Chandra, Arty et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 20, 2020

13957534 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2020)

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.
13/957,534 08/02/2013 Arty Chandra IDC-2004P00323US02 7953
24374 7590 02/20/2020
VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C.
DEPT. ICC
30 SOUTH 17TH STREET -18TH FLOOR
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
EXAMINER
SHAO, HONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2020 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):
eoffice@volpe-koenig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARTY CHANDRA, INHYOK CHA, PAUL MARINIER,
and VINCENT ROY
Appeal 2017-009291
Application 13/957,534
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EVANS, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–30, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. An oral hearing was held October 8, 2019. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as InterDigital
Technology Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-009291
Application 13/957,534

2
BACKGROUND
The Claimed Invention
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to transferring “smart antenna
capability,” and specifically, to exchanging “antenna capability information”
between an access point (AP) and a station (STA). Spec. ¶¶ 5, 7. Claims 1,
10, 17, and 21 are independent. Claim 11 is illustrative of the invention and
the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows (with disputed
limitation emphasized):
1. A first Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE) 802.11 station (STA) for exchanging antenna capability
information, the first IEEE 802.11 STA comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a probe request frame
that contains an antenna capability information element that
indicates a plurality of antenna capabilities of a second IEEE
802.11 STA; and
a transmitter configured to transmit a probe response
frame that contains a second antenna capability information
element that indicates a plurality of antenna capabilities of the
first IEEE 802.11 STA.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
References
The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Wallace et al.
(“Wallace”)
US 2002/0193146 A1 Pub. Dec. 19, 2002
Kuan et al. (“Kuan”) US 2003/0224797 A1 Pub. Dec. 4, 2003
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–6 and 8–30 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting, as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8,504,110.
Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2017-009291
Application 13/957,534

3
Claims 1–30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Kuan and Wallace. Final Act. 4–11.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have
made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). On the record before us, Appellant has not persuaded us
of error. Except as set forth below, we adopt as our own the findings and
reasons set forth in the rejection from which the appeal is taken and in the
Examiner’s Answer. We provide the following discussion for highlighting
and emphasis.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection
Appellant does not argue the Examiner’s nonstatutory double
patenting rejection of claims 1–6 and 8–30. Final Act. 3–4; Appeal Br. 5–9.
The Examiner has not withdrawn the rejection. Ans. 2. We, therefore,
summarily sustain the rejection.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests a receiver configured to receive a “probe request frame that
contains an antenna capability information element” (indicating antenna
capabilities), as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 6–8 (emphasis added); Reply
Br. 3–5. Specifically, Appellant argues that Kuan’s teaching of a
“[s]upported [r]ate[s]” field is not, as the Examiner found, an “antenna
capability” information element as recited in claim 1, and that Wallace is
silent regarding this element. Appeal Br. 6–8 (emphasis added). Appellant
Appeal 2017-009291
Application 13/957,534

4
further argues that the Examiner’s discussion of additional references in the
Answer (namely, Catreux2 and Lozano3) is irrelevant because these
references were not part of the Examiner’s rejection on appeal, and because
they do not support the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have considered “supported rates” to be part of antenna capability.
Reply Br. 1–3. For the following reasons, we are unpersuaded that the
Examiner erred.
As the Examiner finds (and Appellant does not contest), Kuan teaches
a receiver in a wireless network configured to receive a probe request frame
containing various fields (elements), such as “MACaddress,” “[c]apability,”
“IPAddress,” “SSID,” and “Supported Rates.” Kuan ¶¶ 30–46, 49 (Table 1).
Claim 1, however, recites a frame with not just any field, but one that
contains “an antenna capability information element.” Appeal Br. 10. The
Examiner finds this element in both Kuan and Wallace. Namely, the
Examiner finds Kuan teaches “supported rates,” which (according to the
Examiner) would have been understood by one of ordinary skill as
“associated with [an] antenna as part of antenna capability.” Ans. 2 (citing
Catreux Abstract; Lozano Abstract); Kuan ¶ 45 (Table 1). In addition or
alternatively, the Examiner finds Wallace teaches “antenna capability
information” elements in its description of “antenna diversity capability such
as smart, spatial, MIMO, SIMO, the number of TX antennas, beam forming,
or other parameters.” Ans. 2; Wallace ¶¶ 46, 104–110, 123, 125–26; Figs.
3–5.

2 Catreux et al., US 7,983,355 B2, issued July 19, 2011.
3 Lozano, US 2003/0076797 A1, published Apr. 24, 2003.
Appeal 2017-009291
Application 13/957,534

5
Although we agree with Appellant that “supported rates” is not
“antenna capability” as recited in claim 1, we find Appellant’s argument
unpersuasive because it addresses only the first of the Examiner’s two
findings regarding the “antenna capability information element,” i.e., the
finding regarding Kuan’s teaching of supported rates. Appeal Br. 6–7;
Reply Br. 4. Appellant does not explain any alleged error regarding
Wallace’s teaching of antenna capability information elements, or in the
combination of references as relied upon by the Examiner. In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references.”).
Regarding Wallace, Appellant only makes the conclusory statement
that “Wallace is completely silent with respect to at least a Probe Request
that contains a capability information element.” Appeal Br. 8. This
statement is not supported by the record. As the Examiner finds, Wallace
teaches a wireless negotiation in which antenna capability information is
exchanged, such as diversity capability. Ans. 2; Wallace ¶¶ 46, 104–110,
123, 125–26; Figs. 3–5. For example, Wallace describes a wireless query
“to determine [antenna] diversity capability information” according to a
“variety of configurations and methods.” Wallace ¶¶ 104, 121. This
information is conveyed in various fields or elements. Id. ¶¶ 121, 125.
Appellant’s Specification also supports the Examiner’s finding that antenna
diversity capability is an “antenna capabilit[y]” indicated in the “antenna
capability information element.” Spec. Fig. 3, ¶ 29 (“diversity technique”
and “[a]dditional antenna capability information” may “be included in the
[Information Element] 210”).
Appeal 2017-009291
Application 13/957,534

6
To the extent Appellant argues that Wallace does not teach that
antenna diversity capability is part of a “probe request,” this argument does
not persuade us of error. The Examiner finds, and Appellant does not
dispute, that Kuan teaches a probe request including various fields. The
combination of Kuan with Wallace teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. See supra; see also In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at 1097.
Further, Appellant does not argue that the Examiner erred in finding
that one of ordinary skill would have combined the references in order to
“implement capabilities with various antenna configurations [and] enhance
the capacity of multiple-access communications systems,” and “utilize high-
quality, efficient communications in a mixed mode system.” Final Act. 5.
Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence to show incorporating
Wallace’s diversity capability information into Kuan’s probe request would
have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418–19
(2007)). On this record, and in the absence of any argument by Appellant,
we find the Examiner has sufficiently “articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR,
550 U.S. at 418.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error regarding claim 1.
Appellant argues the remaining claims are allowable for the same reasons as
claim 1. Appeal Br. 8–9. For the foregoing reasons, we are unpersuaded of
error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–30 as unpatentable
over Kuan and Wallace.
Appeal 2017-009291
Application 13/957,534

7
SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–30 Nonstatutory
double patenting
1–6, 8–30
1–30 103 Kuan, Wallace 1–30
Overall
Outcome
1–30

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–30.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED