Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 13, 2021

2020004163 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2021)

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.
15/714,970 09/25/2017 Siwen Yong P35722US1 8858
65015 7590 10/13/2021
Treyz Law Group
6501 E. Greenway Pkwy
#103-621
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
EXAMINER
TRANDAI, CINDY HUYEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/13/2021 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@treyzlawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

Ex parte SIWEN YONG, YI JIANG, JIANGFENG WU,
LIJUN ZHANG, and MATTIA PASCOLINI
_______________

Appeal 2020-004163
Application 15/714,9701
Technology Center 2600
_______________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, HUNG H. BUI, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–5, 10–13, and 16–25, all the pending
claims. Claims App. Claims 6–9, 14, and 15 have been canceled. Id. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.2

1 Appellant refers to “applicant(s)” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed January 6, 2020
(“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed May 18, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer mailed March 26, 2020 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed August
7, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification filed September 25, 2017
(“Spec.”).
Appeal 2020-004163
Application 15/714,970

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to “electronic devices [e.g.,
cellular telephones, computers] with improved wireless communications
circuitry such as communications circuitry [including phased antenna arrays
and beam steering techniques shown in Figure 3] that supports millimeter
wave communications.” Spec. ¶ 4 (bracketed material added for context).
Figure 3 is reproduced below with additional markings for illustration.
Figure 3 shows phased antenna array 60 of multiple antennas 40-1, 40-N
each antenna provided with two antenna feed ports P1, P2 (shown in Figure
5) to transmit and/or receive a beam of radio frequency (RF) signals; and
Appeal 2020-004163
Application 15/714,970

3

beam steering control circuit 70 including multiple phase & magnitude
controllers 62-1, 62-N formed on electronic device 10 to determine whether
there is acceptable polarization mismatch between the transmit and/or
receive RF signals and to adjust polarization settings provided to
corresponding antennas 40-1, 40-N to mitigate the polarization mismatch.
Spec. ¶¶ 42–44.
Representative Claim
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent. Representative claim 1 is
reproduced below with a disputed limitation emphasized:
1. An electronic device configured to wirelessly
communicate with an external device, the electronic device
comprising:
an antenna that comprises an antenna resonating element
having first and second antenna feed terminals and that is
configured to transmit wireless signals at a first polarization
associated with a first electric field orientation by transmitting a
first portion of the wireless signals using the first antenna feed
terminal and a second portion of the wireless signals using the
second antenna feed terminal, the first portion to the second
portion defining a first ratio;
sensor circuitry that generates sensor data; and
control circuitry coupled to the sensor circuitry, wherein
the control circuitry is configured to:
identify a second polarization that is associated with a
second electric field orientation and that is different from the
first polarization based on the generated sensor data, and
control the antenna to transmit the wireless signals at
the second polarization by transmitting a third portion of the
wireless signals using the first antenna feed terminal and a
fourth portion of the wireless signals using the second
antenna feed terminal, the third portion to the fourth portion
defining a second ratio different from the first ratio.

Appeal Br. 27–28 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-004163
Application 15/714,970

4

REJECTIONS AND REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1, 3, 5, and 21–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Reynolds (US 2007/0040687 A1; published Feb. 22, 2007)
and Amadjikpe et al. (US 2017/0353338 A1; published Dec. 7, 2017;
“Amadjikpe”). Final Act. 2–6.
(2) Claims 2, 4, 10–13, and 16–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Reynolds, Amadjikpe, and Dinur et al. (US 9,473,220
B2; issued Oct. 18, 2016; “Dinur”). Final Act. 6–9.
(3) Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Reynolds, Amadjikpe, Dinur, and Kong et al. (US 2017/0055131 A1;
published Feb. 23, 2017; “Kong”). Final Act. 9–10.
(4) Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Reynolds, Amadjikpe, Dinur, and Rodriguez (US 2014/0106710 A1;
published Apr. 17, 2014). Final Act. 10.

ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for Examiner error based upon the
issues identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and
evidence. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1–5, 10–13, and 16–25 and adopt as our own the
findings set forth by the Examiner for these claims to the extent consistent
with our analysis herein. Final Act. 2–10; Ans. 13–17.

Appeal 2020-004163
Application 15/714,970

5

I. Obviousness of Claims 1, 3, 5, and 21–25 over Reynolds & Amadjikpe
In support of the obviousness rejection, the Examiner finds the
combination of Reynolds and Amadjikpe teaches or suggests all limitations
of Appellant’s claim 1, including the disputed limitation: “an antenna
resonating element having first and second antenna feed terminals.” Final
Act. 2–3 (citing Reynolds ¶¶ 26–34, Figs. 1–10; Amadjikpe ¶¶ 23, 24, 42,
50, 62–64, 66, Figs. 1–13). The Examiner also articulates a reasoning with
rational underpinning to explain why it would have been obvious to
incorporate the teachings of Amadjikpe into Reynolds to arrive at
Appellant’s claimed invention, i.e., “to reduce the impact of the overall cross
polarization discrimination”—a motivation suggested by Amadjikpe. Id. at
3 (citing Amadjikpe ¶¶ 23, 24).
Appellant contends Reynolds does not teach or suggest the disputed
limitation of claim 1. Appeal Br. 8–10. For example, Appellant argues
Reynolds only teaches “separate antenna elements (e.g., antenna elements
114 and 116) that are switched into use using switch 104-1” and Reynolds’s
two separate antenna elements “are not the same as the antenna resonating
element having first and second antenna feed terminals” as recited in claim
1. Id. at 9 (citing Reynolds ¶ 32, Figs. 3, 4).
Because “Reynolds’s lack of the first and second antenna feed
terminals,” Appellant also presents several arguments against the
combination, including:
1. “Amadjikpe’s teachings of using first and second antenna feed
terminals” would be “inapplicable to Reynold’s system”;

2. “incorporating Amadjikpe’s teachings into Reynolds . . . would
be no expectation of predictable results” because “Amadjikpe
teaches the operation of an antenna system having multiple quad
Appeal 2020-004163
Application 15/714,970

6

polarization antenna cells 120, which is fundamentally different
(in design and in effect) from the operation of Reynold’s
switchable antenna system”; and

3. the Examiner’s reason to combine is improper because
“Amadjikpe’s teachings of cross polarization discrimination
(XPD) relate to solving issues specific to wide angle scanning
phase array applications,” whereas “Reynold’s switchable
antenna system is not disclosed to be a wide angle scanning
phase array application” and, as such, one of ordinary skill in the
art would not be reasonably motivated to use Amadjikpe’s
teachings relating specifically to wide angle scanning phase array
applications for Reynold’s antenna system.

Id. at 10–12.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. As
recognized by the Examiner, while “Reynolds teaches a vertical antenna
element with a port/feed terminal and a horizontal antenna element with [a]
port/feed terminal” (Reynolds ¶ 29), Amadjikpe teaches
the vertical antenna element with the port/feed terminal and the
horizontal antenna element with the port/feed terminal
(Amadjikpe, Fig.1) can be configured into a dual antenna
element with two ports/feed terminals (Amadjikpe, Pars. 22-
24), eliminates the use of the switch between single or dual
polarized antenna elements by using phase shifter (Amadjikpe,
Par. 42), such that phase shifter pair modifies the amplitude
and phase of the information signal to generate the two
excitation signals A and 8 to the ports 122,124 . . . As such, the
excitation signals have the same relative amplitude but are
anti-phase with respect to one another.

Ans. 13–14 (citing Amadjikpe ¶¶ 39–42, 63, Table 1, Figs. 2A–2B)
(underlining added).
Based on Amadjikpe’s teachings and in the absence of persuasive
rebuttal, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness, i.e.:
Appeal 2020-004163
Application 15/714,970

7

it would have been obvious . . . to incorporate the . . . teaching[s]
as taught by Amadjikpe into Reynolds in order to reduce the
impact of the overall cross polarization discrimination.
Final Act. 3 (citing Amadjikpe ¶¶ 23, 24 for providing the motivation to
combine). A patent claim is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
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 Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). “[H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. Here, we agree with the
Examiner that (1) Amadjikpe could be incorporated into Reynolds (Final
Act. 3) and (2) an ordinarily skilled artisan would “be able to fit the
teachings of [Reynolds and Amadjikpe] together like pieces of a puzzle”
because the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” KSR., 550 U.S. at 421.
Separately, we note Appellant’s claim 1 does not distinguish over
Amadjikpe alone. For example, Amadjikpe teaches the use of a phased
antenna array of multiple antennas 13061–1306K as part of a transceiver
1308 of user equipment (UE) 1300, shown in Figure 13, for transmitting
and/or receiving RF signals. Figure 13 is reproduced below:
Appeal 2020-004163
Application 15/714,970

8

Amadjikpe’s Figure 13 depicts user equipment (UE) 1300 (e.g., computer or
mobile device) including transceiver 1308 provided with a phased antenna
array of multiple antennas 13061–1306K. Amadjikpe ¶¶ 75–78. According
to Amadjikpe:
To reduce the number of antennas and therefore the phased array
antenna form factor, one technique is to use dual polarized
antenna elements. A dual polarized antenna element with two
feeding ports is designed to achieve either both Vpol and Hpol
polarizations, or both LHCPpol and RHCPpol polarizations. The
dual polarized antenna elements may be either driven by
independent RF chains or switched. One advantage of this
topology is that the number of antenna elements is reduced by
half. Dual polarization antenna elements are traditionally
designed with high XPD. In general, the quality factor (inverse
of bandwidth) and XPD for micro-strip antennas increases with
thinner substrates. Balanced feeds at opposite radiating edges of
a rectangular patch are effectively used to increase the linear
XPD, at the expense of increased feed lines loss and antenna size.

Appeal 2020-004163
Application 15/714,970

9

Amadjikpe ¶ 24 (emphasis added). Amadjikpe acknowledges these dual
polarized antennas are limited scanning range phased arrays and, as such,
proposes a dual-fed patch antenna array, known as quad polarized antennas
shown in Figure 1, for wide steering angle and wide band use. Amadjikpe
¶¶ 25–26.
Nevertheless, regardless of the types of antennas (i.e., dual polarized
antennas or quad polarized antennas) used, Amadjikpe teaches that (1)
“excitation signals A, B are applied to the [two feeding] ports 122, 124
[shown in Figure 2B] . . . to drive [the] antenna cell to transmit a polarized
RF signal” (Amadjikpe ¶ 39) and (2) “[t]he two excitation feeds’ relative
phase and amplitude are controlled by means of a phase shifter and a
variable gain amplifier” in order to mitigate cross polarization or
polarization mismatch (Amadjikpe ¶¶ 26, 40–42, 52).
In reply, Appellant argues (1) Amadjikpe only teaches a phased
antenna array “for wide angle scanning phased array applications,” and, as
such, is not relevant to “Reynolds’s two element system (i.e., having antenna
elements 114 and 116), which is not a phased antenna array.” Reply Br. 3–4
(citing Amadjikpe ¶ 23) (emphasis added). According to Appellant,
“Reynolds’s embodiment does not even include a phase shifter to enable
elements 114 and 116 to operate as a phased antenna array.” Id. at 4.
We disagree. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, Reynolds teaches (1)
different antenna elements are arranged in a “phased array antenna” and (2)
antenna controller 104, shown in Figure 1, is configured “to change the
relative phase or amplitude of [an] excitation of different antenna elements”
or “to swap transmitting or receiving antenna elements among a group of
antenna elements.” Reynolds ¶ 29.
Appeal 2020-004163
Application 15/714,970

10

Therefore, on this record, Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 1 and its dependent claims 3, 5, and 21–25, which were not argued
separately.

II. Obviousness of Claims 2, 4, 10–13, and 16–18 over Reynolds,
Amadjikpe, and Dinur
Claim 10
Independent claim 10 is significantly broader in scope than claim 1.
For example, claim 10 does not recite the disputed limitation of Appellant’s
claim 1: “an antenna resonating element having first and second antenna
feed terminals.” In addition, claim 10 does not recite various portions of
wireless signals, including, for example, the transmission of (1) “a first
portion of the wireless signals using the first antenna feed terminal and a
second portion of the wireless signals using the second antenna feed
terminal” and (2) “a third portion of the wireless signals using the first
antenna feed terminal and a fourth portion of the wireless signals using the
second antenna feed terminal,” recited in Appellant’s claim 1. Instead,
claim 10 recites the “wireless signals at a frequency greater than 10 GHz” as
well as “the phase antenna array having a first conductive patch operable to
convey wireless signals at a first polarization and a second conductive patch
operable to convey wireless signals at a second polarization.”
Independent claim 16 is similar to claim 1, but further recites the
“wireless signals at a frequency greater than 10 GHz”—a limitation that is
not recited in Appellant’s claim 1.
In support of the obviousness rejection of claims 10 and 16, the
Examiner reiterates the factual findings relative to claim 1, and further relies
Appeal 2020-004163
Application 15/714,970

11

upon Amadjikpe for teaching “the wireless signals at a frequency greater
than 10 GHz” to support the conclusion of obviousness. Final Act. 8 (citing
Amadjikpe ¶ 58 (“quad polarization antenna cells 120 are spaced 0.5λ (2.5
mm at 60 GHz) in azimuth and 0.6λ (3 mm at 60 GHz)”)).
With respect to claim 10, Appellant repeats the same arguments
presented relative to claim 1, but further argues the Examiner’s combination
of Reynolds, Amadjikpe, and Dinur fails to teach or suggest:
“a first conductive patch operable to convey wireless signals at a
first polarization and a second conductive patch operable to
convey wireless signals at a second polarization; and control
circuitry coupled to the phased antenna array” and

“wherein the control circuitry is configured to: identify an
electric field polarization mismatch between the phased antenna
array and the external equipment, and adjust an electric field
polarization of the wireless signals conveyed by the phased
antenna array based on the identified electric field polarization
mismatch by conveying the wireless signals using the first
conductive patch and deactivating the second conductive patch,”

as recited in claim 10. Appeal Br. 13–19.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons
discussed relative to claim 1. For additional emphasis, we note claim terms
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). According to Appellant’s Specification, the terms “first
conductive patch operable to convey wireless signals at a first polarization”
and “second conductive patch operable to convey wireless signals at a
second polarization” refer the same antenna 40, shown in Figure 5, provided
with first and second feed ports P1, P2 to transmit and/or receive RF signals
Appeal 2020-004163
Application 15/714,970

12

at first and second polarizations. Spec. ¶¶ 50–55. The term “polarization
mismatch” refers to (1) received RF signals that have a misaligned
polarization from the given polarization (e.g., a polarization that is
orthogonal to the given polarization) (Spec. ¶ 63) or (2) the movement and
orientation change relative to user equipment (UE) (Spec. ¶¶ 73–74).
As recognized by the Examiner, Reynolds’s antenna controller 104,
shown in Figure 1, is configured to (1) use certain antennas and not others,
(2) to change the relative phase or amplitude of an excitation of different
antenna elements, or (3) to swap transmitting or receiving antenna elements
among a group of antenna elements based on change in the antenna
orientation, including to “use/activate the horizontal polarized antenna
element and not use/deactivate the vertical polarized antenna element to
transmit wireless/RF signals.” Ans. 15 (citing Reynolds ¶¶ 29, 30–34,
Fig. 5); see also Dinur 9–10.
Likewise, Amadjikpe’s dual polarized antenna element is also
described as a micro-strip antenna on a thin substrate provided with “two
feeding ports” designed to transmit and/or receive RF signals in both vertical
and horizontal (first and second) polarizations. Amadjikpe ¶ 24. Amadjikpe
teaches the use of a phase shifter and a variable gain amplifier as a means for
identifying and adjusting the relative phase and amplitude of excitation
signals A, B. Amadjikpe ¶¶ 26, 39–41, 52.
As such, Amadjikpe’s “two feeding ports” serve as the claimed “first
conductive patch operable to convey wireless signals at a first polarization”
and the claimed “second conductive patch operable to convey wireless
signals at a second polarization” recited in Appellant’s claim 10. Likewise,
Appeal 2020-004163
Application 15/714,970

13

Amadjikpe’s phase shifter and variable gain amplifier serve as the claimed
“control circuitry” recited in Appellant’s claim 10.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 10 and its dependent claims 11–13, which were not argued separately.
With respect to claim 16, Appellant repeats the same arguments
presented relative to claims 1 and 10. Appeal Br. 19–26. For the same
reasons discussed relative to claims 1 and 10, we also sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 16 and its dependent claims 17 and 18, which
were not argued separately.
With respect to claims 2 and 4, Appellant does not argue patentability
separately from claim 1. For the same reasons discussed relative to claim 1,
we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 4.

III. Obviousness of Claims 19 and 20 over Reynolds, Amadjikpe, Dinur,
Kong or Rodriguez
With respect to claim 19 and 20, Appellant does not argue
patentability separately from base claim 16. For the same reasons discussed
relative to claim 16, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 19 and 20.

DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of (1) claims 1, 3, 5,
and 21–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the teachings of Reynolds
and Amadjikpe; (2) claims 2, 4, 10–13, and 16–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the teachings of Reynolds, Amadjikpe, and Dinur; (3) claim 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the teachings of Reynolds,
Appeal 2020-004163
Application 15/714,970

14

Amadjikpe, Dinur, and Kong; and (4) claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Reynolds, Amadjikpe, Dinur, and Rodriguez.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. §  Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5, 21–
25
103 Reynolds,
Amadjikpe
1, 3, 5, 21–
25

2, 4, 10–13,
16–18
103 Reynolds,
Amadjikpe, Dinur
2, 4, 10–13,
16–18

19 103 Reynolds,
Amadjikpe, Dinur,
Kong
19
20 103 Reynolds,
Amadjikpe, Dinur,
Rodriguez
20
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 10–13,
16–25

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