Ex Parte Onggosanusi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2017

13765233 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 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.
13/765,233 02/12/2013 Eko N. ONGGOSANUSI TI-62290.1 1024
23494 7590 12/26/2017
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
HUGHES, EBONIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2017 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EKO N. ONGGOSANUSI, BADRI VARADARAJAN,
and ANAND G. DABAK
Appeal 2016-008627
Application 13/765,2331
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—22 and 39—52. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Texas Instruments
Incorporated. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-008627
Application 13/765,233
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “wireless communications
and, more specifically, to a receiver and a transmitter and methods of
operating a receiver and a transmitter.” Spec. 13. Claim 1 is illustrative of
subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A receiver, comprising:
a receive portion employing transmission signals from a
transmitter having multiple antennas and capable of providing
channel estimates; and
a feedback generator portion configured to provide a pre­
coder selection for data transmission to the transmitter that is
based on the channel estimates, wherein the pre-coder selection
corresponds to a grouping of frequency-domain resource
blocks.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1—6, 11—17, 22, 39-42, and 46—
49 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Gore et al. (US
8,639,190 B2; issued Jan. 28, 2014) (hereinafter “Gore”).
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 10, 18, 19, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gore.
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gore and Forenza et
al. (US 2008/0273618 Al; published Nov. 6, 2008) (hereinafter “Forenza”).
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 43—45 and 50—52 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gore and
Melis et al. (US 2009/0067518 Al; published Mar. 12, 2009) (hereinafter
“Melis”).
2
Appeal 2016-008627
Application 13/765,233
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner erred. We address specific findings and
arguments below.
(1) Grouping of resource blocks
Appellants argue Gore fails to disclose that the pre-coder selection
corresponds to “a grouping of frequency-domain resource blocksas
recited in independent claims 1 and 12. App. Br. 8—13; see also Reply Br.
6—19. More specifically, Appellants argue Gore fails to disclose more than
one group of subcarriers (i.e., resource blocks) in the same subcarrier
segment. App. Br. 9-10 (citing Gore col. 4,11. 45—55, Fig. 2). Appellants
then provide a series of arguments predicated on a grouping of resource
blocks requiring more than one resource block (i.e., more than one group of
subcarriers) in the same segment. See App. Br. 9-13.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds
Gore discloses a segment that comprises at least one resource block (i.e., two
or more subcarriers). See, e.g., Ans. 2—6 (citing Gore col. 4,11. 45—55). This
finding is sufficient to disclose a grouping of resource blocks. Grouping is
“classifying things into groups” where a. group is “any number of entities
(members) considered as a unit”....any number can be one.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/grouping (emphasis added). Claims
1 and 12 each provide for the possibility of having only one pre-coder and
one grouping of one resource block. See Claim App’x 1—2. Furthermore,
the Specification does not expressly limit the definition of the term
“grouping” appeari ng in the claims to exclude a grouping of only one item.
See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 n.6 (Fed. Cir.
3
Appeal 2016-008627
Application 13/765,233
1996) (“[We] may [] rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim
terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition
found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.”). This broad
reasonable construction is appropriate here. See In re ICON Health &
Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[A]s applicants may
amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution
creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.”). Appellants’ arguments
to the contrary are unsupported by record evidence. See In re Pearson, 494
F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take
the place of evidence.”).
We also are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 9-10,
12—13) that Gore’s disclosure is inconsistent with respect to subcarriers (i.e.,
resource blocks). For example, Gore’s Figure 2 and accompanying text
make clear that reference number 306 consistently refers to the phrase “two
or more subcarriers,” rather than 306 referring to a single subcarrier in the
text, as Appellants argue. Gore Fig. 2; col. 4,11. 45—55; see generally Ans.
2-4. We, thus, also are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Gore is
unsupported or inconsistent with its underlying provisional application (App.
Br. 9-10, 15—16), as Appellants’ argument is premised on its incorrect
interpretation as to what 306 refers.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1
and 12. We also sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 11, 22, 42,
and 49,2 as well as the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 10 and 21, as
2 We understand claim 49 depends from claim 1, and that the reference to
claim 31 (which is not a pending claim) is a typographical error. See Claims
App’x 5.
4
Appeal 2016-008627
Application 13/765,233
Appellants rely on the above arguments for these claims.
(2) Contiguous resource blocks
Appellants argue Gore fails to disclose “the pre-coder selection
provides a single pre-coder for each group of contiguous resource blocks,”
as recited in claim 2. App. Br. 16. More specifically, Appellants argue,
inter alia, Gore fails to disclose contiguous resource blocks. Id.', see also
App. Br. 10 (citing Gore col. 4,11. 45—55) (arguing Gore discloses only “one
group of subcarriers (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) within the same subcarrier segment
302”).
The Examiner finds Gore discloses the disputed limitation. See Ans.
7; Final Act. 12—13. More specifically, the Examiner finds Gore discloses
that the pre-coder selection occurs (i) for each segment and (ii) “at less than
the available bandwidth within the segment,” for groups of subcarriers. Ans.
7 (citing Gore col. 4,11. 62—66). The Examiner finds Gore thus discloses
“resource blocks may be divided in groups of at least two in the segment
(i.e. 1+2, 3+4, 5+6, etc) and a precoder may be provided for each group of
resource blocks (i.e. 1+2, 3+4, 5+6).” Id.
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We are persuaded that the Examiner errs.
The disputed limitation requires, inter alia, “contiguous resource
blocks.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of this phrase requires
multiple resource blocks so that they can be contiguous. See, e.g.,
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/contiguous (defining contiguous as
“having a common boundary' or edge; abutting; touching”); see also
5
Appeal 2016-008627
Application 13/765,233
Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1584 n.6. We agree with Appellants that the
cited portions of Gore fail to disclose multiple resource blocks, but rather
disclose one resource block in a segment, contrary to the Examiner’s
findings. See Gore col. 4,11. 45—66, Fig. 2. Simply put, the Examiner’s
finding that Gore discloses “resource blocks may be divided in groups of at
least two in the segment (i.e. 1+2, 3+4, 5+6, etc)” is unsupported by the
record evidence. See id.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of
claim 2, as well as claims 3 and 4, which depend therefrom. We also do not
sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 5, 6, 13, 16, 17, as the
Examiner relies on the above findings as they relate to Gore. We also do not
sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 14 and 15, as they depend,
directly or indirectly, from claim 13.
(3) Based on channel estimates and CQI information
Appellants argue Gore fails to disclose “the pre-coder transmission is
based on channel estimates and [Channel Quality Information (‘CQI’)]
information,” as recited in claims 39 and 46. App. Br. 31—33. More
specifically, Appellants argue Gore discloses “that pre-coder transmission is
base[d] on CQI information but not ‘AND channel estimates.’” App. Br.
32-33 (citing Gore col. 4,11. 7-9, 13-19).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Gore discloses the disputed
limitation, including basing pre-coder transmission also on channel
estimates. See Ans. 12—13. More specifically, the Examiner finds, and we
agree, Gore discloses “that RX processor 260 may generate a channel
response estimate, SNR and other channel characteristics (i.e. CQI) at the
receiver and provide these quantities to a processor 270. Processor 270
6
Appeal 2016-008627
Application 13/765,233
generates the precoding matrices based on the channel conditions derived by
RX processor 260.” Id. (citing Gore col. 7,11. 35—58). Appellants fail to
address this cited portion of Gore.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 39
and 46. We also sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 40, 41, 47,
and 48, as Appellants rely on the above arguments for these claims.
(4) Jointly encoded
Appellants argue Gore fails to teach or suggest that “the pre-coder
selection is jointly encoded to achieve feedback transmission compression,”
as recited in claims 7 and 18. App. Br. 35—37, 39-42; Reply Br. 30. More
specifically, Appellants argue the portion of Gore cited by the Examiner
fails to teach or suggest that the pre-coder selection is jointly encoded. See
Reply Br. 30 (citing Gore col. 5,11. 25—38).
The Examiner finds Gore teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
Ans. 14—16. More specifically, the Examiner finds Gore teaches or
suggests:
one or more precoding index(ces), vector(s), or matrix(ces) may
be reported for multiple segments for a single user, even those
on which the user is not scheduled, depending on the structure.
That is, if each segment, has its own feedback channel a user
may provide feedback, e.g. precoding index(ces), vector(s), or
matrix(ces), for each of the segments on its or another segments
feedback channel.
See id. (citing Gore col. 5,11. 25—38, Fig. 3).
We agree with Appellants that the cited portion of Gore fails to teach
or suggest that the pre-coder selection is jointly encoded. Although Gore
teaches that multiple selections can be made and that feedback for each of
the segments can be transmitted on its or another segment’s feedback
7
Appeal 2016-008627
Application 13/765,233
channel, Gore fails to teach or suggest that the selections are jointly encoded.
See Gore col. 5,11. 25—38, Fig. 3.
Our above reasoning also applies with respect to Appellants’ similar
arguments directed to claims 8 and 19. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 7, 8, 18, and 19.
(5) Sum throughput
Appellants argue the combination of Gore and Forenza fails to teach
or suggest that “the pre-coder selection is based on one selected from the
group consisting of: a sum throughput; a worst case throughput; and a
specified maximum error rate,” as recited in claims 9 and 20. App. Br. 45—
46; Reply Br. 32. Appellants argue Forenza fails to teach or suggest that the
pre-coder selection is based on a sum throughput. See App. Br. 45 (citing
Forenza Tflf 7, 22, 27, Abstract). Rather, according to Appellants, Forenza
teaches “using ‘precoding’ AND ‘sum rate optimization beam forming’ to
create a capacity transmission (Abstract) — NOT precoder selection based on
sum rate optimization, as implied by Examiner.” Id. Appellants further
argue the “Examiner is combining two teachings in Forenza that are not
combined in Forenza,” and that “[substantial experimentation would be
required to even determine if such combination were possible.” Id.
The Examiner finds that the combination of Gore and Forenza teaches
or suggests the disputed limitation. Final Act. 20—21; Ans. 16—17. More
specifically, the Examiner finds that Forenza teaches or suggests calculating
beam weight for transmitted signals using sum rate optimization and channel
state information for the broadcast channel. Final Act. 20 (citing Forenza
117, 22, 27; Abstract). “Precoding and sum rate optimization beamforming
[is] used to create a capacity transmission.” Id. at 20-21.
8
Appeal 2016-008627
Application 13/765,233
We are not persuaded that the Examiner errs. The disputed limitation
is in the form of a Markush group and the combination teaches the limitation
by teaching or suggesting that “the pre-coder selection is based on ... a sum
throughput.” Cf. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(finding when claim covers several elements as alternatives, claim is deemed
anticipated if any of the elements are known in the prior art). Forenza
teaches or suggests using sum rate optimization (i.e., sum throughput) for
calculating beam weights for transmitted signals. Forenza 17. “The
calculated beam weights are [then] used to determine a set of sheer
parameters.” Id. “A transmitted signal is then precoded based on the set of
sheer parameters for a receiver in which interference from the transmitted
signal of another receiver is subtracted to generate an interference free
transmitted signal.” Id. Thus, Forenza teaches or suggests (i) using a sum
throughput for calculating beam weight, (ii) using the calculated beam
weight to determine sheer parameters, and (iii) pre-coding (i.e., a pre-coder
selection) based on the sheer parameters. Accordingly, Forenza teaches or
suggests that the pre-coder selection is based on a sum throughput — the
selection is based on a sum throughput (at least indirectly) because the
selection is based on sheer parameters which are based on beam weight
calculated using a sum throughput. Forenza ^fl[ 7, 22, 27.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 9
and 20.
(6) 180kHz bandwidth
Appellants contend, and we agree, that no evidence or explanation has
been provided to show that the combination of Gore and Melis teaches “each
of the resource blocks represents 180kHz bandwidth,” as recited in claims
9
Appeal 2016-008627
Application 13/765,233
43 and 50. App. Br. 46-49. Appellants argue Melis teaches that “[t]he
transmission bandwidth can be equal to 1.25, 2.5, 5, 10, 15, and 20 MHz, to
which corresponds a number of OFDM occupied subcarriers equal to 76,
151, 301, 601, 901 and 1201),” and that “the resulting resource block size
could not be 180 kHz as any of the transmission bandwidth band sizes of
1.25, 2.5, 5, 10, 15, and 20 MHz . . . divided by 15 kHz does not result in
180 kHz.” App. Br. 46 (citing Melis 113). Appellants argue “neither Gore
nor Melis provides a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would be so
motivated to design a resource block size of 180 kHz.” Id. at 46-47.
The Examiner finds the combination of Gore and Melis teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 17. More specifically, the Examiner
finds “Melis teaches a subcarrier spacing of 15 kHz, see para. 0015.
Therefore, if there are 12 subcarriers present per segment depicted in Gore,
the resource blocks would represent a bandwidth of 180 kHz.” Id.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner does not
sufficiently explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen to
have 12 subcarriers present per segment in Gore. The Examiner has the
initial duty of supplying the requisite factual basis and may not, because of
doubts that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded
assumptions, or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual
basis. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1016—17 (CCPA 1967). We decline to
engage in speculation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claims 43 and 50. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claims (i) 44-45 and (ii) 51—52, as they depend from claims 43 and 50,
respectively.
10
Appeal 2016-008627
Application 13/765,233
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings and reasoning above, we:
(i) sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1, 11, 12, 22, 39—
42, and 46-A9;
(ii) do not sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 2—6 and
13-17;
(iii) sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 10 and 21;
(iv) do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 7, 8, 18,
and 19;
(v) sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 9 and 20; and
(vi) do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 43—45 and
50-52.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 9—12, 20—22,
39-42, and 46-A9.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2—8, 13—19, 43—
45, and 50—52.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11