Ex Parte Wittenberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2018

14167265 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/167,265 01/29/2014
48058 7590 09/21/2018
GA TES & COOPER LLP - Boeing
HOW ARD HUGHES CENTER
6060 CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 830
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter S. Wittenberg
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.
13-1251-US-NP 1749
EXAMINER
AHN,SUNGS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2018 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):
docketing-us@gates-cooper.com
gates-cooper@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETERS. WITTENBERG and DEBRA P. MICHAL
Appeal 2018-003368
Application 14/167 ,265 1
Technology Center 2600
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14--20, and 22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The Boeing Company.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003368
Application 14/167 ,265
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention relates generally to manipulating signals from
multiple antennas to provide a stronger, more focused signal to particular
locations ("beamforming") and to cancel each other out to provide less
detectable signals at other locations ("nulling"). See Spec. ,r 10.
Independent claims 1 and 22 are directed to methods; independent claim 8 is
directed to a system; and independent claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory
computer-readable storage device. App. Br. 17-20.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of beamfocusing and nulling signals carried by
electromagnetic waves, the method comprising:
determining a first vector representing signals received at
each of a plurality of disparate antennas, wherein each of the
plurality of disparate antennas is configured with
electromagnetic transmission and reception components and a
signal processing component, and wherein each disparate
antenna is geographically separate from each other disparate
antenna;
determining a weight vector based on the first vector, a
nulling location, and a beamfocusing location; and
applying the weight vector to signals at the plurality of
disparate antennas, wherein applying the weight vector to the
signals at the plurality of disparate antennas comprises
multiplying signals transmitted or received by the plurality of
antennas by the weight vector, thereby achieving beamfocusing
at the beamfocusing location and nulling at the nulling location;
wherein determining the weight vector comprises
generating a covariance matrix using a beamfocusing vector
representing a magnitude and a phase of signals received at the
beamfocusing location, and a nulling vector representing a
2
Appeal2018-003368
Application 14/167 ,265
magnitude and a phase of signals received at the nulling location;
and
wherein each of said plurality of disparate antennas is
configured on a separate and distinct mobile radio.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14--20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kasapi et al. (US 7,039,363 Bl; published
May 2, 2006) ("Kasapi"), Jensen et al. (US 7,609,206 Bl; published Oct. 27,
2009) ("Jensen"), and Shin et al. (US 2011/0235750 Al; published Sep. 29,
2011) ("Shin"). Final Act. 3.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites "achieving beamfocusing at the beamfocusing location
and nulling at the nulling location."
Appellants contend Kasapi teaches transmitting and receiving, using
basic calculations to make a receive weight vector point in the direction of
an incoming signal as well as using a covariance matrix, but does not teach
putting a null in a spatial location specified by a set of coordinates. App. Br.
14; see App. Br. 13. Specifically, Appellants argue "Kasapi does not
provide a null to a specific 'location,' but rather a specific direction." App.
Br. 14. According to Appellants, Kasapi does not teach beamfocusing or
beamforming at a location but rather teaches that sources of noise may
appear to originate at different locations. Reply Br. 4 ( citing Kasapi col. 8,
11. 28--46).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Specifically, we agree with
the Examiner's finding that Kasapi' s delivering null to an interfering
3
Appeal2018-003368
Application 14/167 ,265
receiver teaches nulling at a nulling location, and Kasapi's delivering a
correct signal to a selected transceiver teaches beamfocusing to a
beamfocusing location. Ans. 4 (citing Kasapi Figs. 1, 2, 4, col. 6, 11. 10-55,
col. 7, 11. 59----67, col. 8, 11. 28--46, col. 15, 11. 11-25); see Final Act. 5.
The claims do not provide any limiting definition for a "beamfocusing
location" and a "nulling location." Appellants' Specification provides
examples describing "to null signals transmitted to or received from location
140 and to beamfocus signals transmitted to or received from location 130."
Spec. ,r 23. We find the claimed "beamfocusing location" and "nulling
location," in light of Appellants' Specification, encompasses and does not
otherwise preclude the receiver or transceiver that receives a beamfocus
signal and the receiver or transceiver that receives a null signal, respectively.
As cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 5; Ans. 4), Kasapi teaches
"when the signals received from the selected transceiver 401 are weak, it is
desirable to develop a downlink processing strategy that delivers the
strongest possible signal to selected transceiver 401. This can be achieved by
delivering weak nulls to both ghost transceiver 411 and interfering
transceiver 402." Kasapi col. 15, 11. 11-16. In other words, Kasapi teaches
delivering the strongest possible signal (i.e. beamform signal) to selected
transceiver 401 (i.e., beamform location), and delivering weak nulls (i.e.,
null signal) to a ghost transceiver 411 and interfering transceiver 402 (i.e.,
null locations).
Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner's finding that Kasapi's
selected transceiver receiving the strongest possible signal teaches the
claimed beamfocusing location, and that Kasapi' s transceivers receiving the
null signals teaches the claimed nulling locations. Consequently, Appellants
4
Appeal2018-003368
Application 14/167 ,265
have not provided persuasive argument or evidence that the claimed
"beamfocusing at the beamfocusing location" is not taught or otherwise
suggested by Kasapi' s delivering the strongest signal to a selected
transceiver; or that the claimed "nulling at the nulling location" is not taught
or otherwise suggested by Kasapi's delivering weak nulls to transceivers.
Claim 1 further recites "wherein each disparate antenna is
geographically separate from each other disparate antenna" and "wherein
each of said plurality of disparate antennas is configured on a separate and
distinct mobile radio."
Appellants contend Kasapi teaches an "antenna array" that has all of
the elements in one location attached to one physical device, as opposed to
the claimed "disparate antennas" that could be kilometers away from each
other and be any type of antenna. App. Br. 11-12. Appellants further argue
Shin teaches separate antennae that are "geographically separated," but "are
not disparate." Reply Br. 3.; see App. Br. 12. According to Appellants,
Shin's antennas are on multiple mobile radios, but the antennas on the
mobile radios are not used in any beamforming process and rather are the
recipient of signals that have been beamformed by other antennas. Reply
Br. 3. We are not persuaded of Examiner error.
With regard to Appellants' argument that Shin teaches antennas on
multiple mobile radios but that Shin's antennas are not used in
beamforming, Appellants' argument against Shin separately from Kasapi
does not persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where
the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co.,
5
Appeal2018-003368
Application 14/167 ,265
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425
(CCPA 1981).
Specifically, as discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner's
finding that Kasapi teaches beamforming and nulling. We further agree with
the Examiner's finding that Kasapi teaches using an array of antenna (Final
Act. 3), and that Shin teaches antenna, used to coordinate beamform vectors,
for users at mobile radios that are distinct and separate from each other.
Ans. 6 (citing Shin Figs. 2, 3, ,r,r 6-8, 10, 12, 26, 37); see Final Act. 6 (citing
Shin Figs. 2, 3, ,r,r 6-8, 10, 12, 26, 37).
Appellants' Specification provides examples for the antennas, without
any further limiting definition for "disparate antennas." According to
Appellants' Specification, the antennas "may be the same type of antennas
as the others, or each may be a different type of antenna than the others,"
and they "may be geographically separate from each other antenna by any
distance (e.g., inches to many miles)." Spec. ,r 11. Appellants'
Specification further describes the antennas may each "be an antenna
configured on a separate and distinct mobile radio," such as being
"transported by one of four individual users or in one of four vehicles."
Spec. ,r 12. The claimed disparate antennas, in light of the Specification,
merely require the antennas are geographically separate, including any
distance between antennas as little as inches, and the antennas are
configured on separate and distinct radio, including different mobile radios
carried by users.
Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner's finding that Shin teaches
antennas that are on mobile radios carried by users (see Reply Br. 3; Ans. 3).
Consequently, Appellants have not provided persuasive argument or
6
Appeal2018-003368
Application 14/167 ,265
evidence that the claimed disparate antennas being geographically separate
and configured on separate distinct mobile radios, encompassing being
inches apart and carried by different users, is not taught or otherwise
suggested by Shin's antennas on mobile radios carried by users.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent
claim 1, as well as the rejections of commensurate independent claims 8, 15,
and 22, and dependent claims 4, 7, 11, 14, and 16-20, not separately argued.
See App. Br. 16.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14--20, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7