Ex Parte Azuma

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 5, 2009

10415375 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 5, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte TOMOHIRO AZUMA
_____________

Appeal 2009-0073
Application 10/415,375
Technology Center 2600
______________

Decided: January 5, 2009
_______________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and JOHN A.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) of the final
rejection of claims 1 through 8.1
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

1 A hearing directed to the appeal of these claims was held on December 9,
2008.
Appeal 2009-0073
Application 10/415,375

INVENTION
The invention is directed towards a method of “correcting the change
in phase and amplitude between radio receiving portions of an array of
antennas.” See page 1 of Appellant’s Specification. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A calibration method for an array antenna receiving
apparatus having an array antenna including a plurality of antenna
elements for forming a receiving-oriented pattern and radio receiving
portions corresponding to the antenna elements, the method
comprising the steps of:
supplying calibration signals having predetermined symbol
patterns to the radio receiving portions; extracting the calibration
signals having passed through and output from the radio receiving
portions;
selecting a predetermined one of the radio receiving portions as
a reference branch; and
correcting the receiving-oriented pattern by using phase
differences between and amplitude ratios of the calibration signals
having passed through respective radio receiving portions and the
calibration signal having passed through the reference branch,
wherein selecting as the reference branch comprises
determining a radio receiving portion having the best receiving quality
from the calibration signals having passed through the radio receiving
portions and selecting the radio receiving portion with said best
receiving quality.

REFERENCES

Donath US 2,753,547 Jul. 3, 1956

Hill US 4,210,871 Jul. 1, 1980

Andersson US 6,339,399 B1 Jan. 15, 2002
(filed Jun. 26, 2000)
2

Appeal 2009-0073
Application 10/415,375

Nilsson US 6,848,065 B1 Jan. 25, 2005
(filed Jun. 21, 2000)

Seto US 7,043,271 B1 May 9, 2006
(filed Sep. 12, 2000)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Andersson in view of Hill, and Seto. The
Examiner’s rejection is on pages 3 through 5 (discussion of claim 1), and 6
through 8 (discussion of claim 5) of the Answer.2
The Examiner has rejected claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Andersson in view of Hill, Seto, and
Donath. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 5 and 6 (discussion of claims
2 and 3), and 9 (discussion of claims 6 and 7) of the Answer.
The Examiner has rejected claims 4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Andersson in view of Hill, Seto, Donath and
Nilsson. The Examiner’s rejection is on page 6 (discussion of claim 4) and
pages 9 and 10 (discussion of claim 8) of the Answer.

2 Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Answer, mailed
December 6, 2007, for the respective details thereof.

3

Appeal 2009-0073
Application 10/415,375

ISSUES
Appellant argues on pages 12 through 16 of the Brief3 that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error.
Appellant asserts that Seto does not teach correcting the receiving pattern
using phase differences between and amplitude ratios of the calibration
signals which have passed through radio receiving portions and the
calibration signal having passed through a reference branch. Appellant
asserts that Seto is “directed to correcting the transmission of signals by
using amplitude ratio detector that detects the amplitude deviation of the
output signal of any two branch signals of the transmitted signals.” Br.
15. Further, Appellant argues that the amplitude ratio detector of Seto does
not produce an amplitude ratio of the calibration signals that have passed
through the radio receiving portion as claimed. Additionally, Appellant
argues on page 16 of the Brief, that Seto does not teach selecting a reference
branch as the branch having the best receiving quality from the calibration
signals having passed through the receiving portions.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions present us with the following issues.
Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding that the combined
teachings of the prior art teach:
a) correcting the receiving-orientated pattern by using the phase
differences and amplitude ratios between calibration signals that have passed
through radio receiving portions and a calibration signal received through a
reference branch as claimed; and

3 Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Brief, received
February 9, 2007, and Reply Brief received September 17, 2007 for the
respective details thereof.
4

Appeal 2009-0073
Application 10/415,375

b) selecting a reference branch as the branch with the best receiving
quality as claimed.
With respect to the rejection of independent claim 5, on pages 17
through 22 of the Brief, Appellant discusses claim 5 and presents the same
arguments as discussed with respect to claim 1. Further, with respect to the
rejection of dependent claims 2 through 4 and 6 through 8, Appellant states,
on pages 16, 17, and 22 of the Brief, that he relies upon the patentability of
the independent claims to show the rejections of these claims are in error.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions with respect to the rejection of claims 2
through 8 present us with the same issue as claim 1.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW

On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “the
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he combination
of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious
when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 1739.
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. . . . [A] court
must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.
5

Appeal 2009-0073
Application 10/415,375

Id. at 1740. “One of the ways in which a patent’s subject matter can be
proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of the invention a
known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the
patent’s claims.” Id. at 1742.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Andersson teaches an antenna array calibration system which injects a
calibration signal into the receiving portions of the antenna. A
calibration controller then collects the calibration signal after it has
passed the receiving section and uses the collected signal to generate
correction factors for the receiver. Abstract.
2. Andersson teaches that the correction factors can be generated by
choosing one of the receiving antennas as a reference and generating
the correction factors relative to the one antenna. These correction
factors include phase and amplitude. Col. 7, ll. 32-39.
3. Hill teaches a diversity combiner system which combines the signals
from a plurality of antenna and receivers. Col. 1, ll. 6-33.
4. Hill’s combiner makes use of optimization coefficients to maximize
the output signal to noise ratio. In weighting the coefficients, a signal
from one antenna/receiver is selected to be used as a reference. Col.
3, ll.-20-25, 40-45.
5. Hill teaches that the reference signal is selected as the signal which
has the greatest signal to noise ratio. Col. 6, ll. 60-67.
6

Appeal 2009-0073
Application 10/415,375

6. Seto teaches a radio communications system which includes a base
station and a control station. The base station includes an array of
antenna elements. The signals received from the array of antennas are
multiplexed together in the base station and converted to optical
signals. The optical signals are transmitted to the base station which
de-multiplexes the signals. Abstract.
7. Seto teaches several embodiments for the base station and control
station pair. The eighth embodiment is shown in figures 34 through
39. In this embodiment the base station can function as a transmitter
and a receiver. In the receiver configuration, the base station makes
use of a pilot signal inserter for inserting a feedback signal into the
signal sent to the base station. The signals from the antenna and the
transmitted signals are combined together to provide the pilot signals.
Col. 37, ll. 4-34, col. 38, ll. 47-52.
8. The control station in Seto receives the optical signal from the base
station, converts it to an electrical signal and de-multiplexes the
signals. The de-multiplexed signals then are input to a frequency
converter. The output from the frequency converter is provided to a
feedback signal detector and is also used to synthesize the output of
the control station. Col. 37, ll. 45-65.
9. The feedback signal detector is used to provide data to the calibration
coefficient circuit. Coefficients calculated by this circuit are used for
both reception and transmission. Seto, col. 37, ll. 57-60, col. 39, ll.
35-41.
7

Appeal 2009-0073
Application 10/415,375

10. The feedback signal detector makes use of a phase difference detector
and an amplitude ratio detector. The inputs to both of these circuits
are from the frequency converter (items 203, fig 34) for different
branches and they produce values representative of phase and
amplitude ratio based upon the signals they receive (i.e. they provide
phase and amplitude ratio data for the de-multiplexed and frequency
converted signal from the base station). Seto, col. 40, ll. 4-27. Fig. 36.
11. One of the input signals to the phase and amplitude ratio detector is
used as a reference for calculations of the comparisons. Seto, col. 39,
ll. 25-27.
ANALYSIS
Issue a)
Appellant’s arguments directed to the first issue have not persuaded us
that the Examiner erred in finding that the combined teachings of the prior
art teach correcting the receiving-oriented pattern as claimed. Claim 1
recites “correcting the receiving-oriented pattern by using phase differences
between and amplitude ratios of the calibration signals having passed
through respective radio receiving portions and the calibration signal having
passed through the reference branch.” Thus, the scope of claim 1 includes
that the receiving-oriented pattern is corrected using a) phase differences
between the calibration signals that have passed through the respective radio
receiving portions and the calibration signal which passed through the
reference branch and b) amplitude ratios between the same signals.
The Examiner’s rejection relies upon Andersson for teaching
correcting the receiving-oriented pattern using the phase differences between
calibration signals that have passed through the radio receiving portions.
8

Appeal 2009-0073
Application 10/415,375

Ans. 4. Appellant has not contested this finding by the Examiner and we
find that the disclosure of Andersson supports this finding in Fact 2.
The Examiner relies upon Seto to teach correcting based upon
amplitude ratios, Ans. 4. Appellant’s arguments assert that the correction
coefficients of Seto are not based upon signals that have passed through
radio receiving portions. Br. 15. The Examiner on pages 10 through 12 of
the Answer finds that the pilot signal meets the claimed calibration signal
and that it has passed through radio receiving portions (consisting of
elements 5, 201, 9, 12, and 203). Further, the Examiner finds that the
calibration coefficient calculator generates the claimed corrections signals.
Ans. 12. We concur with the Examiner’s findings. Appellant has not
provided an explanation as to why the Examiner’s finding of the signals
traversing items 5, 21, 9, 12, and 203 (of figure 34) does not meet the
claimed radio signals passing through receiving portions of a branch.
Further, we find that the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Seto
teaches the calibration coefficient circuit determines the phase difference
and amplitude ratio between the signals received by the base station (which
as discussed supra are signals that have passed through the radio receiving
portions). Facts 7 and 8. Further, we are not persuaded of error by
Appellant’s argument, on page 15 of the Brief, that Seto is directed to
correcting transmission of signals (i.e. not reception as claimed). We find
that Seto teaches that the correction coefficients are applied to both reception
and transmission. Fact 9. Thus, Appellant’s arguments directed to the first
issue have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection.

9

Appeal 2009-0073
Application 10/415,375

Issue b)
Appellant’s arguments directed to the second issue have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that the combined references
teach selecting a reference branch as the branch with the best received signal
quality as claimed. Claim 1 recites selecting one of the radio receiving
portions as a reference branch and “wherein selecting as the reference
branch comprises determining a radio receiving portion having the best
receiving quality from the calibration signals having passed through the
radio receiving portions and selecting the radio receiving portion with said
best receiving quality.” Thus, the scope of claim 1 includes that of the radio
receiving portions, a branch where the calibration signal (which passed
through the branch) is of the best quality is selected to be the reference
branch.
The Examiner has found that Andersson teaches selecting a reference
branch, that Hill teaches that the branch with the best signal quality should
be selected as the reference branch and that it would have been obvious to
combine Hill’s teaching with Andersson. Ans. 4 and 13. Appellant has not
contested these findings, but, rather, asserts that Seto does not teach this
feature. Br. 16. While Appellant may be correct that Seto does not teach
selecting a reference branch based upon signal quality, the Examiner’s
rejection relies upon Hill to show that this was known and obvious. Thus,
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of the references teaches selecting a reference
branch as claimed.

10

Appeal 2009-0073
Application 10/415,375

As Appellant’s arguments directed to these two issues have not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 we sustain the
rejection of claim 1. Further, as discussed supra, Appellant’s arguments
directed to dependent claims 2 through 4 rely upon the arguments directed to
claim 1. Accordingly, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 2 though 4.
As discussed supra, Appellant’s arguments directed to independent
claim 5 raise the same issues as claim 1. Independent claim 5 is directed to
an apparatus which contains portions that perform functions similar to the
steps discussed with respect to claim 1, i.e. generating correction
information similar to claim 1 and selecting a reference branch. As
discussed with respect to claim 1, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded
us that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of the references
teaches these limitations. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 5 for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. Appellant’s
arguments directed to dependent claims 6 through 8 rely upon the arguments
directed to claim 5. Accordingly, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 6 though 8.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 8 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)(1)(iv).

11

Appeal 2009-0073
Application 10/415,375

AFFIRMED

Eld

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
12