Ex Parte Campbell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2013

11388330 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/388,330 03/24/2006 Edward E. Campbell Campbell 3-26 6878
47386 7590 09/19/2013
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
1300 POST ROAD
SUITE 205
FAIRFIELD, CT 06824
EXAMINER
HSIEH, PING Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte EDWARD E. CAMPBELL and SYED A. MUJTABA
____________

Appeal 2011-001571
Application 11/388,330
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Because we sustain at least one rejection of all claims on appeal, we
affirm.

Appeal 2011-001571
Application 11/388,330

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to training an antenna in a multiple
antenna communication system. See generally Abstract. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reads as follows, with a key limitation emphasized:
1. A method for per-antenna training in a multiple antenna
communication system having a plurality of transmit antenna branches, said
method comprising the step of:
transmitting a long training sequence on each of said transmit antenna
branches such that only one of said transmit antenna branches is active at a
given time;
configuring said active transmit antenna branch in a transmit mode
during said given time; and
configuring one or more of said inactive transmit antenna branches in
a receive mode during said given time.

The Rejections
The Examiner provisionally rejected claims 1-20 for obviousness-type
double patenting over claims 1, 8, and 15 of co-pending Application No.
11/388,294 (which is now US 7,742,770 B2; issued June 22, 2010). Ans. 4-
5.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Perahia (US 7,352,688 B1; filed Dec.
31, 2002) and Coan (US 2004/0018819 A1; filed July 25, 2002). Ans. 5-8.
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Perahia, Coan, and Goel (US 2005/0169397 A1;
published Aug. 4, 2005). Ans. 8.
ANALYSIS
At the outset, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s provisional double
patenting rejection. Although Appellants proposed “to defer resolution of
Appeal 2011-001571
Application 11/388,330

3
the rejection until the allowable subject matter has been determined” (App.
Br. 4), the Examiner maintained the rejection (Ans. 3-5). Appellants make
no substantive argument regarding the rejection (App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2-5).
Nor do Appellants assert that the claims need to be evaluated in light of the
claims of US 7,742,770 B2, which issued June 22, 2010 before Appellants
filed their Reply Brief.
Turning to the obviousness rejection of claim 1, on the record before
us, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s position that Perahia and
Coan collectively teach or suggest all claim limitations. Ans. 6-7, 9-14. The
Examiner relies on Perahia’s description of a multiple antenna system in
which one transmit antenna is active while another is quiet to teach or
suggest the recited transmitting step and configuring the active transmit
antenna branch step. See Ans. 6. The Examiner does not rely on Perahia for
the recited configuring an inactive transmit antenna branch step. Id. Rather,
the Examiner relies on Coan’s description that “a switching circuit can be
used to bypass the duplexer by connecting the antenna directly to the
receiver when the transmitter is inactive.” Id. (citing Coan, ¶ 0016).
Appellants contend that neither Perahia nor Coan teaches or suggests
“configuring [the] inactive transmit antenna branches in a receive mode
during [the] given time,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5; see also Reply
Br. 3. In response, the Examiner explains that Coan’s switching circuit
combined to each of Perahia’s two antenna branches results in one of the
antenna branches in transmitter mode and the other in receive mode. Ans.
12; see also Ans. 10-13. The Examiner, however, has not adequately
explained how the combination teaches or suggests “configuring one or
Appeal 2011-001571
Application 11/388,330

4
more of said inactive transmit antenna branches in a receive mode during
said given time,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, the Examiner’s proposed combination does not teach or
suggest the disputed limitations. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection
of (i) independent claim 1, (ii) independent claims 8 and 15, which recite
commensurate limitations, and (iii) dependent claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20.
Because the Examiner has not shown that Goel would remedy the
deficiencies noted above regarding independent claims 1, 8, or 15 (Ans. 8),
we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2, 9, and 16
for similar reasons.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 for obviousness-
type double patenting but erred in rejecting claims 1-20 under § 103.

ORDER
Because we have sustained at least one rejection of all claims on
appeal, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
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

gvw