Ex Parte Nam et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 22, 2016

12650898 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/650,898 106809 7590 Docket Clerk - SAMS P.O. Drawer 800889 Dallas, TX 75380 12/31/2009 04/26/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Young-Han Nam 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. 2009.02.001.WSO 8116 EXAMINER FOTAKIS, ARISTOCRATIS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2633 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/26/2016 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): patents@munckwilson.com munckwilson@gmail.com patent.srad@samsung.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YOUNG-HAN NAM, JIANZHONG ZHANG, and JIN-KYU HAN 1 Appeal2014-006192 Application 12/650,898 Technology Center 2600 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12-15, 17-20, and 22-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal2014-006192 Application 12/650,898 Invention The application relates to wireless communication and allocating reference signals based on a reference signal pattern, such as in Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) systems. Spec. Abstract. Exemplary Claims Claims 1, 10, and 24 are exemplary and reproduced below with key limitations emphasized: 1. A base station, comprising: a downlink transmit path comprising circuitry configured to transmit a plurality of reference signals in two or more resource blocks, each resource block comprising a plurality of OFDM symbols, each of the OFDM symbols comprising a plurality of subcarriers, and each subcarrier of each OFDM symbol comprises a resource element; and a reference signal allocator configured to allocate the plurality of reference signals to selected resource elements of the two or more resource blocks according to a reference signal pattern, wherein the reference signal pattern is applied to the two or more resource blocks when a transmission rank is greater than a threshold number, wherein a same pre-coding matrix is applied across the two or more resource blocks. 10. A base station, comprising: a downlink transmit path comprising circuitry configured to transmit a plurality of cell-specific reference signals across a plurality of resource blocks; and a reference signal allocator configured to allocate the plurality of cell-specific reference signals in an fth resource block and in every ith resource block starting from the fth resource block in the plurality of resource blocks, 2 Appeal2014-006192 Application 12/650,898 wherein i and fare integers and f is a resource block offset based at least partly upon a Cell_ ID of a base station, and wherein the reference signal allocator is configured to allocate the plurality of cell-specific reference signals in the fth resource block and in every ith resource block starting from the fth resource block using a same cell-specific reference signal pattern. 24. A method in accordance with Claim 20, wherein the offset f is calculated using the follow equation: f =(Cell_ID )mod(i). Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over LG Electronics, Downlink Reference Signal for Higher Order MIMD, Rl-090218, 3GPP TSG RAN WGI Meeting #55bis (Jan. 12-17, 2009), available at http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/ tsg_ran/WG l_RL1/TSGR1_55b/Docs/Rl-090218.zip ("Rl-090218") in view of Pan (US 2008/0260059 Al, published Oct. 23, 2008) and further in view of Onggosanusi et al. (US 2008/0219370 Al, published Sept. 11, 2008). Final Act. 4. The Examiner rejects claims 10, 12-15, 17-20, and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gaal et al. (US 2009/0181692 Al, published July 16, 2009) in view of Scheim et al. (US 2008/0233966 Al, published Sept. 25, 2008). Final Act. 6. ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding that RI -090218 in view of Onggosanusi teaches or suggests a "reference signal pattern is applied to the 3 Appeal2014-006192 Application I2/650,898 two or more resource blocks when a transmission rank is greater than a threshold number," as recited in claim I? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Gaal teaches or suggests "cell specific reference signals," as recited in claim IO? 3. Did the Examiner err in finding that Gaal teaches or suggests "f=(Cell_ID)mod(i)," as recited in claim 24? ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 In rejecting claim I, the Examiner finds Onggosanusi teaches allocated resource blocks that "have been scheduled," but not necessarily how that scheduling happens: "Onggosanusi does not mention the reference signal pattern." Ans. 3--4 (citing Onggosanusi i-f 32). Instead, the Examiner relies upon RI-0920 I 8 as teaching the application of a reference signal pattern. Ans. 3. The Examiner further identifies one specific example in which "Onggosanusi teaches that a transmission rank-2 is seiected in subframe I when Rank Indicator (RI) = 2 is reported back." Ans. 3 (citing Onggosanusi i-f 35); see also Final Act. 2. Appellants argue that the prior art RI -0920 I 8 teaches that a reference signal pattern is "applied to all" resource blocks and hence is "not conditional" in when the pattern is applied. Reply Br. 6. Appellants also contend the Examiner erred because Onggosanusi describes "merely selecting rank-2 when a rank indicator (RI)=2" which does not teach or suggest a threshold number and hence also is not conditional. App. Br. I 8. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We agree with both parties that RI-0920 I 8 teaches applying a reference signal pattern for all resource blocks, at least for certain antenna ports. Reply Br. 6; Ans. 3; RI- 4 Appeal2014-006192 Application 12/650,898 092018 at 3. Nevertheless, we find this satisfies what Appellants have termed the "conditional" as currently written. As the Examiner correctly notes, "the claim does not recite what would happen if the transmission rank was not greater than the threshold number," and the Examiner determines the threshold number "can be any number." Ans. 4. Claim 1 states "the reference signal pattern is applied to the two or more resource blocks when a transmission rank is greater than a threshold number." Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this recitation requires only a system capable of applying the reference signal pattern if the threshold is exceeded; it does not preclude applying the same reference signal pattern if the threshold is not exceeded. Therefore, the combined system of Onggosanusi and Rl-092018, which always applies the same reference signal pattern, would fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation of this results-driven claim language. We are not persuaded by Appellants that "when" must be interpreted as "only when" or that the claims as written require structure performing an actuai comparison to the threshold. Thus, Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive of error. We have considered Appellants' other arguments but also do not find them persuasive. For example, Appellants' arguments regarding Onggosanusi's codewords or particular example of RI=2 are moot because the Examiner relied on Rl-092018 as teaching the "when" limitation. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 21. 5 Appeal2014-006192 Application 12/650,898 Claims 10, 12-15, 17-20, and 22-24 In rejecting claim 10, the Examiner finds that "Gaal teaches of a cell specific cyclic shift"; the same paragraph of Gaal teaches a reference signal; and "a cell specific cyclic shift applied to a reference signal would provide a cell specific reference signal that has been cyclically shifted." Ans. 5 (citing Gaal ii 55). Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "a cyclic shift is not a reference signal." App. Br. 21. Appellants' arguments fail to address persuasively the Examiner's findings. Specifically, Appellants argue the cited portions of Gaal fail to disclose anything cell specific other than a cyclic shift. Reply Br. 8 (citing Gaal Abstract, ii 55). However, the Examiner does not rely on a cyclic shift alone. Rather, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that "a cell specific cyclic shift applied to a reference signal would provide a cell specific reference signal [because it] has been cyciicaiiy shifted." Ans. 5 (citing Gaai if 55) (emphasis added). Appeiiants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner's findings. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Gaal teaches or suggests "cell specific reference signals," as found in claim 10. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10, and claims 12-15, 17-20, and 22-24, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 21. Claim 24 Claim 24 involves one further issue in addition to the one above. The Examiner's Final Rejection cites to ii 61 of Gaal for disclosing the limitation "f =(Cell_ID)mod(i)," as found in claim 24. Final Act. 8. 6 Appeal2014-006192 Application 12/650,898 Appellants' Appeal Brief argues that the Examiner's rejection did not include any explanation and that i-f 61 fails to teach this limitation. 2 App. Br. 22. We are not persuaded. The Examiner's Answer identifies a specific formula from a different paragraph of Gaal (i-f 63) as teaching this limitation. Ans. 6-7. We agree the formula identified in Gaal, reproduced below, teaches or suggests the claimed offset f. ti = (f SsÂ·i+b " zb) mod 12 b=O Specifically, the equation in Gaal' s paragraph 63 describes shift offset ti as a function of a summation representing cell identification value Cell_ID, where the modulo operation is performed on the sum using 12, an integer. Appellants do not persuasively distinguish the claimed function for calculating offset f from Gaal' s function for calculating shift offset ti. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Gaal teaches or suggests "f=(Cell_ID)mod(i)," as found in claim 24. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 24. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12-15, 17-20, and 22-24. 2 The Final Rejection cites the same paragraph for similar limitations in claims 14 and 19. Final Act. 8. Appellants' Appeal Brief, however, only raises this issue with respect to claim 24. App. Br. 22. 7 Appeal2014-006192 Application 12/650,898 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). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 8