Timothy James. Moulsley et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 11, 2019

14929572 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2019)

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.
14/929,572 11/02/2015 Timothy James MOULSLEY 2002P00680US 5293
24737 7590 09/11/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
LINDENBAUM, ALAN LOUIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2019 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY JAMES MOULSLEY, MATTHEW P. J. BAKER,
AND ALISTAIR STEWART CAMERON
Appeal 2018-006847
Application 14/929,572
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, AND
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants1 appeal from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–26. Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellants” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellants identify the real party in interest as Koninklijke
Phillips N.V. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-006847
Application 14/929,572
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a packet data transmission in a Multiple
Input Multiple Output (MIMO) antenna system. Spec., Title. Claim 1,
reproduced below with an argued limitation emphasize in italics, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of operating packet data transmission between a
primary station and a secondary station, the method comprising:
monitoring, by a secondary station, a radio environment;
sending, by the secondary station, radio environment
information to the primary station, the radio environment
information being indicative of characteristics of a channel
transfer function between one or more interference sources and
secondary station antennas; and
configuring, by the secondary station, receiver resources
of the secondary station for processing received data and
interference signals based on the radio environment information.
REFERENCES2
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Shperling et al. US 2003/0109282 Al June 12, 2003
Walton et al. US 2003/0128658 Al July 10, 2003
Gore et al. US 6,917,820 B2 July 12, 2005

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6–13, 18, and 23–26 stand rejected under pre–AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walton and Shperling. Final
Act. 2–7.

2 All citations herein to these references are by reference to the first named
inventor only.
Appeal 2018-006847
Application 14/929,572
3
Claims 2–5, 14–17, and 19–22 stand rejected under pre–AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walton, Shperling, and Gore.
Final Act. 7–8.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants’ conclusions
as to the rejections of the claims.
The Examiner finds Walton teaches all of the limitations of claim 1
except for basing the configuring receiver resources of the secondary station
on radio environment information. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner applies
Shperling for curing the noted deficiency of Walton. Id. at 3–4. In
connection with the disputed radio environment information limitation of the
sending step, the Examiner finds Shperling’s matrix H(k) of independent
Gaussian random variables (Eq. 1) relating receive and transmit antennas
teaches the argued channel transfer function. Final Act. 3. Appellants argue
Shperling’s channel transfer function represents channel responses between
transmit and receive antennas, not between interference sources and receiver
resources as required by the claims. App. Br. 14–15. Addressing
Appellants’ argument, the Examiner explains:
[Appellants] assert[] that the claims are patentable because
paragraph [0273] or anywhere else in Walton allegedly does not
disclose characteristics of a channel transfer function between
one or more interference sources and secondary station antennas.
However, as discussed in the claim rejections, the channel
transfer function is disclosed in paragraph [0049] of Walton
(channel responses between transmit antennas and receive
antennas characterized by matrix H(k)). Walton further
discloses, for example in paragraph [0132], that data streams
from transmit antennas may interfere with each other at receive
Appeal 2018-006847
Application 14/929,572
4
antenna of the terminal according to channel response vector
H(k).
Advisory Action, mailed November 22, 2017, p. 2. See also Final Act. 10–
11 (“Interference may also come from other signals transmitted by the same
base station that is transmitting to the mobile station.”) Thus, the Examiner
finds Walton’s based station corresponds to both the primary station
interference source(s) of the claims.
Appellants reply, contending “‘Interference Sources’ Does Not Mean
‘Any Sources of Interference to a Received Signal’”. Reply Br. 4, (emphasis
omitted). Appellants argue:
[T]he Examiner mistakenly asserts that “[t]he term ‘interference
sources’ means any sources of interference to a received signal.”
The Examiner’s interpretation is not consistent with an
interpretation in light of the specification by one having ordinary
skill in the art. The very claim language of claim 1 denotes that
“interference sources” is a separate entity than the “primary
station” and “secondary station.” . . . [I]nterference sources is not
simply other traffic between the primary and secondary station.
Such a stance is not supported by the plain meaning of the claim
language or the original disclosure.
Reply Br. 4, citing Ans. 10.
Appellants’ argument is persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and the language should be
read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Amer. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). “Even when guidance is not provided in
explicit definitional format, ‘the specification may define claim terms by
implication such that the meaning may be found in or ascertained by a
Appeal 2018-006847
Application 14/929,572
5
reading of the [disclosure] documents.”’ Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar
Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal single
quotation marks and citations omitted).
Appellants disclose a problem of conventional MIMO systems is that
they do not perform well “with high interference levels such as will occur
near a cell border where interference from primary stations in adjacent cells
will greatly reduce throughput.” Spec. p. 2, ll. 26–29. Thus, “[i]t is an
object of the present invention to mitigate the effect of such interference in
packet data transmission.” Id. at ll. 29–30. Interpreting interference sources
as being separate from the primary and secondary stations is further reflected
by Appellants’ Figure 3 (depicted below) showing interference signal IS1

Figure 3 - block schematic diagram of a MIMO system with interference.
and IS2 emanating from the Primary Station depicted in the left portion of
the drawing and wanted signal WS1 and WS2 emanating from a separate
primary station depicted in the right portion of the drawing. Thus, consistent
Appeal 2018-006847
Application 14/929,572
6
with Appellants’ disclosure, we interpret the recited “primary station”;
“secondary station,” and “one or more interference sources” as separate and
distinct elements. Therefore, it was reversible error for the Examiner to rely
on Walton’s bases station for disclosing both the recited primary station and
one or more interference sources. Because we agree with at least one of the
arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of
Appellants’ other arguments.
For the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 or, for the same reasons, the rejection of independent
claims 10 and 18 over Walton and Shperling or the rejection of dependent
claims 6–9, 11–13, and 23–26 which stand with their respective base claim.
Furthermore, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2–5, 14–
17, and 19–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as the Examiner’s application of the
Gore reference fails to cure the deficiency in the base rejection addressed
above.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED