TELECOM ITALIA S.p.A.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 6, 2020

14652387 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2020)

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.
14/652,387 06/15/2015 Massimiliano PETRA 455085US68PCT 2470
22850 7590 04/06/2020
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
LAFONTANT, GARY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/06/2020 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):
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
patentdocket@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MASSIMILIANO PETRA and
LORIS PAOLO STOLA
Appeal 2019-001735
Application 14/652,387
Technology Center 2600

Before J. JOHN LEE, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 14–26.2 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as TELECOM
ITALIA S.P.A. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 1–13 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2019-001735
Application 14/652,387

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to estimating the
electric field strength in a cellular radio communication network using a
method based on determining visibility polygons, namely direct visibility
polygons, reflection visibility polygons, or diffraction visibility polygons.3
Spec., Abstract. Claim 14, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
14. A method for estimating electric field strength associated
to a radio wave emitted by an electromagnetic source of a cellular
radio communication network, within an area of investigation,
the method comprising:
a) identifying a set of obstacles within the area of
investigation;
b) determining a direct visibility polygon as a polygonal
region within a two-dimensional area associated with the area of
investigation, the direct visibility polygon being a two-
dimensional polygon and comprising only points in the two-
dimensional area which are reached by the radio wave emitted
by the electromagnetic source along a direct propagation path
without any obstacles, and after determining the direct visibility
polygon, determining at least one of:
a reflection visibility polygon as a polygonal region
within the two-dimensional area comprising points that
may be reached by the radio wave after it has been
reflected by at least one of the obstacles, and

3 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed June 15, 2015
(“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed November 30,
2017; (3) the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed July 12, 2018; (4) the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed October 30, 2018; and (5) the Reply
Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed December 21, 2018.
Appeal 2019-001735
Application 14/652,387

3
a diffraction visibility polygon as a polygonal
region within the two-dimensional area comprising points
that may be reached by the radio wave after the radio wave
has been diffracted by at least one of the obstacles,
wherein the direct visibility polygon, the reflection
visibility polygon, and the diffraction visibility polygon are
associated to respective values of the electric field computed
therein;
c) subdividing the area of investigation into a set of pixels;
d) for each pixel of the set, determining if the pixel belongs
to at least one of the visibility polygons; and
e) in affirmative of the determining, determining electric
field strength at the considered pixel as a value proportional to
the value of the electric field computed at the at least one
visibility polygon.
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 14–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takahashi (US 5,689,812, issued Nov. 18, 1997) and
Heiska (US 6,021,316, issued Feb. 1, 2000). Final Act. 4–16.
Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejection and the
issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP
§ 1205.02 9th Ed., Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(2017).
OPINION
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Heiska teaches “a
direct visibility polygon . . . comprising only points . . . which are reached by
the radio wave emitted by the electromagnetic source along a direct
propagation path without any obstacles,” as recited in claim 14 and similarly
Appeal 2019-001735
Application 14/652,387

4
recited in claim 24. Appeal Br. 13–19. In particular, Appellant argues
Heiska describes a “diffraction polygon” rather than a “direct visibility
polygon.” Appeal Br. 15–16. Appellant further argues, although “Heiska
describes radio waves being able to propagate to a polygon area directly,”
Heiska does not teach “determining a direct visibility polygon.” See id.
at 18. We are persuaded that the Examiner erred.
The Examiner relies on Heiska to teach a “direct visibility polygon,”
as recited in the claims. Final Act. 8–9 (citations omitted); Ans. 4–5. In
particular, the Examiner states that “Heiska teaches about determining a
polygon area from the calculation area described by the vector map, radio
waves being able to propagate to the polygon area both directly and by
means of diffraction and reflections.” Ans. 4–5 (citing Heiska 5:55–66).
The Examiner adds that Heiska “state[s] that the power examination is
performed through a restricted polygon area described by vector map, radio
waves being able to propagate to the polygon area both directly and by
means of diffraction and reflections.” Ans. 5 (citing Heiska 3:52–58).
Although the Examiner is correct that Heiska describes that
electromagnetic waves are able to propagate through a polygon area directly,
Heiska does not teach determining its polygon area to include only points
reached by those directly propagating waves. It is helpful to consider the
context of Heiska’s discussion of directly propagating waves. Heiska
describes that
[w]ith the solution of the invention, the calculation of the
coverage area can be greatly accelerated by restricting
calculation only to those areas to which a radio wave really
propagates with the help of reflections and diffraction. For each
location point of the base station transmitter to be examined, a
polygon area is restricted from the calculation area described by
Appeal 2019-001735
Application 14/652,387

5
the vector map, radio waves being able to propagate to the
polygon area both directly and by means of diffraction and
reflections.
Heiska 3:48–56 (emphases added); see id. at 2:23–31 (disclosing calculation
of “a polygon area to which radio waves can propagate both directly and by
means of diffraction and reflections”). That is, Heiska describes that its
determined polygon area includes points reached by directly propagating
waves — but, importantly, the polygon area also includes points reached by
reflected or diffracted waves, i.e., not only direct waves. As such, it is not
readily apparent to us, and the Examiner has not sufficiently explained, how
the polygon area of Heiska teaches “a direct visibility polygon . . .
comprising only points . . . which are reached by the radio wave emitted by
the electromagnetic source along a direct propagation path without any
obstacles.”
Further, although it is unclear whether the Examiner relies on
Takahashi’s obstacle “penetration wave calculation,” alone or in
combination with Heiska, to teach the disputed limitation (see Ans. 5–6), to
the extent the Examiner does make that finding, Takahashi’s obstacle
penetrating wave calculation, even if it considers directly propagating
waves, does not teach a polygon that is determined to include only points
reached by directly propagating waves. As in Heiska, the determination in
Takahashi does not only consider points reached by directly propagating
waves. Rather Takahashi’s determination “is calculated for direct waves
(including penetration waves due to direct waves)” (Takahashi 5:59–61; see
id. at 7:39–54) (emphasis added). Moreover, the Examiner has not
explained how Takahashi or the combination of Takahashi and Heiska
teaches the claimed direct visibility polygon. See Ans. 5–6. Nor has the
Appeal 2019-001735
Application 14/652,387

6
Examiner provided requisite rationale for combining Takahashi and Heiska
in order to teach or suggest the claimed direct visibility polygon. See id.
Accordingly, we do not to sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claims 14 and 24. Because we agree with at least
one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits
of Appellant’s other arguments. See Appeal Br. 19–23; Reply Br. 1–3.
Dependent claims 15–23 and 25–26 stand with their respective independent
claims. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 14–
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References Affirmed Reversed
14–26 103(a) Takahashi, Heiska 14–26

REVERSED