Ex Parte Hiddink

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 11, 2009

10751376 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 11, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GERRIT WILLEM HIDDINK
____________

Appeal 2009-002847
Application 10/751,376
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: August 11, 2009
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, CARLA M. KRIVAK,
and KARL D. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11, 13-16, 18, and 22-24.1 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The Examiner rejected claims 5, 17, and 25 over Crawford under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) in the Final Office Action mailed May 15, 2007. However,
the Examiner withdrew this rejection (Ans. 2).
Appeal 2009-002847
Application 10/751,376

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is a predictive method and apparatus
for selecting an antenna in a multi-antenna wireless device (Spec. 2:19-20;
Fig. 2). Signal quality associated with each antenna for previously received
frames is evaluated based on a weighted schedule (Spec. 2:20-23).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A wireless communication device, comprising:
a plurality of antennas; and
a predictive antenna selector that evaluates a signal quality of each of
said plurality of antennas of at least a portion of one prior frame and
selects an antenna to communicate one or more frames based on said
signal quality evaluation, wherein said predictive antenna selector
evaluates said signal quality of each of said plurality of antennas
based on a weighted schedule.

REFERENCES
Crawford US 2003/0002471 A1 Jan. 2, 2003

The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11, 13-16, 18, and 22-24
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Crawford.
Appellant contends Crawford fails to teach that the signal quality of
each of a plurality of antennas is evaluated based on a weighted schedule
(App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 3, 4).

Appeal 2009-002847
Application 10/751,376

3
ISSUE
Did Appellant establish the Examiner erred in finding Crawford
teaches that the signal quality of each of a plurality of antennas is evaluated
based on a weighted schedule?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant’s claimed invention determines signal quality
associated with previously received frames for each antenna in a multi-
antenna wireless device (Spec. 2:19-22; Fig. 2). The signal quality for each
antenna is compared to the signal quality of the other antennas based on a
weighted schedule. This predicts the best antenna for receiving a frame
(Spec. 2:22-23; 5:13-16; cls. 1, 13, and 23).
2. Crawford teaches a method and apparatus for determining
signal quality associated with previously received frames for each antenna in
a multi-antenna wireless device (¶ [0051]); Fig. 1). The signal quality for
each antenna pairing is compared to the signal quality of the other antenna
pairings to predict the best antenna for receiving a frame ((¶¶ [0013],
[0136]); Fig. 1). When five antennas are used, the signal quality for all ten
possible antenna pairings is not evaluated (¶¶ [0154], [0155]). Instead, the
previously identified six best pairings are evaluated (¶¶ [0154], [0155]).
During the next opportunity for antenna evaluation, the two worst antenna
pairings from the previous evaluation are replaced with two pairings not
among the previous six best pairings, then those six pairings are evaluated
against one another (¶¶ [0154], [0155]). The “unending search” (¶ [0154])
for better antenna pairings continues in this manner (¶ [0163]).

Appeal 2009-002847
Application 10/751,376

4
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Calif., Inc., 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The scope of the claims in a patent application is determined not
solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their
broadest reasonable construction in light of the Specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11, 13-16, 18, and 22-24
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Crawford. Appellant
argues this rejection with respect to independent claims 1, 13, and 23 (App.
Br. 3-4). Because Appellant grouped claims 1, 13, and 23 together, this
rejection is addressed with respect to representative claim 1.2
Appellant’s only contention is that Crawford does not teach a
“weighted schedule” (App. Br. 3, 4). Appellant asserts that “weight” is
defined as a “factor assigned to a number in a computation, as in
determining an average, to make the number’s effect on the computation
reflect its importance” (App. Br. 3; Reply Br. 3). Applying this definition of
“weight,” Appellant maintains Crawford fails to teach that the signal quality

2 Appellant did not specifically address dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7, 11, 14-
16, 18, 22, and 24, but stated that the dependent claims are believed
allowable for the reasons presented with respect to claims 1, 13, and 23
(App. Br. 4, 5).
Appeal 2009-002847
Application 10/751,376

5
of each of a plurality of antennas is evaluated based on a weighted schedule
(App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 3, 4).
The Examiner finds that “[t]he specification is totally silent about any
factor . . . ‘assigned to a number in a computation’” and that “weight” is also
defined as “to bias or slant toward a particular goal or direction,
manipulate” (Ans. 5). The Examiner further finds that because the schedule
for evaluating each antenna is not fixed and is biased or manipulated instead,
Crawford teaches the signal quality of each of a plurality of antennas is
evaluated based on a weighted scheduled as recited in the claims (Ans. 5)
In Crawford, when a certain antenna is determined to have sufficiently
poor signal quality during a previous evaluation interval, that antenna will
not be scheduled for evaluation in the next evaluation interval (FF 2). In this
manner, Crawford biases or weights the evaluation of the antenna toward the
best previously-identified antenna pairs and away from the worst previously-
identified antenna pairs during each evaluation interval. Because “weight”
or “weighted schedule” is not defined in Appellant’s Specification, it is
given its broadest reasonable interpretation, i.e., “bias or slant toward a
particular goal or direction, manipulate” (Ans. 5). In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Tech Center, 367 F.3d at 1364. In light of this interpretation, Crawford’s
antenna evaluation bias at evaluation intervals corresponds to evaluating the
“signal quality of each of said plurality of antennas based on a weighted
schedule” as claimed by Appellant (FF 1). Thus, Appellant’s argument that
Crawford does not teach evaluating signal quality of each of a plurality of
antennas based on a “weighted schedule” is without merit.
Appeal 2009-002847
Application 10/751,376

6
Therefore, because Crawford teaches evaluating signal quality of an
antenna based on a weighted schedule, Crawford anticipates claims 1-4, 6, 7,
11, 13-16, 18, and 22-24.

CONCLUSION
Appellant did not establish the Examiner erred in finding Crawford
teaches that the signal quality of each of a plurality of antennas is evaluated
based on a weighted schedule.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11, 13-16, 18, and
22-24 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

KIS

RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, L.L.P.
1300 POST ROAD
SUITE 205
FAIRFIELD, CT 06824