Ex Parte Damodaran et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 15, 201714266626 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 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. 14/266,626 04/30/2014 Sathish Damodaran 84269901 1511 118856 7590 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 EXAMINER PUENTE, EVA YI ZHENG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2632 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/17/2017 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): iplegal @ arubanetworks. com patents @ arubanetworks.com hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SATHISH DAMODARAN, SACHIN GANU, and MARUTHI BATHINA Appeal 2016-007121 Application 14/266,6261 Technology Center 2600 Before HUNG H. BUI, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s 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 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP. App. Br. 3. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed November 23, 2015 (“App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed May 3, 2016 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed June 23, 2015 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification filed April 30, 2014 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2016-007121 Application 14/266,626 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to “a system, apparatus, and method for reducing self-interference within a wireless network device using channel state information feedback and beamforming techniques.” Spec. 19; Abstract. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ invention, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics'. 1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising: transmitting, by a first set of antennas of a device currently coupled with a first circuitry, a first set of one or more signals using a first radiation pattern; based on feedback information associated with the first set of signals detected by a second circuitry of the device, determining a second radiation pattern to be used by the first circuitry and the first set of antennas, the second radiation pattern reducing receipt of signals, by the second circuitry, that are transmitted by the first set of antennas or leaked from the first circuitry; and transmitting, by the first set of antennas of the device, a second set of one or more signals using the second radiation pattern. App. Br. 16 (Claims App’x). Examiner’s Rejection and References (1) Claims 1—7, 9—17, and 19—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Srinivasa et al. (US 2011/0310827 A1; published on Dec. 22, 2011; “Srinivasa”). 2 Appeal 2016-007121 Application 14/266,626 (2) Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Srinivasa and Shapira et al. (US 2011/0273977 Al; published on Nov. 10, 2011; “Shapira”). Issue on Appeal Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is whether Srinivasa discloses a single device that includes both (1) “a first set of antennas of a device currently coupled with a first circuitry” and (2) “a second circuitry” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 11. App. Br. 6—10. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own. In addition, we add the following primarily for emphasis. Independent claim 1 recites a single device that includes both [1] “a first set of antennas . . . coupled with a first circuitry” that transmits “a first set of one or more signals using a first radiation pattern,” and [2] “a second circuitry” that, based on “feedback information associated with the first set of signals,” determines “a second radiation pattern to be used by the first circuitry and the first set of antennas.” (bracketing added). Claim 11 recites similar limitations. Appellants argue “the Examiner has not identified a single device in Srinivasa that includes both [1] a first set of antennas coupled to a first circuitry that transmits a first set of signals using a first radiation pattern, and 3 Appeal 2016-007121 Application 14/266,626 [2] a second circuitry that detects feedback information associated with the first set of signals.” App. Br. 9 (bracketing added). According to Appellants, [1] “circuitry of the AP 14 of Srinivasa” is used “to transmit a first set of signals having a first radiation pattern” and [2] “circuitry of the client station 25-i to provide a feedback steering matrix to enable determination of a second radiation pattern to reduce receipt of signals by one or more of the other clients stations.” Id. We disagree. As correctly recognized by the Examiner, Srinivasa’s device, shown in Figure 1, is equipped with both [1] “a first set of antennas . . . coupled with a first circuitry” that transmits “a first set of one or more signals using a first radiation pattern” in the form of multiple antennas 24-1, 24-2, 24-3 coupled to multiple transceivers 21-1, 21-2, 21-3; and [2] “a second circuitry” in the form of controller 19 used to “receive feedback signals . . . [and] determine the appropriate steering vectors that minimize or reduce interference at each station.” Ans. 2—3 (citing Srinivasa ^fl[ 34, 45— 47). Srinivasa’s Figure 1 is reproduced below with additional markings for illustration. 4 Appeal 2016-007121 Application 14/266,626 ACCESS PO INT As shown in Figure 1, [1] “a first set of antennas” is labelled as antennas 24-1, 24-2, 24-3 and “coupled with a first circuitry”, i.e., transceivers 21-1, 21-2, 21-3; and [2] “a second circuitry” is labelled as controller 19 used to “receive feedback signals . . . [and] determine the appropriate steering vectors that minimize or reduce interference at each station.” Srinivasa H 34, 45. Because Srinivasa’s Figure 1 illustrates that AP 14 is equipped with both antennas 24-1, 24-2, 24-3 and controller 19, we find unpersuasive Appellants’ argument that the Examiner has not identified a single device in Srinivasa that includes both limitations. Appellants also quote several limitations of claims 1 and 11, and allege that Srinivasa does not disclose those limitations, including: [1] “based on feedback information associated with the first set of signals detected by a second circuitry of the device, determining a second radiation pattern to be used by the first circuitry and the first set of antennas” and [2] 5 Appeal 2016-007121 Application 14/266,626 “transmitting, by the first set of antennas of the device, a second set of one or more signals using the second radiation pattern.” App. Br. 9-10. However, “it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.” In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).3 Merely pointing out what a claim recites and then asserting that Srinivasa fails to teach a particular limitation is not considered a separate argument for patentability pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(vii). In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2011). For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not demonstrated Examiner error. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of base claims 1 and 11 based on Srinivasa and their respective dependent claims 3—7, 9-10, 13—17, and 19—20, which Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 12. Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and further recites “wherein the first set of antennas are coupled with the second circuitry, and the signals detected by the second circuitry are signals detected using only the first set of antennas.” Claim 12 depends from claim 11, and further recites similar limitations. Appellants argue Srinivasa’s “antennas 24-1, 24-2, and 24-3 that are associated with the AP 14 and the antennas 34-1, 34-2, and 34-3 that are associated with the client station 25-1” and, as such, “any signals detected by the circuitry of the client station 25-1 are not detected using the antennas 3 We note that the Federal Circuit held that, even assuming that the examiner failed to establish a prima facie case, the Board would not have erred in requiring that the applicant identify “reversible error.” Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365. 6 Appeal 2016-007121 Application 14/266,626 24-1, 24-2, and 24-3 of the AP 14.” App. Br. 11. Again, we disagree. As previously discussed, Srinivasa teaches Appellants’ claimed “second circuitry” in the form of controller 19 in AP 14, shown in Figure 1, used to detect signals detected using the first set of antennas 24-1, 24-2, and 24-3. For these reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 2 and 12. With respect to claims 8 and 18, Appellants present no separate patentability arguments. App. Br. 12—13. For the same reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner’s obvious rejection of claims 8 and 18. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and § 103(a). DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—20. 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation