Ex Parte Nuutinen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2018

13997953 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/997,953 06/25/2013
126149 7590 07/27/2018
Keysight Technologies, Inc.
C/0 CPA Global
900 Second A venue South
Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jukka-Pekka Nuutinen
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.
025538.00200 8850
EXAMINER
TSVEY, GENNADIY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2018 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):
keysightdocketing@cpaglobal.com
notice.legal@keysight.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUKKA-PEKKA NUUTINEN and PEKKA KYOSTI
Appeal2017-002924
Application 13/997,953 1
Technology Center 2600
Before IRVIN E. BRANCH, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and PHILLIP A.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-19, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to over-the-air testing of a device in an
anechoic chamber. Spec. 1.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Keysight
Technologies, Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-002924
Application 13/997,953
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a preselector configured to form a plurality of
preselections, by generating, for each preselection, a
predetermined number of random locations, each location being
for an antenna element of a predetermined number of antenna
elements around a device under test in an over-the-air test;
a selector configured to select, for at least one path of a
radio channel to be simulated, a preselection from among the
plurality of preselections for which an absolute error between a
theoretical and real spatial correlation is below a predetermined
threshold; and
a connector configured to connect the antenna elements at
the locations of the selected preselection and a radio channel
emulator together for physically realizing the simulated radio
channel for the device under test and the radio channel emulator.
Rejection2
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Reed (US 2011/0299570 Al; published Dec. 8, 2011) or,
in the alternative, the combination of Reed and Altshuler (US 5,719,794;
issued Feb. 17, 1998). Ans. 1-15.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief filed Sept. 9,
2016, as well as the following documents for their respective details: the
Non-Final Action mailed Apr. 15, 2016 ("Non-Final Act."), the Examiner's
Answer mailed Oct. 24, 2016 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.")
filed Dec. 23, 2016.
2
Appeal2017-002924
Application 13/997,953
ANALYSIS 3
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential).
Claims 1, 9, and 17
Claim 1 recites "form[ing] a plurality of preselections, by generating,
for each preselection, a predetermined number of random locations, each
location being for an antenna element of a predetermined number of antenna
elements."
The Examiner finds Reed discloses this limitation. Ans. 2-3 ( citing
Reed, ,r,r 97, 101, 102 and Figs. 3, 7). Reed discloses that "relative locations
and transmit signal characteristics for a plurality of transmit antennas to
emulate the selected signal path are computed" and "[t]he locations of the
transmit antennas may be constrained by the operator to match a predefined
configuration of transmit antennas so that the resulting solution is
compatible with a certain setup." Reed ,r 97.
Appellants argue Reed discloses relative locations, which are not
"locations" as claimed. App. Br. 5-7, Reply Br. 3-8. Specifically,
Appellants argue Reed's angular locations are "relative to a feature, rather
than the locations of anything." App. Br. 6.
We are not persuaded of error. Specifically, we are not persuaded that
Reed's disclosure precludes any antenna location from being fixed. Figure
3 Appellants present arguments for claims 1, 2, 9, 10, and 17 only. See
generally App. Br. Accordingly, we address Appellants' arguments as to
these claims and, except for our ultimate decision, do not address the
remaining claims.
3
Appeal2017-002924
Application 13/997,953
3, for example, depicts antennas TX1-TX6 at "locations." That the locations
are "relative" to each other does not preclude their being at "locations" as
claimed (i.e., "[a] place where something is or could be located" and a place
being "[t]he given portion of space occupied by or allocated to a person or
thing." App. Br. 7 (quoting American Heritage College Dictionary, 4th
Edition)). In short, at least because Reed discloses that "[t]he locations of
the transmit antennas may be constrained by the operator to match a
predefined configuration of transmit antennas," we are persuaded that Reed
discloses antennas at fixed, or constrained, locations. Reed ,r 97.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1 over Reed, and of claims 9 and 17, which Appellants argue
therewith. See App. Br. 5-7. For the same reasons, we also are unpersuaded
of error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17 over Reed and
Altshuler, which Appellants argue on the same basis. See App. Br. 9-10.
Claims 2 and 10
Appellants argue error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 10
over Reed and/or Alshuler because the office adopts "inconsistent legal
positions" with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17 and the
rejection of claims 2 and 10. See App. Br. 10-12, 14. Specifically,
Appellants argue the Examiner's finding with respect to claim 1 that "the
number of antennas is not variable and is predetermined" is "inconsistent"
with the Examiner's finding with respect to claim 2 that Reed does not place
any limitations on the size of the sub-sets, which may have different
numbers of antennas. Id. at 11.
4
Appeal2017-002924
Application 13/997,953
We are unpersuaded the Examiner's positions are inconsistent. The
total number of antennas may be fixed while the sizes of various subsets of
the total vary. These are not "inconsistent legal positions."
Appellants also argue that "modifying Reed's system so as to form
preselections with a plurality of different numbers of locations for antenna
elements would change the principle of operation for Reed's system because
the Office Action asserts Reed discloses that 'the number of antennas is not
variable and is predetermined ... and may be selected to be, for example, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, or any other number'." App. Br. 13 (quoting Non-Final Act. 11).
Appellants do not provide sufficient persuasive argument or evidence to
convince us that the Examiner's rejection requires a change in Reed's
principle of operation at least because Appellants do not identify the
principle of operation that changes.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 10 over Reed or the Examiner's
rejection of claims 2 and 10 over Reed and Altshuler, which Appellants
argue on the same basis. See App. Br. 12-15.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5