Ex Parte Asplund et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

12992921 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/992,921 11/16/2010
132398 7590 09/01/2016
Clairvolex Inc,
4010 MOORPARK AVE, Ste, 228
San Jose, CA 95117
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Henrik Asplund
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.
3602-236 1000
EXAMINER
LIAO, HSINCHUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
elofdocket@clairvolex.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HENRIK ASPLUND, DAVID ASTEL Y, JOHAN NYSTROM,
and TOBIAS TYNDERFELDT
Appeal2015-005557
Application 12/992,921
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3-9, and 11-17, which are all of the pending claims.
Claims 2 and 10 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2015-005557
Application 12/992,921
A. THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, aspects of the invention "relates to a group
of at least two transceiver units in at least one wireless communication
system" wherein the transceiver units in the group "are arranged for wireless
communication with at least one other transceiver unit" (Spec. 1, 11. 7-10).
B. EXEMPLARYCLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A group of at least two transceiver units in at least one wireless
communication system, the transceiver units in the group being arranged for
wireless communication with at least one other transceiver unit, where the
transceiver units in the group are arranged to transmit signals with
polarizations that are essentially parallel to each other when received by at
least one transceiver unit for which the transmitted signals constitutes
interference and the essentially parallel polarizations are orthogonal to a
polarization for reception when received by said at least one transceiver unit
for which the transmitted signals constitutes interference, wherein
a) the transceiver units in the group: i) operate in a TDD mode and not
an FDD mode, ii) are arranged to transmit signals during a first set of time
intervals and receive signals during a second set of time intervals, the first
set of time intervals and the second set of time intervals being separated
from each other, and iii) are arranged to transmit signals such that during a
part of each time interval in the first set of time intervals two polarizations
are used for transmission, while during the remaining part of each time
interval only one polarization is used for transmission, or
b) the transceiver units in the group: i) operate in a FDD mode and not
a TDD mode, ii) are arranged to transmit signals using a first set of
frequency bands and receive signals using a second set of frequency bands,
the first set of frequency bands and the second set of frequency bands being
2
Appeal2015-005557
Application 12/992,921
separated from each other, and iii) are arranged to transmit signals such that
for a part of each set of frequency bands two polarizations are used for
transmission, while for the remaining part of each set of frequency bands
only one polarization is used for transmission.
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Boch et al.
Garrison et al.
Laroia et al.
US 6,445,926B1 Sep. 3, 2002
US 2004/0053620 Al Mar. 18, 2004
US 2009/0227292 Al Sep. 10, 2009
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garrison and Boch.
Claims 8 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Garrison, Boch and Laroia.
II. ISSUE
The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Garrison and Boch teaches or would have suggested
transceiver units that:
a) "operate in a TDD [Time Division Duplex] mode and not an FDD
[Frequency Division Duplex] mode" and arranged to transmit signals such
that "during a part of each time interval in the first set of time intervals two
3
Appeal2015-005557
Application 12/992,921
polarizations are used for transmissions," while "during the remaining part
of each time interval only one polarization is used for transmission;" OR
b) "operate in a FDD mode and not a TDD mode" and arranged to
transmit signals such that ''for a part of each set of frequency bands two
polarizations are used for transmission," while ''for the remaining part of
each set of frequency bands only one polarization is used for transmission"
(claim 1, emphasis added) .
. III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Garrison
1. Garrison discloses a point to multipoint system that divides its
communication bandwidth into channels utilizing spectrum division
techniques, such as frequency division, time division, or orthogonal code
division. Preferred embodiments divide individual channels into transmit
and receive modes via a Time Duplex Division (TDD) scheme via the same
channel (i-f 15).
2, Figure 10 shows repeatable pattern of cells where facing sectors
operate on the same frequency channel and polarization (i-f 38). In particular,
facing sectors for each cell in the 4-cell group 1004 are of the same
frequency/polarization, regardless of whether the cell is rank and file
adjacent or diagonally adjacent (i-f 84).
3. Figure 13 shows the repeatable pattern with an overlay of additional
frequency channel sectors (i-f 42). In particular, the grid 1310 includes
4
Appeal2015-005557
Application 12/992,921
sectors overlays for incumbent sectors, wherein the added overlay operates
at a different frequency than the incumbent sector but with the same
polarization (i-f 88).
IV. ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that, although the Examiner relies on Figure 10 of
Garrison for showing that one polarization is used, "Figure 10 shows two
polarizations being used" (App. Br. 7). In particular, "Garrison teaches that
'the set of 601 of frequencies are at one polarization and the set 602 of
frequencies is at another polarizations"' (id.). According to Appellants,
although the Examiner finds that "'only one polarization is used' for
frequency E," this "in no way teaches or suggest that two are used for part of
a time interval, but only one is used for the remaining part of the time
interval" (id.). That is, even if Garrison teaches that frequency A (with two
polarizations) is used during the first part, frequency E (with only one
polarization) is not the only frequency used during the remaining part of the
time interval (id.).
Furthermore, Appellants contend claim 1 requires that if the
transceiver operates in a time division duplex (TTD) mode not in a frequency
division mode, "there is no frequency division" and "only one frequency is
used" (App. Br. 8, emphasis omitted). However, according to Appellants,
Garrison discloses "frequency A" and "frequency E," wherein the system "is
a frequency division system" (id.). Although claim 1 recites that the
transceiver could instead operate in frequency division duplex (FDD) mode
not in a TTD mode, Appellants contend such "is a mode which one
frequency band is used for sending data and a different one for receiving
5
Appeal2015-005557
Application 12/992,921
data" (id.). Thus, although Appellants agree with the Examiner that
Garrison discloses "frequency division" may be used, Appellants contend
Garrison fails to disclose or suggest such frequency division duplex (FDD)
mode because, 'just as time division is not the same as TDD, frequency
division is not the same as FDD" (id.).
After reviewing the record on appeal, we find the preponderance of
evidence supports Appellants' position. Even though claim 1 requires that
the transceiver units "operate in a TDD mode ... OR ... in a FDD mode"
(emphasis added), we do not find any teaching or suggestion in the cited
sections of Garrison of EITHER a) in a TDD mode, using two polarizations
during a part of each time interval while using only one polarization during
the remaining part of each time interval OR b) in a FDD mode, using two
polarizations for a part of each set of frequency bands while using only one
polarization for the remaining part of each set of frequency bands, as
required by the claims.
Garrison discloses using various division techniques, including
frequency division, time division, and preferably, using a TDD scheme (FF
1 ). Although the Examiner finds "the Garrison reference provides more
detail about operating in a FDD mode" (Ans. 2), we do not find any teaching
or suggestion of an FDD mode in the sections of Garrison cited by the
Examiner. Although Garrison discloses that frequency division may be used
(FF 1 ), we agree with Appellants that "frequency division is not the same as
FDD" (App. Br. 8).
Furthermore, as to the Examiner's finding that, in Garrison, two
polarizations are used for frequency A" and "only one polarization is used
for transmission for frequency E(T)" (Ans. 3), we do not find any teaching
6
Appeal2015-005557
Application 12/992,921
or suggestion of "for the remaining part of each set of frequency bands only
one polarization is used for transmission" in the referenced sections of
Garrison (FF 2-3). We agree with Appellants that, even if Garrison teaches
that frequency A is used during the first part, frequency E is not the only
frequency used during the remaining part of the time interval (App. Br. 7),
and thus, cannot be "for the remaining part of each set of frequency bands"
as required by claim 1.
On this record, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's§ 103
rejection of independent claim 1, independent claim 9 (similarly reciting the
contested limitations and standing therewith), and claims 3-7, 11-14, 16,
and 17 depending respectively therefrom over Garrison and Loch. The
Examiner does not identify how Laroia overcomes the deficiencies of
Garrison and Loch, and thus we also reverse the rejection of claims 8 and 15
over Garrison and Boch in further view of Laroia.
IV. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-9, and 11-17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
7