Ex Parte Sayana et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 2018

14571194 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/571,194 106809 7590 Docket Clerk - SAMS P.O. Drawer 800889 Dallas, TX 75380 12/15/2014 09/26/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Krishna Sayana 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. 2012.06.013.SR2 1051 EXAMINER LINDENBAUM, ALAN LOUIS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2466 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2018 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 KRISHNA SA YANA, BOON LOONG NG, YOUNG-HAN NAM, THOMAS DAVID NOVLAN, JINKYU HAN, JIANZHONG, ZHANG, HYOJIN LEE, and YOUN-SUN KIM Appeal2017-007399 Application 14/571, 194 Technology Center 2400 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 39-58, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). Claims 1-38 are cancelled. App. Br. (Claims App'x) 18. We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., is one of the applicants on the present application. Bib. Data Sheet. Appeal2017-007399 Application 14/571, 194 RELATED PROCEEDINGS Appellants state there are no related proceedings. App. Br. 3. The instant application is a continuation of Application 13/920,872 (Spec. ,r 1) which is the subject of Appeal 2017-009883, Notice of Appeal filed December 6, 2016. Appeal 2017-009883 is related to the present appeal, in which the Notice of Appeal was filed September 29, 2016. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' disclosed invention "relates generally to coordinated multi-point transmission and, more specifically, to communication parameter feedback for use in scheduling coordinated multi-point transmission." Spec. ,r 2. Representative claim 39, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 39. A method for transmitting Channel State Information (CSI) in a communication system, the method compnsmg: acquiring at least one CSI process information associated with a CSI-reference signal (CSI-RS) information, a CSI- interference measurement information, and a Rank Indicator (RI) for an RI-reference CSI configuration, wherein the at least one CSI process information is associated with periodic CSI reports; identifying any collisions between a plurality of CSI reports for one of different cells, different CSI configurations, and different report types; in response to identifying a collision between CSI reports, dropping at least one of the plurality of CSI reports based on one of a cell index, a priority of a report type, and a CSI configuration index; and transmitting at least one of the CSI reports except the dropped at least one CSI report, 2 Appeal2017-007399 Application 14/571, 194 wherein the at least one transmitted CSI report is based on the RI-reference CSI configuration and comprises at least one of Channel Quality Information (CQI), a Precoding Matrix Indicator (PMI) and an RI that is required to be the same as an RI for the RI-reference CSI configuration. Claims 39--58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a)2 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevis et al. (US 2013/0258874 Al, published Oct 3, 2013 ("Khoshnevis")) in view of Xu et al. (US 2013/0286904 Al, published Oct. 31, 2013 ("Xu")). See Final Act 2-7. Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App. Br." filed Dec. 16, 2016; "Reply Br." filed Apr. 10, 2017) for the positions of Appellants; the Final Office Action ("Final Act." mailed July 29, 2017) and Answer ("Ans." mailed Feb. 10, 2017) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the Examiner; and the Substitute Specification ("Spec." filed April 13, 2015). Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016). ISSUE The claims are subject to a common ground of rejection. See Final Act. 2-7. Appellants argue claims 39--58 relying on arguments made for claim 39. See App. Br. 8-16. Appellants do not separately argue claims 40- 58. Id. Therefore, we select claim 39 as the representative claim, pursuant to our authority under 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv). Appellants' arguments 2 All rejections are under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. in effect prior to the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 ("pre-AIA"). Final Act 2. 3 Appeal2017-007399 Application 14/571, 194 raise the following issue: Does the Examiner err in finding the combination ofKhoshnevis with Xu teaches or suggests: the at least one transmitted CSI report is based on the RI- reference CSI configuration and comprises at least one of Channel Quality Information (CQI), a Precoding Matrix Indicator (PMI) and an RI that is required to be the same as an RI for the RI-reference CSI configuration (the "argued limitation"), as recited in claim 39? ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants' arguments and contentions (App. Br. 8-16; Reply Br. 2--4) in light of the Examiner's findings and conclusions (Final Act. 2--4) and further explanations (Ans. 8-16) regarding representative claim 39. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential). We agree with the Examiner's findings, conclusions, and explanations and, except as set forth below, we adopt them as our own. Accordingly, we will not repeat the colloquy between the Appellants and the Examiner here. The following discussion, findings, and conclusions are for emphasis. Appellants contend that Khoshnevis does not disclose the argued limitation. See App. Br. 11. However, the Examiner relies on the combination of Khoshnevis and Xu to teach the limitations of claim 39, including the argued limitation. See Final Act. 2--4 ( citing Khoshnevis ,r,r 17-18, 20, 53-56, 58-59, 62, 75, 89, 103, 106; Xu ,r,r 71-72). It is well- settled law that non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the 4 Appeal2017-007399 Application 14/571, 194 combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee's invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants contend that Khoshnevis' s CSI reference signals do not teach an "RI-reference CSI configuration." App. Br. 11-12 (referring to Khoshnevis ,r,r 54--55); Reply Br. 2--4. However, the only feature of the recited "RI-reference CSI configuration" found in claim 39 that makes it an "RI-reference" CSI configuration, as opposed to just a CSI configuration, is that "at least one transmitted CSI report [has] ... an RI that is required to be the same as an RI for the RI-reference CSI configuration." Accord Reply Br. 3 ("[ A ]s explicitly recited in the claims, the at least one transmitted CSI report 'based on' the RI-reference CSI configuration comprises 'an RI that is required to be the same as an RI for the RI-reference CS! configuration."'). However, the Examiner relies on Xu, not Khoshnevis, for this feature of claim 39. See Final Act. 4. We tum to the Examiner's reliance on Xu. Appellants contend that Xu does not teach a CSI report that has "an RI that is required to be the same as an RI for the RI-reference CSI configuration," as recited in claim 39, because the cited passages of Xu indicate that the use of the same RI is optional or permissive, such that the RI of the at least one report is not required to be the same as the RI for the RI-reference CSI configuration. App. Br. 13-16; see also Final Act. 4 (citing Xu ,r,r 71-72). We disagree. Xu teaches the following: [T]he UE modifies the rank indicator . . . by using . . . [ 1] a previous rank indicator ... from a TDD subframe configuration before the TDD subframe reconfiguration, [2] a previous rank indicator ... from a TDD subframe configuration after the TDD subframe reconfiguration, [3] a common rank indicator ... for 5 Appeal2017-007399 Application 14/571, 194 the TDD subframe reconfiguration, or [ 4] a lowest allowed rank indicator .... Xu ,r 72 (bracketed numbers added for ease of reference). We agree with the Examiner that the person having ordinary skill in the art (PHO SIT A) would have understood items 1--4 to describe four distinct alternative embodiments of Xu's process illustrated in Figure 10, rather than four optional paths within a single embodiment. See Ans. 14--15. In other words, the PHO SIT A, reading Xu, would understand that any given implementation of Xu's process would use one of the four alternative embodiments, not all four optionally. This reading is reinforced by the fact that Xu does not teach a process step for selecting among the alternatives. Therefore, it is only necessary for one of embodiments 1--4, when read in combination with Khoshnevis, to teach the argued limitation. The Examiner explains, and we agree, that each of embodiments 1-3, at least, teaches requiring an RI of a CSI report to be the same as the RI of an RI-reference CSI configuration. Id. As one example, in embodiment 1, the "RI-reference CSI configuration" ( claim 39) maps to the configuration of the CSI transmission for "a TDD subframe configuration before the TDD subframe reconfiguration" (Xu ,r 72 ). Thus, "[an] RI that is required to be the same as an RI for the RI- reference CSI configuration" ( claim 39) maps to "modif[ying] the rank indicator ... related to the CSI transmission to resolve [a] detected conflict . . . by using ... a previous rank indicator ... from [such previous] TDD subframe configuration" (Xu ,r 72). CONCLUSION On the record before us, Appellants have failed to persuade us of error in the Examiner's rejection of representative claim 39. See Frye, 6 Appeal2017-007399 Application 14/571, 194 94 USPQ2d at 1075. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of representative claim 39 and claims 40-58, which fall with claim 39. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 39-58 is affirmed. 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)(l). See 37 C.F.R. Â§Â§ 41.50(Â±), 4I.52(b). AFFIRMED 7