Ex Parte Estrada

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2014

12434356 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte ANDREW XAVIER ESTRADA
_____________

Appeal 2011-010173
Application 12/434,356
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

Concurring-In-Part Opinion filed by BRANCH, Administrative Patent
Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-010173
Application 12/434,356

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-14.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a wireless headphone with dual antennas
that each have a different nulling direction. Spec. 1-2. Claims 1 and 9 are
illustrative of the invention and are reproduced below:
1. A wireless headphone, comprising:
a body configured to fit onto a user’s head, the body
defining opposed first and second ends;
a first speaker coupled to a first speaker mount on the
first end of the body;
a second speaker coupled to a second speaker mount on
the second end of the body;
at least first and second antennas coupled to the body
through the respective first and second speaker mounts; and
at least one wireless receiver supported by the body and
electrically connected to at least one of the antennas, wherein
the first antenna is configured to have a first nulling direction
and the second antenna is configured to have a second nulling
direction, the second nulling direction is orthogonal to the first
nulling direction.

9. A wireless headphone, comprising:
a body defining opposed ends;
a first speaker coupled to the body and juxtaposed with
the first end;

1 Claims 8 and 15-19 were previously cancelled.
Appeal 2011-010173
Application 12/434,356

3
a second speaker coupled to the body and juxtaposed
with the second end;
at least first and second antennas coupled to the body;
and
a processor selectively combining signals from the
antennas into an audio stream playable by the speakers using a
protocol which includes transmitting signals to the speakers that
alternate between signals from the first antenna and signals
from the second antenna in a succession such that differences
between the two signals are substantially imperceptible to a
user.

REFERENCES
Hood US 2003/0072131 A1 Apr. 17, 2003

Rezvani2 US 60/741,672 Dec. 1, 2005

Yuasa US 6,980,165 B2 Dec. 27, 2005

Rezvani3 US 2007/0136446 A1 June 14, 2007

Waes US 2007/0280386 A1 Dec. 6, 2007

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Yuasa and Hood. Ans. 3-6.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the combination of Yuasa, Hood, and Rezvani or Waes. Ans. 6-9.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Yuasa and either Rezvani or Waes. Ans. 9-14.

2 Hereinafter referred to as Rezvani Provisional Application.
3 Hereinafter referred to as Rezvani.
Appeal 2011-010173
Application 12/434,356

4

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Yuasa and
Hood teaches two antennas, each with a nulling direction, wherein the
second nulling direction is orthogonal to the first, as required in claim 1?4
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Yuasa with
Rezvani or Waes discloses, “transmitting signals to the speakers that
alternate between signals from the first antenna and signals from the second
antenna in a succession,” as recited in claim 9?

CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Claims 1-7
Independent claim 1 requires first and second antennas respectively
coupled to opposing speaker mounts of a wireless headphone. Independent
claim 1 further requires that the two antennas respectively have a first
nulling direction and a second antenna with the second nulling direction
being orthogonal to the first nulling direction. Claims 2-7 are dependent
upon claim 1. The Examiner acknowledges that orthogonal nulling
directions are nulling directions that are perpendicular to each other.
Ans. 15.
The Examiner finds that Yuasa teaches a system wherein the nulling
directions of two antennas are orthogonal to each other. Ans. 4.

4 Appellant makes additional arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 9-14.
App. Br. 4-8; Reply Br. 1-4. We will not address the additional arguments
as this issue is dispositive of the Appeal with regard to claims 1-7 and 9-14.
Appeal 2011-010173
Application 12/434,356

5
Additionally, the Examiner concludes that the placement of two antennas on
opposing ear pads is merely a design choice.5 Ans. 5, 14.
Appellant argues that there is nothing in Yuasa that discusses nulling
directions. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 1. Appellant additionally contends that,
even if Yuasa did teach antennas with orthogonal nulling directions in the
particular configuration wherein the second antenna is located on top of the
headband, this teaching would be because the antennas, themselves, are
orthogonal to each other. App. Br. 6. Appellant contends that the Examiner
has not provided any evidence that the nulling directions would continue to
be orthogonal to each other when a first antenna is placed near the left ear
and a second antenna is moved from the top of the head and placed near the
right ear, 180° from the first antenna, as required by the claim. App. Br. 6;
Reply Br. 2-3. We agree.
The Examiner has not provided conclusive evidence that Yuasa
teaches antennas with orthogonal nulling directions in any configuration.
However, even if we assume for the sake of argument that Yuasa’s antennas’
nulling directions are orthogonal when positioned at an angle of 90°, it does
not necessarily follow that the nulling directions will continue to be
orthogonal when the antennas are repositioned on opposing ear pads 180°
apart. The fact that such an arrangement achieves “mutually complementary
characteristics which are close to omnidirectional characteristics” (Ans. 14
(emphasis omitted)) is not sufficiently indicative of orthogonal nulling

5 We understand the Examiner to be intending to conclude that the antenna
placement constituted an optimization of the relative orientation based upon
art-recognized functional considerations instead of constituting a design
choice. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2144.04(I)
AESTHETIC DESIGN CHANGES (indicating that the design change
doctrine relates solely to nonfunctional ornamentation matters).
Appeal 2011-010173
Application 12/434,356

6
directions. Such an omnidirectional radiation pattern instead could be
indicative of two antennas having nulling directions that are 180° apart
instead of orthogonal.
Thus, it follows, that the Examiner has not shown that Yuasa teaches
or suggests antennas having orthogonal nulling directions when the antennas
are disposed specifically on opposing ear pads. The additional references of
Hood, Waes, and Rezvani were not cited to teach or suggest this disputed
limitation, so we will not engage in any inquiry as to whether the additional
references cure the noted deficiencies.
We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-7.

Claims 9-14
Appellant argues claims 9-14 together as a group. App. Br. 8; Reply
Br. 4-5. Independent claim 9 recites “transmitting signals to the speakers
that alternate between signals from the first antenna and signals from the
second antenna in a succession.” The Examiner finds that Rezvani and
Waes teach the disputed limitation because the references teach antenna
diversity, MIMO (multiple input multiple output), and multiplexing. Ans. 9-
10, 18-19. Appellant contends that Rezvani is not prior art because there is
inadequate support in the provisional application. App. Br. 7. Appellant
also contends that Waes does not alternate between, but rather combines, the
signals. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 4. We disagree with Appellant.
After reviewing Rezvani’s provisional application and Appellant’s
contentions, we find that the record supports the Examiner’s finding (Ans.
18-19) and ultimate conclusion (Ans. 19) that the Rezvani provisional
application supports the portions of the Rezvani reference that the Examiner
Appeal 2011-010173
Application 12/434,356

7
relies upon for teaching multiple antennas, diversity combining, MIMO, and
multiplexing. See, e.g., Rezvani Provisional Application, pp. 16-18, 21-22,
24, 27-28, 31. Regarding Waes, while Waes does, in fact, teach combining
the signals, the combining step is completed after reception of the signals;
the reception of the signals, itself, is accomplished by alternating between
two antennas. See Waes, ¶ [0004].
Additionally, even if Rezvani was not prior art, and if Waes did not
teach the subject matter claimed, the Examiner also finds that Yuasa, alone,
teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 17-18. Specifically, the Examiner
finds that Yuasa teaches a diversity method that compares the power levels
of the signals received by the antenna elements and switches between them
in order to obtain the best signal. Ans. 17. We agree, and Appellant has not
addressed the Examiner’s specific finding on this point.
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-14.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Yuasa and
Hood teaches two antennas, each with a nulling direction, wherein the
second nulling direction is orthogonal to the first, as required by claim 1.
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Yuasa
with Rezvani or Waes discloses, “transmitting signals to the speakers that
alternate between signals from the first antenna and signals from the second
antenna in a succession,” as recited in claim 9.

Appeal 2011-010173
Application 12/434,356

8
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
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-IN-PART

Appeal 2011-010173
Application 12/434,356

9
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge, CONCURRING-IN-PART.

I respectfully disagree with my colleagues as to the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
“Yuasa nowhere mentions the term ‘null’, much less ‘nulling direction’,
much less the requirement of Claim 1 that the antennas have nulling
directions that are orthogonal to each other.” App. Br. 5. But Appellant also
argues in reference to Yuasa, Figure 12A, “to the extent that the small
inward dips in this pattern represent ‘nulls’, those nulls are neither said to be
from different antennae nor are they anywhere close to being orthogonal to
each other.” Reply Br. 2. Based on this, I find Appellant clearly
understands the teaching value of Yuasa to include the concept of “nulls”
and “nulling direction,” even though Appellant carefully points out the terms
“null” and nulling direction” are absent. I refer also to Yuasa, Figure 6A,
cited by the Examiner (Ans. 14) for depicting “the coverage area for a
headphone having an antenna located on the left side.” Id. I note the “null”
in the coverage pattern at the 270° azimuth. “Nulls” are not evident in the
coverage patterns of Figures 12A and 14A because the coverage patterns are
composite patterns in which the “null” in the coverage pattern of one
antenna is masked by the coverage pattern of the other antenna and vice
versa. I therefore find Appellant’s argument that “Yuasa nowhere mentions
the term ‘null’, much less ‘nulling direction’” unpersuasive of error in the
Examiner’s rejection.
The Examiner also finds “the placement of the antennas is simply a
design choice.” Ans. 14, 16. The Examiner references various
Appeal 2011-010173
Application 12/434,356

10
embodiments of Yuasa (id. at 14-16 (referring to Yuasa Figs. 12A, 13, 14A))
as exemplary arrangements for antennas mounted to headphones to thereby
vary a composite coverage pattern. These findings, together with Yuasa’s
teaching that “it is possible to obtain mutually complementary characteristics
which are close to omni directional characteristics” (id. at 14 (citing Yuasa
col. 6, ll. 44-46) (emphasis omitted)), leads the Examiner to conclude “[o]ne
of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a first antenna located at the left
ear and the second antenna located at the top of the head would provide for
perpendicular coverage areas[,] which clearly reads on first and second
nulling directions are orthogonal.” Id. (citation omitted).
Appellant argues (Reply Br. 3) the Examiner has erred for “mixing
and matching two different Yuasa embodiments in a way that Yuasa does
not do.” I do not find this persuasive of error because it ignores why the
Examiner cited those embodiments. I find the Examiner to have shown
through the teachings of the various embodiments of Yuasa that one skilled
in the art would have known to vary the location and orientation of antenna
pairs to produce “mutually complementary characteristics which are close to
omni directional characteristics,” including orthogonal nulling directions.
Accordingly, I would sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.

tj