Ex Parte Chang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 201714312129 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/312,129 06/23/2014 Ching-Wei Chang DC-103043 2829 114324 7590 09/29/2017 T arson Newman T P iDelP EXAMINER 8200 N. Mopac Expy., Suite 280 Austin, TX 78759 KASSA, ZEWDU A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2632 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/29/2017 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): docketing@larsonnewman.com landre@larsonnewman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHING-WEI CHANG and I-YU CHEN Appeal 2017-006340 Application M/312,1291 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.2 1 Appellants identify Dell Products, LP as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.) 2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed June 23, 2014, the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed January 7, 2016, the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed July 7, 2016, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed December 9, 2016, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed February 9, 2017. Appeal 2017-006340 Application 14/312,129 CLAIMED INVENTION The claims are directed to information handling methods and systems for proximity activated antenna switching. (Spec. 11; Title.) Appellants’ invention enables an information handling system (e.g., system 100, shown in Figure 1) such as a personal computer, tablet, consumer electronic device, network server, or other network communication device, to select an alternate antenna (e.g., antenna 116) when a primary antenna (antenna 114) is obstructed by an external object. (Spec. 12—15, Abstract.) The selected alternate antenna (116) is coupled to a wireless communication circuit (110) via a radio frequency (RF) switch (112) at the information handling system (100), when a detection signal is asserted by a proximity detector (118). (Spec. H 14—15, Abstract.) The wireless communication circuit (110) may be a wireless local area network (WLAN) module including a radio chain, or another type of data communication device or another radio-frequency transceiver technology, such as a 4G Long-Term Evolution (LTE) cellular radio transceiver. (Spec. 114.) Appellants’ Figure 1 is reproduced below with additional markings for illustration. 2 Appeal 2017-006340 Application 14/312,129 PRIMARY ANTYEGA ALTEPMATE iGEOEMATTOG EANELING SYSTEM o'b ■WIRELESS COAIMGnICATION CIRCUIT Figure 1 illustrates an antenna selection system in an information handling system. (Spec. ^fl[ 4, 14.) Claims 1,11, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An information handling system comprising: a first antenna; a second antenna; a wireless communication circuit; a proximity detector incorporated with the first antenna, the proximity detector to assert a detection signal in response to detecting that an object external to the information handling system is located within a first distance from the proximity detector; and a radio frequency switch configured to couple the wireless communication circuit to the first antenna if the detection signal is not asserted, and to couple the wireless communication circuit to the second antenna if the detection signal is asserted. (App. Br. 11 (Claims App’x).) 3 Appeal 2017-006340 Application 14/312,129 REJECTION & REFERENCES Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Schlub (US 2011/0250928 Al, Oct. 13, 2011) and Zhao (US 2013/0315076 Al, Nov. 28, 2013). (Final Act. 4—7.) ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 3—20 Appellants acknowledge that independent claim 1 recites a radio frequency switch configured to couple the wireless communication circuit to the first antenna if the detection signal is not asserted, and to couple the wireless communication circuit to the second antenna if the detection signal is asserted. (App. Br. 7.) The Examiner finds Schlub’s electronic device, shown in Figure 7, teaches an information handling system including a first antenna (antenna 40A) and a second antenna (antenna 40B) selectively activated or deactivated when an external object is detected in the vicinity of one of the antennas. (Final Act. 4 (citing Schlub 177, Fig. 7).) The Examiner further finds Schlub’s electronic device activates and deactivates antennas using a proximity detector (incorporated in control circuitry 134) and a radio frequency switch configured to couple a wireless communication circuit to the first antenna if a proximity detector’s signal is not asserted, and to couple the wireless communication circuit to the second antenna if the detection signal is asserted, as claimed. (Final Act. 4—5 (citing Schlub 177, Fig. 7).) The Examiner additionally relies on Zhao for showing that it is well-known 4 Appeal 2017-006340 Application 14/312,129 in the art to use a proximity detector for antenna selection, to improve performance of a communication system. (Final Act. 4 (citing Zhao | 66).) Schlub’s Figure 7 is reproduced below with additional markings for illustration. Schlub’s Figure 7 shows an electronic device with multiple antennas. (SchlubUl 17, 77.) Appellants acknowledge Schlub’s control circuity 134 is used to control antennas 40A—D, but contend “even if circuit 134 is an RF switch, it does not couple the selected antenna to a wireless communications circuit,” as required by claim 1. (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2.) Appellants further argue Schlub’s other switches (switches 100, 118, 120, 124, and 128 in Figure 6) “do not couple a wireless communication circuit to the first antenna if a detection signal is not asserted, and couple the wireless communication 5 Appeal 2017-006340 Application 14/312,129 circuit to the second antenna if the detection signal is asserted,” as required by claim 1; rather, Schlub’s “switches are used to select a series or shunt configuration, to adjust a frequency response, and to provide other adjustments.” (App. Br. 8 (citing Schlub Tflf 65—74, 77, Fig. 6).) We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Rather, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants’ arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. (Ans. 6—7.) For additional emphasis, we note a wireless communication circuit, as recited in Appellants’ claim 1, is well-known in the art, as evidenced by Schlub’s RF transceiver circuitry 54. (See Schlub 53, 56 (“Output power [of the radio-frequency antenna signals] can ... be controlled by adjusting the power on path 55 (e.g., using transceiver circuitry 54)”), and 1 68 (“As shown in FIG. 6, antenna 40 may be feed from a source such as source 90 (i.e., transceiver circuitry such as transceiver circuitry 54 of FIG. 3)”).) Additionally, Schlub’s electronic device 10 activates or deactivates antennas 40 A—D by a radio frequency switch 100 (“[s] witches such as switch 100 may be radio-frequency switches” (see Schlub 170)) “used to selectively adjust circuitry 60” that is “interposed in the path between [antenna feeding] source 90 and antenna 40” (see Schlub ^fl[ 68—70). Particularly, Schlub’s switch 100 selectively adjusts antennas 40 by “selectively connecting] circuit elements such as circuit element 102 [of circuitry 60] to paths 94 and 92.” (See Schlub 170, Fig. 6.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Schlub’s selective activation and deactivation of antennas—when “an external object is detected in the vicinity of antenna 40B” (see Schlub 177)—is performed by a radio frequency switch configured to couple a wireless communication circuit to the first antenna if 6 Appeal 2017-006340 Application 14/312,129 a proximity detection signal is not asserted, and to couple the wireless communication circuit to the second antenna if the proximity detection signal is asserted. (Ans. 6—7 (citing Schlub 10, 77—78).) For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and, likewise, independent claims 11 and 17 on the same basis as claim 1 (see App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2).3 No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 3—10, 12- lb, and 18—20. (See App. Br. 10.) Accordingly, for the reasons stated with respect to independent claims 1,11, and 17, we sustain the rejection of these dependent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 2 Dependent claim 2 recites “wherein a level of transmission power maintained after switching from the first antenna to the second antenna in response to the assertion of the detection signal is the same as the level of transmission power prior to the assertion of the detection signal.” Appellants contend Schlub does not teach the features of claim 2, and “only discloses that transmit power can be reduced or deactivated.” (App. Br. 9— 10; Reply Br. 3.) 3 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider whether the “if’ limitation in claim 1 (“a radio frequency switch configured to couple the wireless communication circuit to the first antenna if the detection signal is not asserted, and to couple the wireless communication circuit to the second antenna if the detection signal is asserted”) results in a conditional step that need not be performed in the prior art. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *3-5 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (concluding the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim encompassed situations in which conditional method steps “need not be reached”) (precedential). 7 Appeal 2017-006340 Application 14/312,129 We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments, which do not address the Examiner’s findings regarding what Schlub would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that it would have been obvious to maintain the same antenna transmission power before and after switching because Schlub “may reduce or otherwise adjust antenna powers” based on “any suitable information [that] may be used in determining what actions are appropriate when adjusting the antennas.” (See Schlub 191; Ans. 7.) For example, a transmission power change may not be required when the electronic device performs the same task for a period of time. (See Schlub 133.) In that case, the skilled artisan would have recognized that the antennas’ power level should remain the same when “antenna 40B . . . [is] deactivated and one ... of the remaining antennas 40A, 40C, and 40D may be used.” (See Schlub ^fl[ 77, 91; Ans. 7.) In light of the above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 under 35U.S.C. § 103. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation