Ex Parte Khan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 6, 2016

13599795 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/599,795 08/30/2012 Farooq Khan 2011.11.003.SR0 9469
106809 7590
Docket Clerk - SAMS
P.O. Drawer 800889
Dallas, TX 75380
12/08/2016 EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/08/2016 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):
patents @ munckwilson. com
munckwilson @ gmail. com
patent, srad @ samsung.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FAROOQ KHAN, GEORGE ZOHN HUTCHESON,
MIKE BROBSTON, and ZHOUYUE PI
Appeal 2015-006680
Application 13/599,795
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, AARON W. MOORE, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1—6, 8—15, 17—24, 26, and 27. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 7, 16, and 25 are objected to, but indicated to be
directed to allowable subject matter. Final Act. 6—7.
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2015-006680
Application 13/599,795
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ “application relates generally to wireless
communication^ . . . and, more specifically, to . . . polarization alignment of
wireless signals in a wireless communications system.” Spec. 12. Claim 1,
which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. For use in a wireless communication network, a
transmitter comprising:
at least one cross-polarized antenna configured to
transmit a signal; and
a polarization processor configured to alter a polarization
orientation of the signal to align with a polarization orientation
of a receiver
Claims 1—2, 4—6, 8—11, 13—15, 17—20, 22—24, and 26 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)2 as being anticipated by Shapira et al. (US
7,113,748 B2; Sept. 26, 2006) (“Shapira”). See Final Act. 2-A.
Claims 3,12, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shapira and Erell et al. (US 2011/0150052 Al; June 23,
2011) (“Erell”). See Final Act. 5-6.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shapira. See Final Act. 6.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs (“App.
Br.” filed Feb. 9, 2015; “Reply Br.” filed July 7, 2015) and the Specification
(“Spec.” filed Aug. 30, 2012) for the positions of Appellants and the Final
Office Action (“Final Act.” mailed Sept. 3, 2014), Advisory Action (“Adv.
2 All rejections are under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. in effect prior to the
effective date of the Feahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011. Final Act 2,
5, 6.
2
Appeal 2015-006680
Application 13/599,795
Act.” mailed Nov. 14, 2014), and Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” mailed May
7, 2015) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the Examiner. Only
those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Briefs have not
been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
ISSUES
The issues presented by Appellants’ contentions are as follows:
Does the Examiner err in finding Shapira discloses “a polarization
processor configured to alter a polarization orientation of the signal to align
with a polarization orientation of a receiver’’ (emphasis added), as recited in
claim 1?
Does the Examiner err in finding Shapira discloses “a polarization
processor configured to cause a polarization orientation of the at least one
cross-polarized antenna to align with a polarization orientation of the
signal” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 8?
Does the Examiner err in finding Shapira discloses “the polarization
orientation comprises at least one of: a vertical polarization, a horizontal
polarization, an elliptical polarization, a circular polarization, a left hand
polarization and a right hand polarization,” as recited in claim 2?
Does the Examiner err in finding Shapira discloses “the polarization
processor further is configured to apply beamforming weights to the signal,”
as recited in claim 6?
Does the Examiner err in finding Shapira discloses “the polarization
processor is configured to alter the polarization orientation in response to
3
Appeal 2015-006680
Application 13/599,795
detecting a difference between the polarization orientation of the received
signal and the polarization orientation of the at least one cross-polarized
antenna,” as recited in claim 10?
Does the Examiner err in finding Shapira discloses “the polarization
processor is configured to change the polarization orientation of the at least
one cross-polarized antenna,” as recited in claim 11?
Does the Examiner err in finding Shapira discloses “a polarization of
at least one of a transmitter and a receiver is determined by hardware,” as
recited in claim 26?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim construction is an issue of law that we review de novo. Cordis
Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
[The USPTO] applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims
the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant’s specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Although claims are
interpreted in light of the specification, “limitations are not to be read into
the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184
(Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, arguments must be commensurate in scope
with the actual claim language. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA
1982).
“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., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
4
Appeal 2015-006680
Application 13/599,795
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “The identical invention must be shown in as
complete detail as is contained in the . . . claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki
Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “These elements must be
arranged as in the claim under review, but this is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’
test.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citations omitted).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments and contentions (App. Br.
11—28; Reply Br. 2—10) in light of the Examiner’s findings and explanations
(Final Act. 2—6; Adv. Act. 2—6; Ans. 7—13) regarding the argued claims. We
agree with the Examiner’s findings and explanations and we adopt them as
our own. The following discussion, findings, and conclusions are for
emphasis.
Claim 1
Appellants contend that “since Shapira expressly matches a short­
term average, which is estimated from the reverse link, Shapira does not,
expressly or inherently teach, altering a polarization orientation of the signal
to align with a polarization orientation of the receiver. ” App. Br. 14
(discussing Shapira, col. 7,11. 20—25, col. 10,11. 65—67, col. 12,11. 64—67).
Appellants explain as follows:
Shapira expressly teaches that the polarization is matched to the
short-term average polarization, which is calculated and not
the actual polarization of the MS. In contrast, the Claim 1
recites, without ambiguity, a polarization processor configured
to alter a polarization orientation of the signal to align with a
polarization orientation of a receiver, which is not an
estimated, computed or otherwise guessed average of multiple
different orientations of the receiver.
Reply Br. 4.
5
Appeal 2015-006680
Application 13/599,795
We find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive of error because it is not
commensurate with the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1. Claim
1 broadly recites a processor that “alter[s] a polarization orientation of the
[transmitted] signal to align with a polarization orientation of a receiver”
(emphasis added). Claim 1 does not recite any limitations as to how the
polarization orientation of the receiver is determined, and does not preclude
determining the polarization orientation of the receiver by an estimate.
Further the claim does not recite that the polarization orientation of the
receiver is an instantaneous, rather than an average value. Accordingly, we
agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“altering] a polarization orientation of the [transmitted] signal to align with
a polarization orientation of a receiver” (claim 1) reads on Shapira’s
disclosure that “[i]n polarization matching, the polarization orientation in
transmitting (per user) is adaptively determined based on the average
orientation estimated from the reverse link” (Shapira, col. 12,11. 64—66; see
also id. at col. 7,11. 9—35). See Ans. 9-10.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejections of (1) claim 1 and
(2) claims 3—5, which depend from claim 1 and were not separately argued
with particularity (see App. Br. 18, 27).
Claim 8
Appellants contend “Shapira expressly teaches that the polarization
on the forward link, i.e., the transmitted signal, is varied. . . . Shapira does
not expressly, or inherently teach, that a polar orientation o f the receiver
antenna is caused to align with the received signal.” App. Br. 15—16
(discussing Shapira, col. 7,11. 8—35). Appellants focus on the following
sentence of Shapira: “As indicated in FIG. 5A, adaptive measurement and
6
Appeal 2015-006680
Application 13/599,795
control portion 540 is also applied to amplitude/gain and phase adjustments
512, 514 on the transmit portion of system 500 to vary the polarization on
the forward link in an effort to match the short term average
polarization of the MS.” Shapira, col. 7,11. 20—25 (quoted at App. Br. 15
(emphases by Appellants)). However, in the same paragraph, Shapira also
discloses the following: “The adaptive measurement and control portion
540 may be provided with a ‘fast’ mechanism for quickly adapting to fading
signals on the received reverse link by adjusting the receive amplitude/gain
and the phase adjustments 516, 518 at the antenna plane.” Shapira, col. 7,11.
12—16 (emphases added). The next paragraph of Shapira further discloses
the following:
[T]he signal detected from the MS on each of the receive
antenna elements 507 is amplitude/gain adjusted and/or
phase adjusted by amounts al and a2, which may be equal to
each other. The adjusted signal for each of the receive
antenna elements is combined and adaptively controlled by
the measurement and control portion 540, which drives the
values of al and a2.
Id. at col. 7,11. 26—33 (emphases added).
Thus, contrary to Appellants’ contentions, we agree with the
Examiner that Shapira discloses adjusting the polar orientation of both the
receiver antenna and the transmitter antenna. See Ans. 10—11.
Appellants further contend “Shapira expressly teaches that the
polarization orientation for the receive link can be matched with the
average orientation of the MS. Shapira does not teach, expressly or
inherently, a processor configured to cause an actual ‘polarization
orientation.’” App. Br. 16. We find this contention unpersuasive for the
reasons discussed supra regarding claim 1.
7
Appeal 2015-006680
Application 13/599,795
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejections of (1) claim 8;
(2) claim 17, which recites a limitation substantially similar to that argued
regarding claim 8 and was not separately argued with particularity (see
Reply Br. 5—6); and (3) claims 13, 14, 22, 23, and 27, which variously
depend from claims 8 and 17 and were not separately argued with
particularity (see App. Br. 18, 28).
Claim 2
Appellants contend the passage of Shapira (col. 13,11. 41—43 (cited at
Final Act. 2; Ans. 12)) relied upon by the Examiner “merely states that
alternatives of polarization diversity can be space-separated diversity,
circular-polarization, or cross-polarization. The Examiner has merely
identified a reference to circular-polarization and asserted that Shapira
anticipates the claim. The Examiner has not provided an express or inherent
teaching to support. . . rejection of Claim 2.” App. Br. 18—19 (discussing
Shapira, col. 13,11. 36-41). We are not persuaded of error.
The paragraph of Shapira in which the cited passage appears begins as
follows: “In implementing the embodiments for polarization matching as
described above, there are many system considerations that may ultimately
affect the performance. Examples of such considerations include
polarization diversity, power constraints, and choices of baseband/RF/IF
implementations.” Shapira, col. 13,11. 36-41 (quoted at App. Br. 18)
(emphases added). As Appellants note, the cited passage of Shapira then
expressly states that “[alternatives of polarization diversity can be, for
example,. . . circular-polarization.” Shapira, col. 13,11. 41—43; App. Br. 18.
Thus, we find Shapira discloses polar orientation matching in which the
polar orientation to be matched is a circular polarization. In other words, we
8
Appeal 2015-006680
Application 13/599,795
agree with the Examiner that Shapira discloses that “the polarization
orientation comprises at least one of. a vertical polarization, a horizontal
polarization, an elliptical polarization, a circular polarization, a left hand
polarization and a right hand polarization” (emphases added), as recited in
claim 2.
For the foregoing reasons we sustain the rejections of (1) claim 2;
(2) claim 9, which was argued on a similar basis to claim 2 (see App. Br. 20-
—21); and (3) claim 18, which recites a limitation substantially similar to that
argued regarding claim 2 and was not separately argued with particularity
(see App. Br. 18).
Claim 6
Appellants contend the passage of Shapira (col. 7,11. 20—25 (cited at
Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 12 (additionally citing Shapira, col. 9,11. 8—18,
col. 22,11. 14—15))) relied upon by the Examiner “contains no express
disclosure regarding beamforming weights or that such is applied to the
signal.” App. Br. 19 (discussing Shapira, col. 7,11. 9-25).
We are not persuaded of error. Shapira discloses that “applying a set
of weights to an [antenna] array will result in an antenna pattern, or beam,
and is called beamforming.” Shapira, col. 22,11. 14—15 (emphases added);
Ans. 12. Accordingly, we find the Examiner does not err in finding Shapira
discloses “the polarization processor further is configured to apply
beamforming weights to the signal,” as recited in claim 6.
For the foregoing reason we sustain the rejection of (1) claim 6;
(2) claim 15, which was argued on a similar basis to claim 6 (see App. Br.
24—25); and (3) claim 24, which recites a limitation substantially similar to
9
Appeal 2015-006680
Application 13/599,795
that argued regarding claim 6 and was not separately argued with
particularity (see App. Br. 18).
Claim 10
Appellants contend that Shapira’s adjustments are based on a short
term average polarization of a received signal, rather than on the actual
received signal. App. Br. 22 (discussing Shapira, col. 7,11. 9—35). This
contention is unpersuasive of error for the reasons discussed supra regarding
claim 1.
Appellants further contend
the cited portion of Shapira [(see Final Act. 4 (citing Shapira,
col. 7,11. 12—20); see also Ans. 12 (additionally citing Shapira,
col. 13,11. 17—35))] contains no recitation regarding detecting
any difference or that such would necessarily be present since
the cited portion focuses on computing a short-term average
polarization.
Id. We are not persuaded of error.
Shapira does not describe “altering] the polarization orientation in
response to detecting a difference between the polarization orientation of the
received signal and the polarization orientation of the at least one cross-
polarized antenna” in ipsissimis verbis. See Bond, 910 F.2d at 832.
However, Shapira describes adaptively estimating the average orientation of
an incoming signal from a mobile station (MS) (Shapira, col. 13,11. 22—23)
and adjusting the polarization of the receive link to match the average
polarization of the incoming signal (id. at col. 13,11. 25—30). Implicit in
Shapira’s adjustment of the receive link polarization to match the average
polarization of the incoming signal is a determination that such an
adjustment is required, i.e., that the polarizations are different and do not
already match — “detecting a difference between the polarization
10
Appeal 2015-006680
Application 13/599,795
orientation of the received signal and the polarization orientation of the at
least one cross-polarized antenna,” as recited in claim 10.
For the foregoing reason we sustain the rejections of (1) claim 10;
(2) claim 19, which was argued together with claim 10; and (3) claims 12
and 21, which depend from claims 10 and 19 respectively and were not
separately argued with particularity (see App. Br. 27).
Claim 11
Appellants contend
[t]he cited portion [of Shapira (see Final Act. 4 (citing Shapira,
col. 7,11. 1—16); see also Ans. 12 (additionally citing Shapira
col. 13,11. 25—35))] contains no express disclosure that the
polarization orientation of the antenna, that is, the orientation of
the electric field (E-plane) of the radio wave with respect to the
Earth’s surface that is determined by the physical structure of
the antenna and by its orientation, is changed.
App. Br. 23 (discussing Shapira, col. 6,1. 63—col. 7,1. 25). We are not
persuaded of error.
There is no requirement that a reference recite a claim limitation
ipsissimis verbis in order to disclose that limitation. See Bond, 910 F.2d at
832. Nor do we see any significance to Shapira’s alleged failure to
explicitly repeat the scientific explanation of “polarization orientation.”
Shapira discloses the following: “The control parameters include the
parameters that are used to adjust the polarization orientation. The
polarization control parameters may be fed to an Rx polarization adjustment
mechanism 1910 so that the polarization orientation for the receive link can
be matched with the average orientation.” Shapira, col. 13,11. 25—30
(emphases added). We find that this passage explicitly discloses
“changing] the polarization orientation of the . . . antenna,” as recited in
11
Appeal 2015-006680
Application 13/599,795
claim 11. Further, contrary to Appellants’ assertion, this passage expressly
discloses changing the polarization orientation of a “receive link.” See
Reply Br. 9 (“Claim[] 11... require[s] adjustments to the antenna that
receives the signal, not the antenna that transmits another signal.”).
For the foregoing reason we sustain the rejections of (1) claim 11; and
(2) claim 20, which was argued together with claim 11 (see App. Br. 22).
Claim 26
Appellants contend they are “unable to locate any portion of Shapira
that expressly teaches that amplitude/gain and phase adjustments 512, 514,
516, 518 are hardware. Appellants] respectfully submit[] that
amplitude/gain and phase adjustments 512, 514, 516, 518 could be
implemented by software.” App. Br. 26 (discussing Shapira, col. 6,1. 63-
col. 7,1. 25, Fig 5A). We are unpersuaded of error.
Even if, as asserted by Appellants, Shapira’s phase adjustment could
be implemented by software, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that such software runs on a processor, which is hardware, and therefore
even a software implementation is implemented at least in part by hardware.
We note that nothing in the claim precludes the use of software in addition
to hardware to determine polarization. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner that Shapira’s amplitude/gain and phase adjustments 512, 514,
516, 518 are encompassed by the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a
polarization of at least one of a transmitter and a receiver is determined by
hardware,” as recited in claim 26.
For the foregoing reason we sustain the rejection of claim 26.
12
Appeal 2015-006680
Application 13/599,795
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—6, 8—15, 17—24, 26,
and 27 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b) (2013).
AFFIRMED
13