Ex Parte Draim

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 19, 2003

09160634 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 19, 2003)

1 Application for patent filed September 23, 1998.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JOHN DRAIM
____________
Appeal No. 2002-1146
Application No. 09/160,6341
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before KRASS, FLEMING and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1,2 and 4-8, which are all of the claims
pending in this application. Claim 3 has been canceled.
We reverse.
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention is directed to a system and a method
for compensating communications between an antenna and two
satellites when their systems interfere due to the overlap of the
satellites’ orbits. The center line of the antenna aimed at the
Appeal No. 2002-1146
Application No. 09/160,634
2
desired satellite is steered to an offset position from the
center of the beam but places the undesired satellite as close to
a null as possible (specification, page 2).
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A satellite communication system, comprising:
a ground station, having a main antenna which is
movable, said main antenna of a type which produces a
central beam and side lobe beam with null portions between
at least two of said beams, said ground station also
including a controller which can determine interference
between a satellite being monitored and another satellite,
wherein said controller also controls a pointing position of
the main antenna, and said controller is operative to
normally point a center of the antenna directly at said
satellite being monitored, and responsive to determining a
likelihood of interference, moves a center line of the
antenna away from the satellite being monitored, and toward
said null portion.
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting
the claims:
Kurby et al. (Kurby) 5,559,806 Sep. 24, 1996
Gagnon et al. (Gagnon) 5,983,071 Nov. 9, 1999
(filed Jul. 22, 1997)
Lusignan 6,075,969 Jun. 13, 2000
(filed Jan. 9, 1997)
Claims 1, 2 and 4-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kurby in view of Lusignan and Gagnon.
Appeal No. 2002-1146
Application No. 09/160,634
2The answer was re-mailed on May 25, 2001.
3
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 13, mailed April
10, 2001)2 for the Examiner’s reasoning, and to the appeal brief
(Paper No. 12, filed December 29, 2000) and the reply brief
(Paper No. 14, filed June 28, 2001) for Appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
The Examiner relies on Kurby for teaching a satellite
communications system having a controller that can direct the
position of a movable antenna based on signal quality
measurements (answer, pages 3 & 4). The Examiner, however,
relies on Gagnon for disclosing the control of the antenna based
on the determined interference between a satellite being
monitored and another satellite and on Lusignan for teaching the
existence of null positions within an antenna pattern (answer,
page 4). The Examiner further takes the position that the
combination would have taught the claimed subject matter to one
of ordinary skill in the art since moving “a centerline of said
antenna away from the satellite being monitored, and toward said
null” would mitigate the interference between the base station
and the interfering satellite (answer, page 5).
Appeal No. 2002-1146
Application No. 09/160,634
4
Appellant argues that the Examiner, in relying on Gagnon for
teaching the movement of the centerline of the antenna in
response to likelihood of interference (col. 2, lines 25-37; col.
6, lines 1-5), improperly characterizes the movement of the
antenna for maximizing its signal quality with the claimed moving
the antenna away from the centerline or the perfect orientation
(brief, page 6). Additionally, Appellant points to the teachings
of the applied references as attempting to maximize the tracking
instead of the claimed mis-tracking the satellite (brief, page
7). Appellant further asserts that Lusignan’s forming nulls in
an antenna transmitting pattern is done by aperture synthesis
(col. 6, line 45) and does not meet the claimed feature of moving
the antenna to apply the beam null to the area of the interfering
satellite (reply brief, pages 1 & 2).
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner provides
a lengthy discussion of the transmitting pattern of antennas
(answer, pages 8-11) and concludes that the interfering signals
can be taken out of the pattern by moving the antenna and tuning
it to get a better signal (answer, pages 9). The Examiner
further asserts that the claimed moving the antenna away from the
center line of the satellite does not require moving the antenna
away from perfect signal quality (answer, pages 9 & 10).
Appeal No. 2002-1146
Application No. 09/160,634
5
Furthermore, the Examiner concludes that the increased signal
quality of the prior art is achieved by moving the antenna and
placing the interfering signal in “NULL” (answer, page 11).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To reach a conclusion of
obviousness under § 103, the examiner must produce a factual
basis supported by teaching in a prior art reference or shown to
be common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Such
evidence is required in order to establish a prima facie case.
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88
(Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner must not only identify the
elements in the prior art, but also show “some objective teaching
in the prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art would lead the individual to combine
the relevant teachings of the references.” In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
A review of the applied prior art confirms that Kurby merely
teaches a satellite communications system having a steerable
antenna array (col. 2, lines 40-42) that is controlled by
steering control and system control 680 (Fig. 5, col. 5, lines
Appeal No. 2002-1146
Application No. 09/160,634
6
35-47). However, as contended by the Examiner (answer, page 4),
the claimed movement of the center line of the antenna away from
the satellite being monitored toward a null portion is absent in
Kurby. Gagnon also discloses a receiver having an antenna used
to receive audiovisual programs from a satellite (col. 2, lines
11-24). However, Gagnon employs an adjustment mechanism that
automatically orients the antenna position for receiving signals
based on the relative signal qualities such as signal strength
and error rate (col. 6, lines 2-42). We agree with Appellant
that the mechanism used in Gagnon moves the antenna to improve
the signal quality but falls short of the claimed moving the
antenna away from the perfect orientation along its center line.
The portions of the disclosure of Gagnon relied on by the
Examiner merely describe an antenna controller 180 that is used
to automatically adjust the orientation of the antenna (col. 6,
lines 1-5) and provide no evidence in support of moving the
antenna center line away from the satellite.
Lusignan, on the other hand, describes a satellite
communication system for receiving signals from a satellite to
multiple antennas (col. 1, lines 9-16) using a combination of
aperture synthesis, spectral shaping and video compression (col.
4, lines 23-29). As argued by Appellant (reply brief, pages 1 &
Appeal No. 2002-1146
Application No. 09/160,634
7
2), the only discussion of nulls in the antenna pattern in
Lusignan relates to the actual design of the antenna shape such
that nulls are placed at the orbit locations corresponding to the
interfering satellites (col. 6, lines 45-65). However, Lusignan
provides no discussion related to moving the center line of the
antenna to place the interfering satellite in the null pattern.
Additionally, the Examiner has failed to point to any teachings
in the applied references, nor do we find any, that supports the
conclusion that “when an antenna is moved or tuned to get a
better quality signal the interfering signals are taken out of
the pattern by movement, ... because the interfering signals are
no longer withing the reception pattern” (answer, page 9). Thus,
although we agree with the Examiner that null portions in antenna
reception patterns may be recognized in the art, we do not find
any specific teaching in the references that would have motivated
one of ordinary skill in the art to move the center line of the
antenna away from the interfering satellite and position it in
the null portion, as recited in claims 1 and 8.
“Deficiencies of the cited references cannot be remedied by
the Board’s general conclusions about what is ‘basic knowledge’
or ‘common sense.’” In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1385, 59 USPQ2d
1693, 1697(Fed. Cir. 2001). Furthermore, “the Board’s findings
Appeal No. 2002-1146
Application No. 09/160,634
8
must extend to all material facts and must be documented on the
record, lest the ‘haze of so-called expertise’ acquire insulation
from accountability.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1345, 61 USPQ2d
1430, 1435 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, we find the Examiner’s
arguments to be supported merely by the Examiner’s own expertise
instead of the evidence of record and the teachings of prior art
which are required in order to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. As pointed out by Appellant (reply brief, page 2),
there is nothing in the combination of Kurby with Gagnon and
Lusignan that may teach or suggest the specific movement of the
center line of the antenna away from the satellite. In our view,
even the Examiner’s discussions of the null portions in an
antenna reception pattern and the conclusion that the antenna
movement improves signal quality (answer, page 4) are
inconclusive for establishing obviousness because the references
suggest neither such movement of the antenna nor its placement
toward the null portions.
In view of our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness because the
necessary teachings and suggestions related to the claimed
movement of the center line of the antenna away from the
interfering satellite, as recited in independent claims 1 and 8,
Appeal No. 2002-1146
Application No. 09/160,634
9
are not shown. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection of the claims.
Appeal No. 2002-1146
Application No. 09/160,634
10
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1, 2 and 4-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)BOARD OF PATENT
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge )
) AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MDS/eld
Appeal No. 2002-1146
Application No. 09/160,634
11
Fish & Richardson P.C.
4350 La Jolla Village Drive
Suite 500
San Diego, CA 92122