Ex Parte Gaal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 2016

12765816 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121765,816 04/22/2010 23696 7590 03/30/2016 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 5775 MOREHOUSE DR. SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Peter Gaal 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. 092052U3 1187 EXAMINER NGUYEN, STEVEN HD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2414 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2016 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 PETER GAAL, XIAOXIA ZHANG, W ANSHI CHEN, XILIANG LUO, and JUAN MONTOJO Appeal2013-009348 Application 12/765,816 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4 and 9-20. Claims 5-8 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention signals rank and precoding indications in uplink and downlink multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) systems. In one aspect, a user equipment (UE)-specific reference signal (RS) is generated comprising a precoding matrix indicator (PMI). A rank indication (RI) is included in the DE-specific RS or in download control information (DCI), Appeal2013-009348 Application 12/765,816 and the UE-specific RS and DCI is then transmitted to the UE. See generally Abstract; Spec. i-f 92; Fig 8. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of communicating signaling for downlink transmissions, comprising: generating a user equipment-(UE-) specific reference signal (RS) comprising a precoding matrix indicator (PMI); including a rank indication (RI) in a channel transmission; and transmitting the DE-specific RS and the channel transmission to an access terminal. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1--4 and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as anticipated by Xiao et al. (US 2009/0041140 Al; Feb. 12, 2009) or, alternatively, Onggosanusi et al. (US 2009/0262856 Al; Oct. 22, 2009). Ans. 3-5. 1 THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER ONGGOSANUSI The Examiner finds that Onggosanusi' s Figure 2 discloses every recited element of claim 1 including (1) generating a DE-specific RS comprising a PMI; (2) including an RI in a channel transmission; and (3) transmitting the DE-specific RS and the channel transmission to an access terminal via an uplink grant. Ans. 4, 7. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed Apr. 26, 2013 ("App. Br."); (2) the Examiner's Answer mailed May 16, 2013 ("Ans."); and (3) the Reply Brief filed July 17, 2013 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appeal2013-009348 Application 12/765,816 Appellants argue that Onggosanusi's uplink grant is not a UE-specific RS, but rather is transmitted on a control channel separate from a reference signal. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 5-6. As such, Appellants contend, Onggosanusi does not generate a DE-specific RS comprising a PMI, let alone transmit that RS to an access terminal as claimed. Id. ISSUE UnderÂ§ 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Onggosanusi transmits a DE-specific RS comprising a PMI to an access terminal? ANALYSIS We begin by construing the key disputed limitation of claim 1 which recites, in pertinent part, a DE-specific RS. Notably, Appellants' Specification does not define this term-unlike other terms. See, e.g., Spec. i-f 50, 100--01 (defining various terms explicitly). Paragraph 92 and Figure 8 of Appellants' disclosure nevertheless indicate that a DE-specific RS comprising a PMI can be generated, and that an RI can be included in downlink control information (DCI) or the DE-specific RS. But the Specification is short on specifics as to what exactly constitutes a UE- specific RS, notwithstanding Appellants' proffered definition of the term as "an RS that is transmitted to a specific UE that may be used for demodulating data in the Physical Downlink Shared Channel, for beamforming, and the like." Reply Br. 5 (emphases added). Not only is there no persuasive evidence on this record to support this proffered definition, our emphasis on its permissive and open-ended 3 Appeal2013-009348 Application 12/765,816 language underscores that such a signal is not limited to the signal's particular uses in the proposed definition, some of which are unspecified as indicated by the "and the like" language. In short, Appellants provide no persuasive evidence on this record that defines an RS to so limit its construction, let alone a DE-specific RS. Therefore, we broadly, but reasonably, construe a DE-specific RS as any signal transmitted to a specific DE that can be used for reference purposes. With this construction, we see no error in the Examiner's position that the signal associated with Onggosanusi' s uplink grant in Figure 2 is a DE-specific RS, and that this signal is transmitted to an access terminal, as claimed. Onggosanusi' s uplink grant is a collection of operating parameters instructing a DE how to communicate with a base station (eNodeB) 150. See Onggosanusi i-fi-149, 62. As shown in Onggosanusi's Figure 2, different uplink grants comprising a PMI and RI are transmitted to associated user equipment, DEl and DE2, respectively. Nothing in the claim precludes the signal associated with each of these downlink transmissions from being considered a DE-specific RS, for it is a signal transmitted to a specific DE that can be used for reference purposes. To the extent that Appellants contend that this signal is incapable of being used for reference purposes, no such evidence has been submitted on this record proving such incapability. That Onggosanusi' s transmission in Figure 2 can be on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) (Onggosanusi i-fi-149, 75), and also include an RI, does not change our conclusion. That is, nothing in the claim precludes Onggosanusi' s transmitting ( 1) a signal containing the PMI that is associated with the channel transmission, and (2) a channel transmission that includes the RI. That this channel transmission can include the DE-specific 4 Appeal2013-009348 Application 12/765,816 RS as recited in dependent claim 2 only underscores the breadth of the transmission limitation. Appellants' contentions that a downlink RS is used only for channel estimation, and that Onggosanusi' s uplink grant is communicated separately from the downlink RS (App. Br. 10), are unavailing. First, these assertions are unsupported by factual evidence, and, therefore, have little probative value.2 See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Second,Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim given the broadest reasonable interpretation of "UE-specific RS" noted above. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2--4 and 9-20 not argued separately with particularity. Because our decision is dispositive regarding patentability of all appealed claims, we need not reach the Examiner's cumulative anticipation rejection of those claims over Xiao. CONCLUSION UnderÂ§ 102, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1--4 and 9-20 as anticipated by Onggosanusi. We do not reach the Examiner's alternative anticipation rejection of those claims over Xiao. 2 Apart from Onggosanusi' s Figure 2, Appellants cite no other disclosure in Onggosanusi in connection with any of their arguments. See App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 5-6. 5 Appeal2013-009348 Application 12/765,816 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4 and 9-20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6