Ex Parte Konuskan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 24, 201713882840 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation