Ex Parte Papadopoulos et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 7, 2016

12209110 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2016)

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. 12/209,110 09/11/2008 Haralabos Papadopoulos 6655P139 3832 8791 7590 06/07/2016 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN 1279 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040 EXAMINER WANG, FANGHWA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/07/2016 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 HARALABOS PAPADOPOULOS, CARL-ERIK W. SUNDBERG, and KRISHNA S. GOMADAM ____________________ Appeal 2014-007142 Application 12/209,110 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3–25. Claim 2 has been canceled. See App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2014-007142 Application 12/209,110 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ disclosure is directed to “wireless transmission based on Multi-User (MU) MIMO using two-way training between the transmitter and receivers.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1, 16, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with emphasis added): 1. A wireless communication system comprising: a set of K receivers; and at least one transmitter having a set of N transmit antennas, the at least one transmitter being operable for: receiving an uplink pilot signal from each of the K receivers, estimating channels directly based on the received K pilot symbols, each K pilot symbol being transmitted by one of the set of K receivers within the uplink pilot signal from each of the respective K receivers, precoding, via a set of precoders, a signal for downlink transmission to each receiver in the set of K receivers based on multi-user MIMO using precoding derived based on the estimating channels directly, an encoder coupled to the set of precoders to generate a plurality of streams for transmission from the system, and transmitting L pilot symbols simultaneously via a plurality of pilot signals from the transmitter using the precoding to the set of K receivers to enable the K receivers to estimate their respective effective channels to transmit the plurality of streams from the system, wherein the plurality of streams for transmission is of a greater quantity than the plurality of pilot signals yielding a ratio of streams to pilot signals greater than 1:1. References and Rejections The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Appeal 2014-007142 Application 12/209,110 3 Ma et al. (“Ma”) US 2003/0072254 A1 Apr. 17, 2003 Shen et al. (“Shen”) US 2006/0098760 A1 May 11, 2006 Chan et al. (“Chan”) US 7,095,812 B2 Aug. 22, 2006 Zhang et al (“Zhang”) US 2007/0066229 A1 Mar. 22, 2007 Sadowsky US 7,308,047 B2 Dec. 11, 2007 Marzetta US 2008/0101310 A1 May 1, 2008 Claims 1, 3–6, 15–18, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Chan, Zhang, Marzetta, and Ma. Final Act. 3–4. Claims 7–10, 14, 19, 20, 22, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Chan, Zhang, Marzetta, Ma, and Shen. Final Act. 19. Claims 11–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Chan, Zhang, Marzetta, Ma, and Shen, and Sadowsky. Final Act. 30. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (see Final Act. 2–36; Advisory Act. 2–8; Ans. 4–15) as our own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. A. Plurality of Streams Appellants argue the Examiner erred because “Ma fails to describe that which is recited by [claim 1 of] Appellants. In particular, that a Appeal 2014-007142 Application 12/209,110 4 ‘plurality of streams for transmission is of a greater quantity than the plurality of pilot signals.’” App. Br. 13. Appellants contend Ma discloses a “low pilot density” with respect to OFDM symbols (App. Br. 13), and “nowhere does Ma recognize such OFDM symbols as being in any way equivalent to the ‘plurality of streams’ recited by Appellants” (App. Br. 18). During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, Appellants’ Specification describes a stream in terms of “an information-bearing stream of symbols.” Spec. ¶ 18. Appellants contend, however, that streams are “distinct” from symbols, as shown by both Ma itself, and “the 3GPP (‘3rd Generation Partnership Project’) Technical Specification . . . [which] describes at section 3.1 ‘OFDM symbols’ in its list of definitions and separately describes ‘streams’ as something other than OFDM symbols at section 4.1.” App. Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 4; Ma ¶ 62. Such references show merely separate (but non-exclusionary) descriptions of the terms at issue, and thus do not persuade us that the claimed “stream” precludes the Specification’s description of a stream as comprising symbols. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 13, 28. Therefore, we conclude the recited “plurality of streams” can be reasonably construed as encompassing the symbols of Ma. See Ans. 6–7; Ma ¶¶ 61, 62 (“the symbols . . . are recombined into a serial stream . . . [then] passed through a . . . transmitter 36 which transmits OFDM symbols as a signal.”). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Ma teaches or suggests “the plurality of streams for transmission is of a greater quantity than the plurality of pilot signals,” because Ma discloses using a “low pilot density for fast fading channels” (Ma ¶ 77; compare Spec. ¶ 59) Appeal 2014-007142 Application 12/209,110 5 wherein “[p]ilot and data symbols are spread over the OFDM frame in a time direction 120 and a frequency direction 122. Most symbols within the OFDM frame are data symbols 124” (Ma ¶ 75). See Ans. 8–9; see also Ma Fig. 5 (depicting a pattern having 24 pilot symbols out of 256 total symbols). B. Combination of Ma with Zhang Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because “the Ma reference contradicts the disclosure of Zhang resulting in a combination of references which serves to undermine the modified reference, by ‘chang[ing] the principle of operation’ of the modified reference and additionally ‘render[ing] the prior art reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.’” App. Br. 23. Particularly, Appellants contend that Ma’s technique cannot perform its channel estimation as described “for each sub-carrier and at each time for each possible transmit antenna, receive antenna combination,” when combined with Zhang which dictates removal of those users which are not orthogonal enough via the Zhang’s described “group selection algorithm” for removing “those remaining users that are not ‘orthogonal’ enough.” Id. at 27 (emphasis added). When combining references, “it is not necessary that a device shown in one reference can be physically inserted into the device shown in the other. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (internal citations omitted). Here, Appellants’ arguments “bodily incorporate” Ma’s disclosure that each sub-carrier and antenna combination is estimated (see App. Br. 26, Appeal 2014-007142 Application 12/209,110 6 referring to Ma ¶ 77); such arguments are not responsive to the Examiner’s findings that one of ordinary skill would estimate, using Ma’s teachings, the set or subset of users as identified by Zhang (See Final Act. 8; Ans. 10–12).1 Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred; rather, we agree with the Examiner “that Zhang’s M antennas and a group of up to M users does support Ma’s technique which performs its channel estimation.” Ans. 11 (citing Ma ¶ 20; Zhang ¶¶ 25, 27). C. Consideration of the Entire Claim Appellants further argue the “rejection of independent claim 1 by the final Office Action inappropriately dissects Appellants’ claim into parts or pieces so as to construct a rejection which lists each of the individual parts in isolation without giving consideration to the whole.” App. Br. 28. We do not agree. Appellants’ arguments consist of a restatement of the arguments discussed in section B above (see, e.g., App. Br. 29), and do not present additional substantive arguments or sufficient evidence to persuade us that the Examiner failed to show “the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”’ KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. Rather, we conclude the Examiner provides just such a showing, because the Examiner’s rationale for combining comprises articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to justify the 1 “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)), who is not “compelled to adopt every single aspect of [a reference’s] teaching without the exercise of independent judgment” (Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Appeal 2014-007142 Application 12/209,110 7 legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir 2006); see also Final Act. 8; Ans. 12–13. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 3–6, 15–18, 21, and 23, which are not separately argued. See App. Br. 30. The Examiner relies on the findings in Chan, Zhang, Marzetta, and Ma discussed above for the limitations inherited by dependent claims 7–14, 19, 20, 22, 24, and 25, which the Examiner rejects as obvious. See App. Br. 30–31. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed above. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3–25 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