Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2017

14078434 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2017)

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.
14/078,434 11/12/2013 Changming Liu 31AE-176320 9857
69849 7590 11/16/2017
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
379 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
EXAMINER
SINGH, HIRDEPAL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2017 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):
svpatents @ sheppardmullin.com
S heppardMullin_Pair @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHANGMING LIU, GEORGE GANG CHEN, HAI LIN, and
LIANGFU ZHANG
Appeal 2017-002975
Application 14/078,4341
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, SCOTT E. BAIN, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—21, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Aerohive Networks, Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-002975
Application 14/078,434
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a technique for matching transmitter
antenna patterns to receiver antenna patterns, in order to improve wireless
communications. Spec. 2, 6. Claims 1,11, and 21 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and the subject matter of the appeal,
and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
grouping discrete antenna patterns into station antenna
pattern profiles, wherein a station type is associated with a station
antenna pattern profile of the station antenna pattern profiles;
determining a station is of the station type;
selecting an antenna pattern group corresponding to the
station type;
conducting an optimal antenna pattern search for the
station using the antenna pattern group corresponding to the
station type.
App. Br. 26.
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 11, and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Wong et al. (US 2009/0005121 Al; Jan. 1, 2009)
(“Wong”). Final Act. 5—6.
Claims 2—10 and 12—20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wong and Hartenstein (US 2010/0119002 Al;
May 13, 2010). Final Act. 10-13.
Claims 1—21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kuriki (US 2011/0085459 Al; Apr. 14, 2011) and
Hartenstein. Final Act. 10—13.
2
Appeal 2017-002975
Application 14/078,434
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments presented in this appeal. Any other arguments Appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). With respect to the obviousness rejection based
upon Kuriki and Hartenstein (claims 1—21), we are persuaded by Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. With respect to the anticipation
rejection based upon Wong (claims 1,11, and 21) and the obviousness
rejection based upon Wong and Hartenstein (claims 2—10 and 12—20),
however, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and adopt
them as our own. Because we sustain one ground of rejection for each
claim, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—21. We provide the
following to highlight and address specific arguments.
Rejection of Claims 1, 11, and 21 as Anticipated by Wong
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Wong discloses
“grouping discrete antenna patterns into station antenna pattern profiles”
associated with station types, and “conducting an optimal antenna pattern
search” using one such group of patterns, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8—
9. Specifically, Appellants contend Wong only discloses “antenna patterns
that are broken into subgroups” based on environment, having “nothing to
do with station types.” Id. at 8. Appellants further contend Wong’s
disclosure of searching for “best” antenna pattern is not the same as
Appellants’ claimed “optimal” pattern search. Id. at 9. We, however, are
not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
As the Examiner finds, Wong discloses “utilizing] subgroups of
antenna patterns,” the subgroups (i.e., groups) being determined by criteria
3
Appeal 2017-002975
Application 14/078,434
such as “particular attributes ” of “stations. ” Wong | 54 (emphasis added);
Ans. 13—14. For example, Wong discloses one (sub)group comprises
“narrow beam antenna patterns to be used in providing communications with
. . . stationary subscriber stations or slow moving subscriber stations [i.e., a
station type],” whereas a second (sub)group comprises “wide beam antenna
patterns to use in providing communications with . . . fast moving subscriber
stations [i.e., another station type].” Wong | 54; see also id. at 142, 53.
Accordingly, we discern no error in the Examiner’s finding that Wong
discloses “grouping discrete antenna patterns into station antenna pattern
profiles” associated with station types.
Regarding the second disputed element (optimal antenna pattern
search), as the Examiner finds, Wong discloses base and subscriber stations
“scan[ning] the antenna patterns” for characteristics such as “highest signal
to interference ration (SIR), highest receive signal strength indicator (RSSI),
lowest bit error rate (BER),” etc., in order to determine the best “antenna
patterns for use” between the stations. Wong 144; see also id. at || 45, 53;
Ans. 14. Appellants argue an “optimal” antenna pattern, as recited in claim
1, is one resulting in “estimated highest gain,” not the characteristics
described in Wong. App. Br. 9 (citing Spec. 1 50). Appellants’
Specification, however, states that “an optimal antenna pattern can be
defined as having an estimated highest gain,” not that it must be. Spec. 149
(emphasis added). The Specification does not foreclose other criteria from
determining “optimal” (i.e., best), and indeed, the phrase “can be” suggests
there are other optimal criteria.
Giving the claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of
the Specification, as we must, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the characteristics disclosed in Wong (e.g., “highest receive signal
4
Appeal 2017-002975
Application 14/078,434
strength”) correspond to an “optimal antenna pattern.” See In re Am. Acad.
ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Similarly, we agree
with the Examiner’s finding that the “scanning” of patterns disclosed in
Wong constitutes a “search” for optimal patterns. Ans. 14—15.2
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Wong. Appellants argue the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claims 11 and 21 for the same reasons as
claim 1. App. Br. 9—15. For the reasons set forth above, we are not
persuaded of error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1,11, and 21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Wong.
Rejection of Claims 2—10 and 12—20 as Obvious Over
Wong and Hartenstein
Appellants do not argue the rejection of claims 2—10 and 12—20 (all of
which are dependent) as obvious over Wong and Hartenstein, separately
from the anticipation argument regarding independent claims 1,11, and 21.
See supra. Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, we sustain the
rejection of claims 2—10 and 12—20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wong and Hartenstein.
2 Appellants’ rote, lengthy comparisons of block quotations from Wong,
with quotations from claim 1, also do not persuade us the Examiner erred.
App. Br. 5—7; see In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Rule
41.37 .. . require[s] more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a
mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the
corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”).
5
Appeal 2017-002975
Application 14/078,434
Rejection of Claims 1—21 as Obvious Over Kuriki and Hartenstein
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the cited prior art
teaches “grouping discrete antenna patterns into station antenna pattern
profiles, wherein a station type is associated with a station antenna pattern
profile,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 15—17 (emphasis added); Reply Br.
8. Specifically, Appellants argue Kuriki and Hartenstein (and the
combination thereof) teach only associating a specific device, not a station
type, with the pattern profiles recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 8. We agree.
The Examiner cites Kuriki as teaching “selection of an antenna or a
directional pattern of antenna that is suitable for a specific counterpart
communication device.” Ans. 17 (citing Kuriki | 8) (emphasis added); see
also Kuriki || 9, 28—29. A “communication device” is not, however, a
“station type” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner further finds Hartenstein
teaches a “MIMO antenna system with patterns of the antenna arranged to
provide polarization diversity that corresponds to different antenna pattem[]
profiles.” Ans. 17 (citing Hartenstein || 36, 47, 54, 56). This teaching,
likewise, does not associate a station type with a station antenna pattern
profile.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred. Appellants repeat
the same argument for independent claims 11 and 21, which recite
limitations commensurate in scope with claim 1, and the Examiner relies on
the same teachings (and same response). For the foregoing reasons, we are
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11 and 21 as unpatentable
over Kuriki and Hartenstein.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1,11, and 21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kuriki and Hartenstein. We also do not sustain the same rejection of the
6
Appeal 2017-002975
Application 14/078,434
dependent claims 2—10 and 12—20, which include the limitations of the
independent claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—21.
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).
AFFIRMED
7