Ex Parte Xia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

13086060 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/086,060 04/13/2011
74365 7590 11/02/2016
Slater Matsil, LLP
17950 Preston Road, Suite 1000
Dallas, TX 75252
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
PengfeiXia
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.
HW 82817011US02 3349
EXAMINER
TIM ORY, KABIR A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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):
uspatent@huawei.com
docketing@slatermatsil.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PENGFEI XIA, QIANG WU, DAVID MAZZARESE,
YONGXING ZHOU, and YANG TANG
Appeal2015-004610
Application 13/086,060
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
.6. .... ,1 .... ,....,-TTr'l.r-"\l\-1,....Al/'\.r'" , .. T"""1 •-, Appeuants' appeal unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ rrom tne bxammer s
rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, 11, 16, 20-22, 25-28, and 35-37, which
constitute all claims pending in the application. Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 12-15,
18, 19, 23, 24, and 29-34 have been canceled. Claim 17 is indicated to
contain allowable subject matter, but is objected to as being dependent upon
a rejected base claim. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Futurewei Technologies, Inc. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-004610
Application 13/086,060
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to feeding back channel information in a
communications system in order to, for example, improve capacity. Spec.
i-fi-f l-3. Claims 1, 20, and 28 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention and the subject matter of this appeal, and reads as follows (with
the disputed limitation in italics):
1. A method for communications device operations, the
method comprising:
generating feedback information, wherein the feedback
information comprises at least wideband channel statistics
("WCS") and long term wideband channel statistics
("LTWCS"), wherein the LTWCS comprise rank indicator (RI)
information, wherein the WCS comprise a precoding matrix
indicator (PMI), wherein the RI and the PM! are jointly encoded,
and wherein the PMI is a part of a codebook used to quantize the
LTWCS;
encoding the feedback information to produce a feedback
payload; and
transmitting the feedback payload to a communications
server serving a communications device.
App. Br. 14 (Claims App.).
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11, 16, 20-22, 25-28, and 35-37 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2009/0154588
Al; pub. June 18, 2009) ("Chen"). Non-Final Act. 5-10.
2
Appeal2015-004610
Application 13/086,060
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of the arguments
raised in the Briefs, on the record before us. For the reasons set forth below,
we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections.
Claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1
as anticipated by Chen, because Chen fails to disclose the limitation
"generating feedback information ... wherein the RI [rank indicator] and
PMI [precoding matrix indicator] are jointly encoded." App. Br. 5-7
(emphasis added). Specifically, Appellants contend the elements the
Examiner finds to be the "rank indicator" and "precoding matrix indicator"
in Chen are specifically disclosed (in Chen) as being "separately encoded,"
not jointly encoded as required by claim 1. Id.
The Examiner relies primarily on Chen Figure 1 as disclosing the
disputed limitation. Ans. 2-3; Non-Final Act. 6. Figure 1 is reproduced
below.
3
Appeal2015-004610
Application 13/086,060
Figure 1 is a "system block diagram" of a receiver and transmitter in an
orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) communications
system, utilizing a feedback generator. Chen i-f 54. The figure includes
blocks labeled "rank selector" ( 114) and "pre-coder selector" ( 111 ), which
the Examiner finds to disclose Appellants' claimed "rank indicator" (RI) and
"precoding matrix indicator" (PMI), respectively. Non-Final Act. 6; Ans. 3-
5. The figure also includes a block labelled "feedback encoder" (113). The
Examiner finds "[F]igure 1 shows that PMI and [R JI are sent as one input to
the feedback encoder 113 and the encoder 113 produces one single output."
Non-Final Act. 6 (boldface omitted) (emphasis added). Thus, according to
the Examiner, Chen discloses PMI and RI are "jointly encoded." Id.; Ans.
3-5.
The Examiner's reliance on the block diagram, however, is misplaced.
As Appellants argue, App. Br. 6, Chen discloses the "precoding matrix
selection and ... rank R [are] separately encoded." Chen i-f 56. Although
4
Appeal2015-004610
Application 13/086,060
the Figure 1 block diagram does include a directional arrow suggesting pre-
coder selector 111 (PMI), CQI computer 112, and rank selector 114 all send
output to feedback encoder/scanner 113, the arrow represents the direction
of data flow, not how any particular data is encoded (e.g., jointly or
separately encoded). Id. 2 Moreover, although the Examiner also relies on
Chen's statement that the "precoding matrix selection is jointly encoded to
achieve feedback transmission compression," Ans. 3 (emphasis omitted)
(quoting Chen i-f 56), the very next sentence in Chen clarifies that this
disclosure refers to joint encoding of the precoding matrix selection (PMI)
and CQI, not RI. Chen i-f 56.
Accordingly, on the record before us, we are persuaded by
Appellants' argument the Examiner erred in finding Chen discloses
"wherein the RI [rank indicator] and PMI [precoding matrix indicator] are
jointly encoded," as recited in claim 1. 3 We, therefore, do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Chen.
2 As defined in Appellants' Specification, "jointly encoded" means "both
fields encoded using a single code." Spec. i-f 74; idi-fi-f 41--42 (use of"joint
codebook"); see also Oxford English Dictionary Online,
http://www.oed.com/view /Entry II 015 5 6?redirectedFrom=j ointly#eid (last
visited 10/25/2016) (defining "jointly" as "in conjunction, combination, or
concert" and "at the same time").
3 Although not argued by Appellants or cited by the Examiner, we are
mindful the disputed limitation is contained in a "wherein" clause.
Nevertheless, in the context of claim 1, the limitation gives meaning and
purpose to the claim and thus has patentable weight. See Griffin v.
Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("wherein" clause limits a
process claim where the clause gives "meaning and purpose" to the steps in
the claim); see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.04.
5
Appeal2015-004610
Application 13/086,060
Remaining Claims
Independent claim 28 includes the limitation identical to claim 1,
"wherein the RI [rank indicator] and PMI [precoding matrix indicator] are
jointly encoded." We do not sustain the rejection of claim 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Chen for the reasons set forth above.
Independent claim 20 recites "wherein the RI and the PMI are jointly
decoded," App. Br. 15 (Claims App.), which is nearly identical to the
disputed limitation of claim 1 (with "decoded" substituted for "encoded").
The Examiner's rejection is identical to the rejection of claim 1, citing the
block diagram of Figure 1 and Chen's references to "encoding." Non-Final
Act. 7; Ans. 8. Just as we do not find the directional arrows of Figure 1 to
disclose how elements are "encoded," see supra, they do not disclose the
claimed "joint decod[ing]," and the cited portions of Chen's disclosure relate
to encoding, not decoding. Chen i-f 56. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Chen for the
reasons set forth above.
We also do not sustain the rejection of the remaining claims, all of
which depend from claims 1, 20, or 28, respectively, for the same reasons.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 6-8, 11, 16, 20-
22, 25-28, and 35-37.
REVERSED
6