Ex Parte Hosur et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 29, 2008

09659431 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 29, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SRINATH HOSUR, ALAN GATHERER,
and EKO N. ONGGOSANUSI
____________

Appeal 2007-3960
Application 09/659,431
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: April 29, 2008
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and MARC S.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 2. Claims 3-9 have been indicated as containing
Appeal 2007-3960
Application 09/659,431

allowable subject matter (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Sullivan (U.S. Patent 5,999,131, issued Dec. 7, 1999).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants invented a method to combine multiple paths of a received
signal. The process includes the steps of forming a matrix of covariances of
the multipath inputs received by an antenna and finding an eigenvector of
the matrix. The inputs are weighted according to a component of the
eigenvector and combined. These steps make the method robust.1
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Brief2 and the Answer3 for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellants. Arguments, which Appellants could have made but did not
make in the Brief, have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants argue claims 1 and 2 as a group (App. Br. 2-3). We,
therefore, select representative claim 1 to decide the appeal. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Accordingly, the remaining claim stands or falls with
claim 1.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method of multipath combining, comprising:

1 See generally Spec.3:6-11; 4:6-8; and 6:16-10:14.
2 We refer to the Appeal Brief filed April 10, 2006, throughout this opinion.
3 We refer to the Examiner Answer mailed June 28, 2006, throughout this
opinion.
2
Appeal 2007-3960
Application 09/659,431

(a) forming at least one matrix of covariances of multipath
inputs from a single receiver antenna;
(b) finding an eigenvector of said matrix; and
(c) combining said multipath inputs relatively weighted
according to the components of said eigenvector.

ISSUE
The issue is whether Sullivan discloses a single receiver antenna as
recited in claim 1.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact by a preponderance
of the evidence.
1. Claim 1 recites the step of “forming at least one matrix of
covariances of multipath inputs from a single receiver
antenna[.]”
2. Sullivan discloses the step of forming a matrix of covariances
of multipath inputs from an antenna element (col. 5, ll. 41-49
and col. 6, ll. 6-15; Ans. 3).
3. Concerning the antenna element 22, Sullivan discloses that “a
single element can be used, or an array can be used which
includes several antenna elements 22” (col. 5, ll. 58-60; See
Ans. 3).
4. Sullivan discloses the steps of finding an eigenvector of the
matrix and combining the multipath inputs relatively weighted
according to the components of the eigenvector recited in claim
3
Appeal 2007-3960
Application 09/659,431

1 (col. 5, ll. 41-49 and col. 6, ll. 6-21; Ans. 3). Appellants have
not disputed that Sullivan discloses these limitations.

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 California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

ANALYSIS
In essence, the dispositive issue in this appeal turns on whether
Sullivan discloses the use of a single antenna as recited in claim 1.
Appellants argue that the antenna element in Sullivan is actually multiple
antennas (22a-c) as shown in Figure 2 (App. Br. 3). The Examiner disagrees
and cites to Sullivan’s disclosure that the antenna can be either a single
element or an array with several antenna elements (Ans. 3, 5). We agree
with the Examiner.
Sullivan discloses the step of forming a matrix of covariances of
multipath inputs from an antenna element (FF2). Regarding the antenna
element, Sullivan describes the antenna element 22 that receives the
multipath inputs of the signal as either: (a) a single element or (b) an array of
several antenna elements (FF 3). This disclosure clearly contemplates two
distinct options for the antenna: (1) a single element or (2) an array including
several antenna elements. Indeed, an interpretation that the disclosed
antenna element as a single element is, in actuality, multiple antennas
distorts the plain meaning in Sullivan. As the Examiner additionally notes,
4
Appeal 2007-3960
Application 09/659,431

Sullivan claims a single receiver antenna by reciting the limitation, “at least
one antenna,” in claim 1 (Sullivan, col. 7, ll. 40-41; See Ans. 5). Based on
the above evidence, we find Sullivan discloses a single receiver antenna as
claimed.
Appellants also argue that the beamformer in Sullivan “must have
more than one antenna input/output in order to form a beam or to make
directional detection as in column 5, lines 46-49 . . . That is, the detection
and ranging in Sullivan cannot work with only a single antenna” (App. Br.
3). The Examiner acknowledges that the beamformer may need more than
one input or output, but disagrees that this translates into requiring multiple
antennas (Ans. 6). In response to Appellants’ challenge regarding the
sufficiency of Sullivan’s disclosure noted above, the Examiner refers to
Sexton (U.S. Patent No. 5,937,333, issued Aug. 10, 1999) as extrinsic
evidence establishing that the single receiver antenna of Sullivan can
perform beamforming operations (Ans. 6).
Sullivan discloses that multipath components (e.g., 20a, 20a’, and
20a”) of the signal are used by the beamformer (Sullivan, col. 5, ll. 27-31
and 46-49). As stated previously, Sullivan further discloses that these
components can be received by a single receiver antenna (Sullivan, col. 5, ll.
58-59). There is, therefore, nothing in Sullivan that precludes a single
receiver antenna from beamforming. Moreover, Sexton illustrates that
beamforming can be performed through the use of a single receiver antenna
118 (Sexton, col. 2, ll. 3-6 and 26-30, col. 3, ll. 32-34). While the antenna
118 may be constructed from several omni-directional components (Sexton,
col. 4, ll. 7-22), together these parts form a single receiver antenna. We
5
Appeal 2007-3960
Application 09/659,431

therefore find that Sullivan amply discloses a single receiver antenna as
recited in claim 1.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not shown error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative claim 1 based on
Sullivan. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1,
as well as claim 2 which falls with claim 1.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 and 2 is affirmed.
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

6
Appeal 2007-3960
Application 09/659,431

AFFIRMED

eld

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INCORPORATED
P. O. BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
7