Ex Parte Vannithamby et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 24, 201411108323 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/108,323 04/18/2005 Rath Vannithamby 4740-432 7284 24112 7590 10/24/2014 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC 1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300 Cary, NC 27518 EXAMINER EDOUARD, PATRICK NESTOR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2644 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/24/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte RATH VANNITHAMBY, ALPASLAN G. SAVAS, and YOUNG C. YOON ____________________ Appeal 2012-005838 Application 11/108,323 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-005838 Application 11/108,323 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 4 – 10, 12 – 14, 16, 18 – 23, 25, and 26. Claims 2, 3, 11, 15, 17, and 24 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to flexible multi-sector multiple antenna system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A radio access network comprising: two or more sectors, each sector including at least one spatial multiplexing transmitter and a plurality of sector antennas for transmitting data to mobile stations; an antenna management processor controlling sector antenna assignments and operative to: determine sector antenna assignments based on channel conditions between said sector antenna and one or more mobile stations; dynamically reassign a sector antenna associated with a spatial multiplexing transmitter in a first sector to a spatial multiplexing transmitter in a second sector; and wherein the spatial multiplexing transmitters are configured to: divide a data stream for a selected mobile station into a plurality of substreams to be transmitted to the selected mobile station over different sector antennas; and Appeal 2012-005838 Application 11/108,323 3 use multiple sector antennas to transmit packet data to a plurality of mobile stations over a shared packet data channel. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Baker et al. US 2002/0173302 A1 Nov. 21, 2002 (Baker) Frank US 2004/0063468 A1 Apr. 1, 2004 Ma US 6,801,514 B2 Oct. 5, 2004 Reudink et al. US 7,039,441 B1 May 2, 2006 (Reudink) REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 4, 12 – 14, 16, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Baker. Claims 5 – 9 and 18 – 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Baker, further in view of Frank. Claims 10 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Baker, further in view of Reudink. ANALYSIS With respect to claims 1, 4 – 10, 12 – 14, 16, 18 – 23, 25, and 26, Appellants repeat the language of the claim, provide an overview of the Ma and Baker references, and provide the arguments which we address below. (App. Br. 6 – 9). Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as the Appeal 2012-005838 Application 11/108,323 4 representative claim for the grouping and will address Appellants' arguments thereto. With respect to independent claim 14, Appellants repeat the language of the claims and maintain that the reasons stated with respect to independent claim 1 similarly apply. (App. Br. 9-10). Therefore, we group independent claim 14 with representative independent claim 1. With respect to dependent claims 4 – 10, 12, 13, 16, 18 – 23, 25, and 26, Appellants rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent claims 1 and 14 and do not set forth separate arguments for patentability. Therefore, we group these dependent claims with representative independent claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).With respect to representative independent claim 1, Appellants contend that “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” (App. Br. 5). Appellants further contend that “Ma already provides the functionality that the Examiner asserts is possible only by modifying Ma according to Baker. Therefore, there is no reason to modify Ma.” (App. Br. 7; emphasis omitted). Finally, Appellants contend that: Thus, Ma provides a system in which the utilization of the communication channels costs less, but offers the same efficiency as that of a "bona-fide" SDMA system. And because the system of Ma is already expressly modified to provide SDMA functionality for non-SDMA mobile terminals to allow those mobile terminals to communicate in a spatial diversity system, there is no need for Ma to implement any of the teachings disclosed by Baker. In fact, if one of ordinary skill in the art were to replace the non-SDMA transmitters of Ma with the spatial transmitters of Baker, as the Examiner asserts, it would only render the mobile stations in Ma useless because Appeal 2012-005838 Application 11/108,323 5 they are not able to operate in systems having actual SDMA transmitters. (App. Br. 8). In response to the Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner maintains: Modification is merely simple substitution of one known element (Baker's spatial multiplexing transmitter) for another (Ma's transmitter) to obtain predictable results and/or to provide same functionality (i.e., providing SDMA communications to mobile stations) to one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP 2143]. (Ans. 11). We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion and find Appellants have provided no evidence tending to show that the change or substitution as proffered by the Examiner was uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art. Consistent with KSR, the Federal Circuit recognized that “[a]n obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 416). The Federal Circuit relied in part on the fact that Leapfrog had presented no evidence that the proposed modification was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Id. at 1162. The Examiner further maintains: Therefore, modifying Ma system with spatial multiplexing transmitter as taught by Baker to provide the same functionality (i.e., SDMA communications service) would have been simple substitution of one known element (Baker's spatial multiplexing transmitter) for another (Ma's transmitter) to obtain predictable Appeal 2012-005838 Application 11/108,323 6 results (i.e., providing SDMA communications to mobile stations) to one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP 2143]. Moreover, making such modifications would not cause the mobile stations in Ma to lose the ability to communicate with modified transmitters as applicant alleged (Appeal Brief: Page 9, First paragraph) because mobile stations as taught by Ma are SDMA capable mobile stations [Ma: Column 3 & 4]. (Ans. 12 – 13). We agree with the Examiner’s line of reasoning and conclusion of obviousness based upon the factual findings. Appellants elected not to file a reply brief to further address the Examiner’s additional finding and conclusions. Therefore, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of representative independent claim 1. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4 – 10, 12 – 14, 16, 18 – 23, 25, and 26 based upon obviousness. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4 – 10, 12 – 14, 16, 18 – 23, 25, and 26 are 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)(iv). AFFIRMED kmm Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation