from
15
Appeal2017-002913
Application 13/970,546
eNB to UE. Thus, we do not agree that Zhang fails to disclose a fall-back
transmission. Moreover, Blankenship (i1i192, 119) also discloses a fall-back
PDCCH scheme. In any case, Appellant presents no evidence to support
that a fall-back PDCCH format is something unrelated to a fall-back
transmission. Attorney argument is not evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F .2d
1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974); see also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) and In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-140 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Appellant avers that Blankenship fails to disclose a "default PDSCH
timing assumption" as claimed. App. Br. 59---62. However, as the Examiner
notes, Blankenship discloses a default timing PDSCH timing assumption
with pre-defined (i.e., default) time and frequency REs. Final Act. 2, 14
citing Blankenship Figs. 3--4, ,r,r 36, 37, 119. Appellant fails to persuade us
the Examiner errs in finding the cited parts of Blankenship disclose the
claimed feature.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites "The method of claim 10, wherein the default
PDSCH timing is timing for a default cell-specific reference symbol (CRS)
resource element (RE) set or a channel state information reference signal
(CSI-RS) resource." The Examiner finds this feature disclosed by the
combination of Blankenship and Zhang. Final Act. 14, Ans. 14 citing
Blankenship ,r,r 36, 11, Zhang ,r 69.
Appellant argues the Examiner's rejection is unclear regarding
whether the Examiner is relying on Blankenship's CRS or CSI-RS REs as
disclosing the claimed feature. App. Br. 63. Review of the cited passages
reveals that the Examiner relies on both types of reference signals to disclose
the claimed feature. Specifically, Zhang (i-f 69) mentions both types of
reference signals.
16
Appeal2017-002913
Application 13/970,546
Appellant again argues the cited references do not disclose a
"default." As explained with regard to claim 10, Blankenship's discloses a
default timing PDSCH timing assumption with pre-defined (i.e., default)
time and frequency REs. Final Act. 2, 14 citing Blankenship Figs. 3--4,
,r,r 36, 37, 119.
Claims 12-17
Appellant submits no separate arguments for claims 12-17. App. Br.
64---65. Accordingly, these claims fall for the reasons stated regarding the
claims from which they depend. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 36
Claim 3 6 recites "The method of claim 11, wherein the default CRS
RE set is one of a plurality of CRS RE sets configured by a radio resource
control (RRC) higher layer." The Examiner finds the claimed feature
disclosed in Blankenship (ifif36, 37, 88, 119). Final Act. 16, Ans. 12.
Appellant argues Blankenship fails to disclose "a default CRS RE set" and
the additional requirement that the CRS RE set is "one of a plurality of CRS
RE sets." Final Act. 65---66.
We have already addressed the "default" argument with respect to
claim 10. Regarding the "one of a plurality of CRS RE sets" argument, we
agree with the Examiner that Blankenship (ifif 36, 37, Figs. 3, 4) disclose the
claimed feature. For example, see Blankenship's Figure 4, supra, which
discloses two CRS RE sets, one for each of antenna ports O and 1. Thus, we
find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive to show the Examiner errs in
finding the claimed feature disclosed by Blankenship.
Claim 37
Claim 3 7 recites "The method of Claim 3 6 wherein the plurality of
CRS RE sets configured by a radio resource control (RRC) higher layer is
17
Appeal2017-002913
Application 13/970,546
four sets." The Examiner acknowledges that Blankenship does not disclose
the claimed feature, but contends that selection of four CRS RE sets is a
matter of design choice absent a showing of criticality. Final Act. 16-17,
Ans. 12. Appellant contends "that the Examiner has provided no logical
reasoning why one o [ fJ ordinary skill in the art would select to configure
four CRS RE sets versus fewer or more." App. Br. 66.
We do not agree with Appellant's argument. Blankenship (i-f,136, 37,
Figs. 3, 4) shows CRS RE sets for two antennas, and one of ordinary skill in
the art would have considered it obvious to extend the CRS RE sets for two
antennas to four. Moreoever, Zhang (i-f 42) discloses the possibility of using
multiple UE antennas. Furthermore, Zhang (Tables 2 and 3) explicitly
mention the possibility of using four layers on ports 7-10 signaled by
codeword 3. Thus, Appellant fails to persuade us the Examiner errs in
finding four CRS RE sets would have been an obvious design choice for one
of ordinary skill in the art considering the references.
Claims 38 and 39
Claim 3 8 recites "The method of Claim 11, wherein the CRS RE set
comprises a set of CRS resource elements that are associated to one or a set
of transmission points in Co MP transmission." Claim 3 9 recites a similar
limitation but depends from claim 36. We select claim 38 as representative.
The Examiner finds the claimed feature disclosed by the combination
of Zhang and Blankenship. Final Act. 17, Ans. 12 citing Zhang ,r,r 69, 176,
197, Blankenship ,r,r 36, 41--44, Fig. 3, Table 1). Appellant argues
Blankenship discloses MIMO, not CoMP, and that Blankenship does not
disclose a "set" of CRS REs. App. Br. 67.
Zhang (Abstract, ,r,r 8-11, 13, 69, 176, 197) repeatedly mentions
CoMP and states that its wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (i.e., UE)
18
Appeal2017-002913
Application 13/970,546
can be switched between joint transmission (JT) CoMP and single-cell
MIMO operation. Blankenship (i1i141--44) also mentions MIMO and CoMP.
Blankenship (i1i136, 37, Figs. 3 and 4) shows CRS RE sets. See
Blankenship's Fig. 4, supra. Thus, Appellant's argument fail to persuade us
that the Examiner errs.
Claims 4rJ--43, 46 and 47
Claim 40 recites "The method of Claim 10, wherein a two bit
signaling field in DCI format for CoMP scheduling is used to dynamically
signal one of four CRS RE sets for PDSCH rate-matching." Claims 41--43,
46, and 4 7 recite the same or similar feature. We select claim 40 as
representative.
The Examiner finds using two bits to signal one of four sets would
have been an obvious design choice considering the references. Final Act.
17, Ans. 12 citing Zhang ,r,r 69, 72; Blankenship ,r,r 36, 126, Fig. 3. The
Examiner also finds Blankenship (Table 1) discloses the claimed feature.
Ans. 12. Appellant argues the Examiner provided no evidence that using
two bits to signal one of the four CRS RE sets would be more flexible and
reliable. App. Br. 67---68.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. At the outset, we note that
Appellant does not respond to the Examiner's finding that Blankenship
(Table 1) discloses the claimed feature. In addition, a person of ordinary
skill would understand that signaling one of four CRS RE sets provides
flexibility by allowing the network to select the best of the four sets to
support communications between the UE and eNB, thus increasing the
reliability of the communications between the UE and eNB. Accordingly,
Appellant's arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error.
19
Appeal2017-002913
Application 13/970,546
Claims 48 and 49
Claim 48 recites "The method of Claim 11, wherein when the CRS
RE set corresponds to a combination of multiple single-cell CRS pattefQS,
the CRS RE set is used for joint transmission from multiple cells." The
Examiner finds the claimed feature disclosed by Blankenship. Final Act. 18,
Ans. 12-13 citing Blankenship ,r,r 36, 41, Zhang ,r,r 69, 114, 115, Fig. IF.
Appellant argues Blankenship discloses joint transmissions from a single
cell, not joint transmission from multiple cells. App. Br. 72-73.
Appellant's argument is not persuasive as presented. Blankenship
(i-f 41) mentions CoMP, which stands for Coordinated Multi-Point
Transmission. Those of ordinary skill in the art understood CoMP to
encompass joint transmission from multiple cells. Zhang (i-f 70) explicitly
mentions joint transmission (JT) CoMP. Thus, we do not agree Blankenship
is limited to only joint transmissions from a single cell.
B. Conclusion
Except where otherwise noted, we adopt as our own the Examiner's
findings and conclusion of obviousness as set forth in the Final Office
Action and Answer for all claims. Final Act. 2-18; Ans. 2-13.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-29, 32--43, 46-
57, and 60-63 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a).
AFFIRMED
20