Ex Parte Husted et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 28, 201612879186 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/879, 186 09/10/2010 Paul J. Husted 12811 7590 09/30/2016 Paradice and Li LLP/Qualcomm 1999 S. Bascom Ave. Suite 300 Campbell, CA 95008 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. QCB112254 6460 EXAMINER PAN, YUWEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/30/2016 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): ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com uspto@paradiceli.com william@paradiceli.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL J. HUSTED and JEFFREY L. SMITH Appeal2015-004007 Application 12/879,186 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm, Inc. App. Br. 1. Appeal2015-004007 Application 12/879,186 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' Invention Appellants' invention generally relates to configuring antenna arrays of mobile wireless devices using motion sensors. Spec. i-f 1. A mobile device may include a motion sensor which detects changes in the orientation of the mobile device. Spec. 16. The mobile device may then reconfigure its antenna based on the detected changes in orientation. Id. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 1. A mobile wireless device, comprising: an antenna array for receiving and/or transmitting wireless signals; a motion sensor coupled to the antenna array, the motion sensor configured to detect a change in orientation of the antenna array relative to a variable orientation previously determined by the motion sensor; and a first circuitry coupled to the antenna array, the first circuitry adapted to reconfigure the antenna array in response to the detected change in orientation by the motion sensor. References The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Rapeli et al. US 6, 195,559 B 1 Feb.27,2001 Sadri et al. US 200710099669 Al May 3, 2007 Lastinger et al. US 2007 /0202809 Al Aug.30,2007 Cho et al. US 2009/0175383 Al July 9, 2009 Johansson et al. US 2010/0311457 Al Dec. 9, 2010 2 Appeal2015-004007 Application 12/879,186 Rejections Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Rapeli and Johansson. Final Act. 2-5. Claims 2 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination ofRapeli, Johansson, and Lastinger. Final Act. 5-6. Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Rapeli, Johansson, and Cho. Final Act. 6-9. Claims 7 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination ofRapeli, Johansson, and Sadri. Final Act. 9-10. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Rapeli and Johansson teaches or suggests "the motion sensor configured to detect a change in orientation of the antenna array relative to a variable orientation previously determined by the motion sensor," as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Appellants contend the combination of Rapeli and Johansson fails to teach or suggest the claimed motion sensor because Johansson, upon which the Examiner relies for teaching this limitation, does not teach or suggest detecting a change in orientation of an antenna array relative to a variable orientation previously determined by the motion sensor. App. Br. 4--6; 3 Appeal2015-004007 Application 12/879,186 Reply Br. 2--4. Appellants assert, "Johansson is exclusively directed to a use case involving a fixed antenna tower" and discloses detecting deviation of the antenna elements relative to a reference plane. App. Br. 4--5 (citing Johansson, Fig. 4A; i-fi-141, 61). Appellants contend "by its very name, 'reference plane REF' refers to an unchanging position as would be expected due to the static nature of the antenna tower installation." App. Br. 5. Appellants further contend "all motion detection of Johansson is determined with respect to reference plane Ref, so there is no teaching as to how Johansson's motion sensor could determine reference plane Ref." Id. We do not find Appellants' contentions persuasive. Johansson teaches the antenna, and the antenna elements, are arranged along a vertical axis in a reference plane Ref. Johansson, Fig. 4A; i141. Johansson teaches "[i]n many cases antennas are installed to non-rigid or non-stationary structures, the motion of which may result in time-varying antenna orientation as the structure is exposed to various forces." Johansson i12; see also Johansson, Fig. 2B. Johansson describes one such example as "when an antenna is mounted on a mast or tower which moves (sways) when exposed to varying wind conditions (wind load)." Id. Johansson further teaches arranging the antenna elements in at least one column in the reference plane and determining, at regular intervals, a nominal vertical direction relative to the reference plane in order to calibrate the antenna arrangement. Johansson i160. As Appellants correctly note (App. Br. 4--5), Johansson teaches the motion sensor detects deviation (e.g., a change in orientation) of the antenna elements relative to the reference plane (Johansson, Fig. 4A; i134). We find one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in order for the motion sensor to detect deviation of the 4 Appeal2015-004007 Application 12/879,186 elements relative to the reference plane, the motion sensor must know (e.g., determine) the orientation of the reference plane as well as the orientation of the antenna elements. Because Johansson teaches that the reference plane has a variable orientation (Johansson, Fig. 2B; i-fi-12) and that it is determined at regular intervals (Johansson i160), Johansson teaches or suggests that "the motion sensor [is] configured to detect a change in orientation of the antenna array relative to a variable orientation previously determined by the motion sensor," as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1; independent claim 9, which recites similar limitations and is not separately argued; and claims 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, and 16, which depend from claims 1 and 9 and are also not separately argued. Independent claim 17, which recites similar limitations to claim 1, and claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 18-20, which depend from claims 1, 9, and 17, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Rapeli, Johansson, and various additional references. Because Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claims 1 and 9 above and merely contend the additional references do not cure the deficiencies argued with respect to claim 1 (see Br. 6-8), we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17-20 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 5 Appeal2015-004007 Application 12/879,186 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation