Ex Parte Konuskan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2017

13882840 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 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.
13/882,840 05/01/2013 Cagatay Konuskan 9900-36524US2 5878
146825 7590 05/26/2017
S»aae Patent fTrnnn/Telefnnaktiehnlaaet T M F,ries;s;nn
EXAMINER
PO BOX 30789
RALEIGH, NC 27622-0789
ASEFA, DEBEBE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/26/2017 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):
instructions @ sagepat. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CAGATAY KONUSKAN, ERIK LARS SON, BO GORANSSON,
JOHAN HULTELL, and PETER VON WRYCZA
Appeal 2016-007219
Application 13/8 82,8401
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—11, 13—20, 22—30, and 32-46.
Claims 3, 12, 21, and 31 have been canceled. See Response to Notice of
Non-Compliant Appeal Brief, filed Mar. 10, 2016, pp. 4—11. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Telefonaktiebolaget L M
Ericsson. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-007219
Application 13/882,840
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to “uplink MIMO (multiple-
input-multiple-output) and control thereof.” Spec. 1:4—5. An inter-stream
interference between two uplink streams in a MIMO transmission is
determined and a selection of Enhanced dedicated transport channel
Transport Format Combination (E-TFC) is controlled in response to the
determined interference. Spec. 2:25—3:1. Claim 1, which is illustrative,
reads as follows:
1. A method for controlling uplink Multiple Inputs Multiple
Outputs, MIMO, the method being performed in a network node
and comprising:
determining an inter-stream interference between two
uplink streams in MIMO transmission; and
controlling, in response to the determined inter-stream
interference, a selection of E-TFC, Enhanced dedicated transport
channel Transport Format Combination, wherein the controlling
comprises signalling a reference value offset for compensating
for inter-stream interference.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
References
Cai et al.
Pelletier et al.
Sambhwani et al.
Okvist et al.
Vitthaladevuni et al.
US 2011/0263281 Al
US 2012/0177089 Al
US 2012/0287965 Al
US 8,391,912 B2
US 8,599,777 B2
Oct. 27, 2011
July 12, 2012
Nov. 15,2012
Mar. 5,2013
Dec. 3,2013
2
Appeal 2016-007219
Application 13/882,840
Rejections
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 22-27, 29, 32-37, and 39-46
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Vitthaladevuni, Cai, and Pelletier. Final Act. 11—35.
Claims 2, 11, 20, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Vitthaladevuni, Cai, Pelletier,
and Okvist. Final Act. 35—38.
Claims 5, 9, 15, 16, 18, 28, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Vitthaladevuni, Cai,
Pelletier, and Sambhwani. Final Act. 38-43.
Dispositive Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Vitthaladevuni, Cai, and Pelletier teaches or suggests “controlling, in
response to the determined inter-stream interference, a selection of E-TFC,
Enhanced dedicated transport channel Transport Format Combination,
wherein the controlling comprises signalling a reference value offset for
compensating for inter-stream interference,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 10 recite “wherein the controlling [of a
selection of E-TFC] comprises signalling a reference value offset for
compensating for inter-stream interference.” For this limitation, the
Examiner relies on the combination of Cai and Pelletier. Ans. 2—5 (citing
Cai, Fig. 8; 1 80; Pelletier || 41, 75). Specifically, the Examiner finds Cai
teaches using signal-to-interference ratio (SIR) of the primary and secondary
3
Appeal 2016-007219
Application 13/882,840
streams for E-TFC selection. Ans. 3 (citing Cai | 80). The Examiner finds
“this signal-to-interference is interference between the streams, secondary
and primary, and this means it is inter-stream interference.” Id. The
Examiner further finds “inter-stream interference is inherently present in
SIR.” Misc. Comm, to Applicant (Mailed July 21, 2016) 2 (citing Spec.
10:8—19). The Examiner finds:
Pelletier discloses for both primary and secondary streams
WTRU is configured to use one set of reference E-TFCI and
associated power offsets for the primary stream and another set
of reference E-TFCI and associated power offsets for the
secondary stream transmission. Based on the input from Cai, and
Pelletier it is the norm to use inter-stream interference
information of both the primary and secondary the stream [sic]
in relation to associated power offset to select an ETFC.
Ans. 3 (citing Pelletier 141).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s findings are
insufficient to show that the cited references teach or suggest a reference
value offset for compensating for inter-stream interference, as recited in
claims 1 and 10. See Resp. to Misc. Comm, to Applicant (filed July 26,
2016) 5—6. The use of “i.e.,” in the intrinsic record is often definitional.
Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir.
2009) (“[U]se of ‘i.e.’ signals an intent to define the word to which it
refers.”); see also Abbott Labs. v. Novopharm Ltd., 323 F.3d 1324, 1330
(Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that a patentee “explicitly defined” a term by using
“i.e.” followed by an explanatory phrase). Here, in describing the difference
between detecting a primary stream for single or dual stream transmissions,
the Specification provides that for the dual stream transmission, an extra
term is utilized and “[t]his extra term is due to the inter-stream interference,
i.e., Si [the primary stream] and S2 [the secondary stream] will interfere with
4
Appeal 2016-007219
Application 13/882,840
each other.” Spec. 11:13—20. As such, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “inter-stream interference,” consistent with the
Specification, is the interference caused by the transmission of one stream
on another concurrently transmitted stream. We agree with Appellants that
Cai teaches estimating the SIR for the secondary stream at the Node B when
other physical channels are not transmitting, and that Cai fails to relate the
interference between the two streams. App. Br. 7—8 (citing Cai Tflf 80, 91).
Given these teachings, we also agree with Appellants that inter-stream
interference is not inherently present in the SIR calculations of Cai. Resp. to
Misc. Comm, to Applicant 4 (citing Cai 191). “Inherency, however, may
not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a
certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”
In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations omitted).
Here, we find that the Examiner has merely shown that inter-stream
interference may be present in the SIR calculations of Cai. However, when
relying upon a theory of inherency, the Examiner must provide a basis in
fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the Examiner’s
determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows
from the teachings of the applied prior art. Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461,
1463—64 (BPAI 1990). Here, the Examiner fails to provide facts and/or
technical reasoning to support the conclusion that inter-stream interference
will be present in the SIR calculations of Cai, as one skilled in the art would
recognize Cai teaches the SIR for a stream is determined only when other
physical channels are not transmitting.
We agree with the Examiner that Pelletier teaches an E-TFC
combination table where for dual-stream transmission, a maximum transport
5
Appeal 2016-007219
Application 13/882,840
block size (TBS) value for a primary stream may be smaller than the
maximum allowed value for the primary stream to allow for some inter­
stream interference and that the maximum TBS value may be configured by
RRC signaling. Ans. 3^4 (citing Pelletier || 41, 75). However, the
Examiner’s findings fail to explain how configuring a maximum TBS value
by RRC signaling, as taught by Pelletier, teaches or suggests signaling a
reference offset value, as required by claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, we are constrained by the record to not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 10. Independent claims 19
and 29 recite “receiving a signal from a network node, the signal comprising
a reference value offset for compensating for inter-stream interference
between two uplink streams in MIMO [Multiple Inputs Multiple Outputs]
transmission.” For reasons similar to the reasons discussed supra, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19 and 29. Dependent claims 2,
4—9, 11, 13—18, 20, 22—28, 30, and 32-46 stand with their respective
independent claims.
Because we agree with at least one argument advanced by Appellants,
we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—11, 13—20, 22—
30, and 32-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
6