Pekka Kyösti et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 4, 2021

2020001626 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2021)

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.
13/121,208 04/22/2011 Pekka Kyösti 20150154-07 6942
126149 7590 06/04/2021
Keysight Technologies, Inc.
Jennifer Collins
900 South Taft Ave.
Loveland, CO 80537
EXAMINER
BROCK, ROBERT S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2021 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 PEKKA KYÖSTI, PETTERI HEINO,
JANNE KOLU, and MARKO FALCK
____________

Appeal 2020-001626
Application 13/121,208
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LARRY J. HUME, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1–25, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest
as Keysight Technologies, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-001626
Application 13/121,208

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the “invention relates to an over-the-
air testing of a device in an anechoic chamber.” Spec. ¶ 1.2 The
Specification explains that a testing system for an electronic device
comprises: (1) an emulator having a simulated radio channel for
communicating with the electronic device; and (2) a plurality of antenna
elements coupled to the emulator. Abstract. At least two of the antenna
elements form “a beam of a signal of a path of a simulated radio channel”
in “an anechoic chamber.” Id.
Figure 4 (reproduced below) depicts a testing system for an electronic
device:

Figure 4 shows device under test 400 surrounded by antenna elements 402 to
416 and emulator 418 coupled to each antenna element. Spec. ¶ 31, Fig. 4.

2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed October 6, 2008; “Final Act.” for the Final Office
Action, mailed May 2, 2019; “Appeal Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed
September 19, 2019; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed October 29,
2019; and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed December 30, 2019.
Appeal 2020-001626
Application 13/121,208

3
Emulator 418 “simulates the situation where the transmitted radiation”
hits one or more clusters and “forms a reflected and/or scattered beam from
each cluster.” Spec. ¶ 35. Hence, “the antenna elements 402 to 416 are
controlled to reproduce reflected and/or scattered beams of clusters.” Id.
The Specification explains that “there may be at least two antenna
elements 402 to 416 and they may be separated from each other by a
separation angle Δθ.” Spec. ¶ 31. The Specification also explains that “the
power of a simulated cluster may be divided between two antenna elements
on the basis of antenna angles θk and a cluster angle φn.” Id. ¶ 37.
The Specification includes an example of dividing the power of a
simulated cluster between two antenna elements on the basis of antenna
angles θk and a cluster angle φn. Spec. ¶ 39; see id. ¶ 38. In that example,
there are eight antenna elements in a circle surrounding a device under test
as in Figure 4 and, therefore, the separation angle Δθ = 45º. Id. ¶ 39, Fig. 4.
In that example, the power from the simulated cluster = 2.0 and the angle of
arrival at the device under test from the cluster or cluster angle φn = 37º. Id.
¶ 39; see id. ¶ 22. That example employs the following equations to
calculate the power Pk for antenna element 402 (antenna element k) and the
power Pk + 1 for antenna element 404 (antenna element k + 1):

Appeal 2020-001626
Application 13/121,208

4
The above equation on the left shows the power Pk for antenna element 402
(antenna element k) equal to 2.0 * (1 – |0º – 37º|/45º) or 0.3556. The above
equation on the right shows the power Pk + 1 for antenna element 404
(antenna element k + 1) equal to 2.0 * (1 – |45º – 37º|/45º) or 1.6444.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads
as follows (with formatting added for clarity):
1. A method of communicating with an electronic device
under test through a simulated radio channel of an emulator, the
method comprising:
forming a single beam of a single signal of a single path
of a single simulated radio channel using a plurality of antenna
elements coupled to an emulator in an anechoic chamber,
the emulator comprising a plurality of delay elements
coupled to a same one of the plurality of antenna elements,
wherein power of a simulated cluster is divided between
two of the plurality of antenna elements on the basis of antenna
angles θk and a cluster angle φn.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejection on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),3 the
Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Ylitalo US 2003/0224828 A1 Dec. 4, 2003
Foegelle US 2008/0056340 A1 Mar. 6, 2008

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29,
125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective March 16, 2013.
Because the filing date for Application 13/121,208 predates the AIA’s
amendment to § 103, this decision refers to the pre-AIA version of § 103.
Appeal 2020-001626
Application 13/121,208

5
Name Reference Date
Daniels et al. (“Daniels”) US 2008/0123756 A1 May 29, 2008
The Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Foegelle, Daniels, and Ylitalo. Final Act. 3–10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the § 103(a) rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. Based on the record before us and for
the reasons explained below, we agree with Appellant’s arguments that the
Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of the references teach or
suggest the claimed subject matter. We add the following to address and
emphasize specific findings and arguments.
Independent Claims 1, 9, and 17
As noted above, the § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 9,
and 17 rests on Foegelle, Daniels, and Ylitalo. See Final Act. 3–6, 9.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 9, and 17
because the references fail to teach or suggest the following limitation in
each claim: “wherein power of a simulated cluster is divided between two
of the plurality of antenna elements on the basis of antenna angles θk and
a cluster angle φn.” See Appeal Br. 6–10; Reply Br. 4–8. The Examiner
cites the combined disclosures in Foegelle and Ylitalo as teaching or
suggesting the disputed limitation in claims 1, 9, and 17. See Final Act. 3–6;
Ans. 11–12, 14–15, 17–19.
In particular, Appellant contends that Foegelle does not disclose
“a cluster angle as specifically recited in” the claims and “does not clarify
Appeal 2020-001626
Application 13/121,208

6
how one would arrive at the claimed cluster angle φn.” Appeal Br. 7–8.
Appellant also contends that Foegelle’s disclosures about simulating
reflections from (1) various “quadrants” and (2) different “directions” lack
any correlation to “the claimed antenna angles θk and a cluster angle φn.” Id.
at 9; see Reply Br. 5 n.1, 6–7. Further, Appellant asserts that “there is
no disclosure in Foegelle that the power of a simulated cluster is divided
between two of the plurality of antenna elements on the basis of antenna
angles θk and a cluster angle φn” as claimed. Appeal Br. 10 (emphases by
Appellant); see id. at 9; Reply Br. 8. Appellant also asserts that Ylitalo fails
to cure the deficiencies in Foegelle. Reply Br. 8 n.2.
The Examiner finds that in Foegelle the “‘quadrants’ and ‘directions’
are cluster angles, i.e. the angle from which [emulated] reflections are
directed to the device.” Final Act. 4, 10 (alteration by the Examiner); see
Ans. 4–6, 9–10, 18–19. The Examiner explains that “the ‘cluster angle’ may
be interpreted as ‘quadrant’ or ‘direction’ and that Foegelle discloses the
claimed ‘cluster angle’ and so one ‘arrive[s] at the claimed cluster angle’ by
considering that Foegelle is disclosing the simulating of signals from ‘any
range of directions.’” Ans. 9 (alteration by the Examiner); see Final
Act. 10–11. The Examiner also explains that “the simulated signal power
is decided on the basis of the reflectors in the quadrant” and that “this is
reasonably interpreted as determining power on the basis of a cluster angle.”
Final Act. 11; see Ans. 5.
According to the Examiner, Ylitalo “demonstrate[s] how ‘direction’
and ‘angle’ may be used interchangeably in the art and in the context of the
path along which a signal propagates” like “the claimed ‘cluster angle.’”
Ans. 8 (citing Ylitalo ¶ 30, Fig. 2C). Further, the Examiner finds that
Appeal 2020-001626
Application 13/121,208

7
Ylitalo discloses dividing power based on different weighting coefficients
associated with different antenna elements. Final Act. 6 (citing Ylitalo
¶¶ 19–25, 33); see Ans. 14, 17.
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Foegelle
and Ylitalo teach or suggest the disputed limitation in claims 1, 9, and 17.
Foegelle discloses simulating reflections from (1) various “quadrants” and
(2) different “directions.” Foegelle ¶¶ 34, 39, 41, Fig. 8. Ylitalo discloses
forming directional antenna beams by phasing the signals supplied to a
plurality of antenna elements, e.g., using weighting coefficients for the
signals in the form Aejϕ where “A denotes amplitude and ϕ denotes phase
difference.” Ylitalo ¶¶ 19–33, 41–43, Figs. 2A–2C, 3A–3D; see Final
Act. 6. Thus, the phase difference in Ylitalo concerns a difference in the
phases for the signals supplied to the antenna elements, not a difference
in the angles between the antenna elements according to the Examiner’s
reasoning. See Ylitalo ¶¶ 19–33, 41–43, Figs. 2A–2C, 3A–3D.
The Specification explains that “the power of a simulated cluster may
be divided between two antenna elements on the basis of antenna angles θk
and a cluster angle φn.” Spec. ¶ 37; see id. ¶¶ 38–39, Fig. 5. Dividing the
power of a simulated cluster between two antenna elements does not appear
unique to the claimed invention, but instead merely uses a mathematical
equation that accounts for the arrangement of the antenna elements and a
desired angle of arrival (i.e., cluster angle) at a device under test of a beam
of a path of a simulated radio channel. See id. ¶¶ 37–39. An ordinarily
skilled artisan would recognize that the power of an antenna element relative
to the power of an angularly adjacent antenna element will determine the
Appeal 2020-001626
Application 13/121,208

8
angle of arrival (i.e., cluster angle). As discussed above, the combined
disclosures in Foegelle and Ylitalo teach or suggest a simulation that divides
power “between two of the plurality of antenna elements.” Additionally,
Foegelle and Ylitalo contemplate different antenna elements supplied with
signals having different magnitudes for beam-forming purposes. See, e.g.,
Foegelle ¶ 35; Ylitalo ¶ 43.
The Examiner, however, has not set forth persuasive evidence or
technical reasoning that the power of the simulated signal is apportioned
between two antenna elements based on the arrangement of the antenna
elements and a desired angle of arrival (i.e., cluster angle) at a device under
test of a beam of a path of a simulated radio channel. Because the Examiner
has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Foegelle and Ylitalo
teach or suggest the disputed limitation in claims 1, 9, and 17, we do not
sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17.
Dependent Claims 2–8, 10–16, and 18–25
Claims 2–8 depend from claim 1; claims 10–16 depend from claim 9;
and claims 18–25 depend from claim 17. For the reasons discussed for
claims 1, 9, and 17, we do not sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 2–8,
10–16, and 18–25.
Because the preceding determinations resolve the § 103(a) rejection
for all pending claims, we need not address Appellant’s other arguments
regarding Examiner error. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d
1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that an administrative agency may
render a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”).
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–25.
Appeal 2020-001626
Application 13/121,208

9
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–25 103(a) Foegelle, Daniels, Ylitalo 1–25
REVERSED