Ex Parte Hammarwall et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 201612988671 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/988,671 10/20/2010 132398 7590 09/21/2016 Clairvolex Inc, 4010 MOORPARK AVE, Ste, 228 San Jose, CA 95117 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR David Hammarwall 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 4015-7126 I P25431-US1 3326 EXAMINER HU,RUIMENG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/21/2016 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): elofdocket@clairvolex.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID HAMMARWALL and GEORGEJONGREN Appeal2015-003935 Application 12/988,671 Technology Center 2600 Before LARRY J. HUME, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 17-19, 21-33, and 35--45.2 Claims 20 and 34 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants identify Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. 2 Claims 26, 27, and 40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim and are not before us on Appeal. See Final Act. 6. Appeal2015-003935 Application 12/988,671 STATEivIENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is generally directed to compensating for propagation delay in a wireless communication system. Spec. 1 :6-7.3 Claim 17 is representative and reproduced below (with the disputed limitation emphasized): 17. A method of compensating for propagation delay in a wireless communication system, wherein a processing unit in a base station or in a N odeB is in communication with a first plurality of antenna units being in wireless communication with at least a first terminal, the first terminal having a terminal antenna, the method comprising: determining relative propagation delay associated with a wireless channel from each of the first plurality of antenna units to the terminal antenna of said first terminal, the first plurality of antenna units being part of a distributed antenna system such that the first plurality of antenna units are spatially separated from each other andfrom the base station or the NodeB; establishing a delay profile specific for the first terminal using the determined relative propagation delays; and compensating for the determined relative propagation delay from each antenna unit to said first terminal by applying the delay profile to a transmission between the processing unit and said first terminal. 3 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed Apr. 8, 2014 ("Final Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Sept. 5, 2014 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed Dec. 16, 2014 ("Ans."); Appellants' Reply Brief filed Jan. 30, 2015 ("Reply Br."); and, the original Specification filed Oct. 20, 2010 ("Spec."). 2 Appeal2015-003935 Application 12/988,671 Rejection on Appeal Claims 17-19, 21-25, 28-33, 35-39, and 41--45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Burke et al. (US 7,155,231 B2; issued Dec. 26, 2006) ("Burke"). Final Act. 3---6. issues: Issues Appellants' arguments in the Briefs present us with the following 1. Does Burke teach or suggest "the first plurality of antenna units are spatially separated from each other andfrom the base station or the NodeB," as recited in claim 17, and as similarly recited in claim 31? 2. Does Burke teach or suggest "evaluat[ing] phase differences between propagation channels between said first terminal and multiple antenna units, or between a terminal in the second plurality of terminals and multiple antenna units, for two different frequencies," as recited in claim 23; and as similarly recited in claim 37? ANALYSIS Issue 1 Appellants argue the term "separated" means "Not joined or touching physically." App. Br. 5 (citing Oxford Dictionary). Thus, according to Appellants, the proper construction of the term "spatially separated" is "[ n ]ot joined or touching physically in space." Id. Appellants also argue that, in Burke, the antennas 1 lOA-1 lOM are not spatially separated from the base station 104, but rather are physically connected to the base station 104. Id. at 5---6 (citing Burke Figs. 2, 3; 4:7-8, 4:63, 5:1-5); Reply Br. 3--4. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue Burke does not teach that the first plurality of 3 Appeal2015-003935 Application 12/988,671 antenna units are part of a distributed antenna system, as recited in claims 1 7 and 31, but that Burke shows a traditional co-located antenna system in which the antennas are mounted to the same base station. Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. The Examiner finds the claimed "spatially separated" may include wire links, e.g., optical or electrical, that allow for any separation in space. Ans. 7 (citing Burke Fig. 4, 12:22-25). We agree with the Examiner's interpretation, including because Appellants' Specification teaches antennas physically spaced apart from the base station that may establish communication with a processing unit of the base station via communication links, such as high speed optical or electrical units. See, for example, Spec. Fig. 3 (links 60 and 62), Fig. 4 (links 66, 68, 70), col. 12:6-24. The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Burke teaches "in figure 2, the base station 104 is connected to antennas 1 lOA-1 lOM via a link which can be a wire/cable, [and, therefore] the antennas 1 lOA-1 lOM are spatially separated from the base station 104 by the length of the wire/cable." Ans. 7. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Burke teaches "the first plurality of antenna units are spatially separated from each other and from the base station or the N odeB," as recited in claim 1 7, and as similarly recited in claim 31. Regarding Appellants' argument that Burke does not teach the first plurality of antenna units being part of a "distributed antenna system," we note this argument was not raised in the Appeal Brief, but was raised for the first time in the Reply. Because this argument is raised by Appellants for the first time in the Reply Brief not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position or without otherwise showing good cause, it is waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012); see also Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 4 Appeal2015-003935 Application 12/988,671 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) ("[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not."). For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 17 and 31, as well as dependent claims 18, 19, 21, 22, 28-33, 35, 36, and 41- 45, which are not argued separately. Issue 2 Appellants argue Burke does not teach or suggest "evaluating phase differences between propagation channels ... for two different frequencies," as recited in claim 23 and similarly recited in claim 37. App. Br. 7. The Examiner finds Burke teaches a CDMA system in which channel estimation is performed on each channel/frequency of the received CDMA signal for phase adjustment. Ans. 8 (citing Burke 3:25--44, 8:52-9:3, Fig. 12, channel estimator 1265A). The Examiner also finds Burke teaches or suggests "multipath time delay information may be obtained using the reverse link (i.e., correlation in multipath time delay info between frequencies)" and "therefore, the communicated CDMA signal contains two or more different frequencies." Ans. 8 (citing Burke 18:35-37). In response, Appellants argue that, although Burke teaches correlation in multipath time delay information between frequencies and a phase adjustment for phase aligned reception at the mobile station, Burke does not disclose evaluating phase differences between propagation channels for two different frequencies. Reply Br. 5 (citing Burke 18:51-52). We are persuaded by Appellants' argument because Burke teaches evaluating one channel, the reverse link, for correlating multipath time delay 5 Appeal2015-003935 Application 12/988,671 between channels. See Burke 18:38, 51-52. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 23 and 37. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 17-19, 21, 22, 28-33, 35, 36, and 41--45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 23-25 and 37-39. 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-IN-PART 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation