Ex Parte Kent et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 2014

11864672 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/864,672 09/28/2007 Mark Kent 3875.1840002 3910 26111 7590 03/31/2014 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER GARCIA, SANTIAGO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2632 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MARK KENT, VINKO ERCEG, JUN ZHENG, SIRIKIAT ARIYAVISITAKUL, and URI LANDAU ____________________ Appeal 2011-012740 Application 11/864,672 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-012740 Application 11/864,672 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-21 1 . Claims 11 and 22 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter (Ans. 3). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system for Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) / Precoding Matrix Index (PMI) feedback for precoded Multiple-Input Multiple Output (MIMO) systems that uses differential codebooks; wherein, the method includes generating at least one feedback message and at least one differential feedback message based on the Channel State Information (CSI), where the CSI is associated with both the CQI reporting unit the PMI reporting unit (Abstract). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method for processing communication signals, the method comprising: generating one or more feedback messages for one or more Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) reporting units based on at least channel state information associated with said one or more CQI reporting units; and 1 Although the Examiner lists claim 11 as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) (Ans. 5), the Examiner has previously indicated claim 11 contains allowable subject matter (Ans. 3). Thus, we view this as a typographical error, and proceed under the assumption claim 11 is drawn to allowable subject matter. Appeal 2011-012740 Application 11/864,672 3 generating one or more differential feedback messages for one or more Pre-coding Matrix Index (PMI) reporting units based on at least channel state information associated with said one or more PMI reporting units, wherein said one or more PMI reporting units span a useable bandwidth. C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Onggosanusi US 2008/0219370 A1 Sep. 11, 2008 Xiao US 2008/0232492 A1 Sep. 25, 2008 Khojastepour US 2008/0232501 A1 Sep. 25, 2008 Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Onggosanusi in view of Khojastepour. Ans. 5. Claims 6 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Onggosanusi in view of Khojastepour and Xiao. Ans. 9. II. ISSUES The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in determining that the combination of Onggosanusi and Khojastepour teaches or would have suggested “generating one or more feedback messages for one or more Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) reporting units based on at least channel state information associated with said one or more CQI reporting units; and” “generating one or more differential feedback messages for one or more Pre-coding Matrix Index (PMI) reporting units based on at least channel state information associated with said one or more PMI reporting units, wherein said one or more PMI reporting units span a useable bandwidth” (claim 1, emphasis added). Appeal 2011-012740 Application 11/864,672 4 III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. The Invention 1. According to Appellants, the Channel State Information (CSI) is knowledge of the channel transfer matrix H associated with the plurality of communication paths for a communication system having multiple transmit and receive antennas (MIMO); wherein, a channel estimation block 322 within the receiver estimates the CSI using the received signal y (Fig. 3; Spec.¶¶ [0006], [0033], and [0034]). Onggosanusi 2. Onggosanusi discloses a User Equipment (UE) including receive portion 105 having a channel estimation module 109 and a feedback portion 110 having a PMI selector 111, a CQI computer 112, a Rank Indicator (RI) selector 113, and a feedback encoder 114 (Fig. 1A; Abstract; ¶¶ [0022]-[0024]). The channel estimation module 109 generates the channel estimates and PMI selector 111, CQI computer 112, Rank Indicator (RI) selector 113 generate the CQI, PMI, and RI based upon the channel estimates (id.). The feedback encoder 114 feeds back the CQI, PMI, and RI derived from the channel estimates to its serving base station (id.). 3. Each of the UE feedback quantities, CQI, PMI, and RI may be reported with different frequency granularities (Fig. 1A; ¶ [0035]). For example, the RI may be reported for the entire system bandwidth while CQI+PMI may be reported for each of the sub-bands within the entire system bandwidth (¶ [0033]). Appeal 2011-012740 Application 11/864,672 5 4. The UE feedback quantities, CQI, PMI, and RI, may be reported over predetermined time periods (i.e. RI =2 is reported every 10 ms and CQI+PMI is reported every two ms) (¶ [0035]). 5. The rank selection feedback from the UE allows the serving base station Node-B to adapt a transmission rank, which is the recommended number of useful spatial streams or transmission layers for spatial multiplexing in MIMO transmissions (¶ [0019]). The rank selection fully specifies the size of CQI and PMI selection feedbacks (¶ [0035]). In particular, the CQI payload size varies depending upon the RI and the preceding codebook size is rank-dependent (¶ [0020]). Khojastepour 6. Khojastepour discloses differential codebook design, where only the variation in the channel is fed back (¶ [0060]). Xiao 7. Xiao discloses the UE may comprise a channel quality value averaged over the entire bandwidth and a precoding metric determined for the entire frequency bandwidth that is based upon the averaged channel quality; wherein, the UE averages the channel quality measurements made for multiple channels during a measuring period to produce an average channel quality measurement and to determine a precoding metric (¶ [0040]). IV. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 7-10, 12, and 18-21 Appellants contend, although Onggosanusi “discloses that the channel and interference estimation module 109 provides the channel estimates for the UE 100” and “PMI selector 111 and the CQI computer 112 determine Appeal 2011-012740 Application 11/864,672 6 the PMI and CQI feedback to be fed back to the base station,” “Onggosanusi does not disclose … ‘the feedback message from unit 109 is associated, united or combined with, the CQI computer 112 as the output of 109 goes into CQI computer 112’” and “‘generating ... feedback messages ... based on at least channel state information associated with said one or more CQI reporting units’” (App. Br. 8-9). Appellants argue Khojastepour “discloses PMI feedback and feedback of the variation in the channel.” and “does not disclose ‘generating ... differential feedback messages ... based on at least channel state information’; and ‘wherein said one or more PMI reporting units span a useable bandwidth’” (App. Br. 10). However, the Examiner finds Onggosanusi discloses“[t]he output of the PMI and CQI is input to the encoder and transmit module which creates the feedback to the base station signal” and “channel estimation in block 109 of fig.1A… provide[s] an accurate assessment of the quality of the channel” where “[t]his assessment determines the channel state” (Ans. 10). The Examiner finds further “Khojastepour discloses using differential signals” (Ans. 11). Examiner notes since Onggosanusi discloses that the “‘CQI and/or PMI may need to be reported for each of the sub-bands within the system bandwidth,’” the CQI and PMI are reported within “[t]he usable bandwidth . . .” (Ans. 6). We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim 1 merely requires “generating one or more feedback messages” that is (are) based on the CSI, which is associated with the CQI reporting units. That is, claim 1 does not require that the message (data) fed back includes the CSI but merely requires that data be “based on” the CSI. Appeal 2011-012740 Application 11/864,672 7 In fact, there is no indication that the “associat[ion] with” the CQI reporting unit refers to the message; rather, it merely refers to the CSI. Similarly, claim 1 merely requires “generating one or more differential feedback messages” that is (are) based on the CSI, which is associated with the PMI reporting units spanning a usable portion of the system’s bandwidth. The Specification discloses the CSI is the channel transfer matrix which is estimated by the channel estimation block (FF 1). Thus, we give the step of “generating one or more feedback messages” and “generating one or more differential feedback messages” their broadest reasonable interpretation as generating data based on the CSI which is related to both the CQI and the PMI. Furthermore, we note the “feedback messages” and “differential feedback messages” are merely data that are generated as feedback, and that the CSI is merely information/data “associated with said one or more CQI reporting units” based on which the generated data is generated. Claim 1 does not positively recite that the generated feedback and differential feedback messages are actually used within the acts or steps of the method to change or affect any machine or computer function. Non-functional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Circ. 1983). Thus, as an initial matter of claim construction, we conclude the claim merely requires generating a first type of data based on a second type of data. Nevertheless, Onggosanusi discloses a UE including a feedback encoder, which feeds back the CQI, PMI, and RI which are based upon the channel estimates generated by a channel estimation module (FF 2). Each of Appeal 2011-012740 Application 11/864,672 8 the UE feedback quantities, CQI, PMI, and RI may be reported for differing sub-bands within the entire system bandwidth (FF 3). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Onggosanusi would have taught or suggested “[t]he output of the PMI and CQI is input to the encoder and transmit module which creates the feedback to the base station signal,” which is based upon channel estimation block’s “assessment of the quality of the channel … [that] determines the channel state” (Ans. 10). That is, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Onggosanusi’s feedback encoder feeds back data relating to the CQI and PMI which are based upon the CSI (channel estimates) generated by the channel estimation module. In addition, since UE feedback quantities, CQI and PMI, are eventually used by the UE’s feedback channel estimation module, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the channel estimates or the CSI are associated with both the CQI and the PMI (Ans. 5 and 6). Moreover, we also agree with the Examiner’s finding that since the UE feedback quantities, CQI and PMI, are assigned to sub-bands within the entire system bandwidth, where “[t]he ‘usable bandwidth’ is the system bandwidth” (Ans. 6). That is, a sub-band within the entire system bandwidth represents a usable bandwidth for the system. In addition, Khojastepour is directed to differential codebook design, having differential feedback (FF 6). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that “Khojastepour teaches, a feedback signal being generated [includes] … differential feedback messages” (Ans. 6). As to claims 10 and 21, Appellants merely recite the claim limitations. A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim. See 37 Appeal 2011-012740 Application 11/864,672 9 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii). Moreover, mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip op. at 7-8 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative), available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/its/ fd09004693.pdf. Appellants’ arguments fail to comply with 37 C.F.R 1.111 (b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the reference. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Onggosanusi in view of Khojastepour. Appellants make similar arguments for dependent claims 7 and 18 (App. Br. 17). Further, independent claim 12 having similar claim language, and claims 8-10, and 19-21 depending respectively from claims 1 and 12, have not been argued separately. Therefore, claims 7 -10 and 18-21 fall with claim 1. Claims 2-4 and 13-15 Appellants contend, although Onggosanusi discloses “the reporting of RI is once every four sub-frames wherein the reporting of CQI and PMI occurs in every sub-frame except in the sub-frames where RI is reported,” “nowhere does Onggosanusi disclose a feedback duration or period for each CQI reporting unit and each PMI reporting unit” or “assigning a bandwidth and a feedback period to each of said one or more CQI reporting units and said one or more PMI reporting units . . .” (App. Br. 12). However, the Examiner finds Onggosanusi teaches “sections of the sub-frame get assigned Appeal 2011-012740 Application 11/864,672 10 to CQI and PMI [where] … CQI and PMI may be required to expand for each sub-band;” “[t]herefore, the system is assigning a[] specific bandwidth [which is] a usable bandwidth . . .” (Ans. 11) over “different spots in time” (Ans. 7). As noted supra, Onggosanusi teaches that each of the UE feedback quantities, CQI, PMI, and RI, may be reported for differing sub-bands within the entire system bandwidth and assigned predetermined time periods (FF 3 and 4). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Onggosanusi discloses assigning a bandwidth and a feedback period to each CQI and PMI reporting units (Ans. 7) Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Onggosanusi in view of Khojastepour. Further, claims 3, 4, and 13-15 (depending from claims 1 and 12) which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 2. Claims 5 and 16 Appellants contend, although “Onggosanusi discloses that the RI reporting may occur in the same reporting instances or in different reporting instances of the CQI or PMI selection feedback depending on RI feedback rate,” “nowhere does Onggosanusi disclose ‘adjusting said one or more CQI reporting units and/or said one or more PMI reporting units dynamically and/or adaptively’. . .” (App. Br. 16). However, the Examiner finds “the CQI and PMI units are being adjusted dynamically in some way” (Ans. 12). Onggosanusi teaches that RI is adjusted and the rank selection feedback from the UE fully specifies the size of CQI and PMI selection feedbacks; where the CQI payload size varies depending upon the RI (FF 5). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that “the CQI and PMI units are being Appeal 2011-012740 Application 11/864,672 11 adjusted dynamically in some way” (Ans. 12). That is, since the RI is dynamically adjusted and the CQI and PMI selection feedbacks’ sizes depend upon the RI, the CQI and PMI selection feedbacks are being adjusted dynamically. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Onggosanusi in view of Khojastepour. Further, claim 16 (depending from claim 12) which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 5. Claims 6 and 17 Appellants contend, although Xiao “discloses that the channel quality information is reported by the UE; and that the reported channel quality information may comprise a channel quality value averaged over the entire bandwidth,” Xiao “does not disclose ‘generating said channel state information by averaging channel measurements’ . . .” (App. Br. 21). However, the Examiner finds “Xiao clearly teaches ‘a channel quality value averaged over the entire bandwidth’ . . .” (Ans.12). Xiao is directed to a UE that averages the channel quality measurements made for multiple channels during a measuring period to produce an average channel quality measurement (FF 7). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Xiao explicitly teaches generating CSI by averaging channel measurements (Ans. 12). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Onggosanusi in view of Khojastepour and Xiao. Further, claim 17 (depending from claim 12) which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 6. Appeal 2011-012740 Application 11/864,672 12 V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10, and 12-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ELD