Ex Parte Kent et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 29, 2012

11174252 (B.P.A.I. May. 29, 2012)

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.
11/174,252 06/30/2005 Mark Kent 3875.0490001 9392
26111 7590 05/29/2012
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
KIM, WESLEY LEO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MARK KENT, VINKO ERCEG, URI M LANDAU,
and PIETER G.W. VAN ROOYEN
____________

Appeal 2010-002372
Application 11/174,252
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, ROBERT A. CLARKE, and ANDREW J.
DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002372
Application 11/174,252

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-23. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary claims 1 and 7 follow:
1. A method for handling wireless communication, the method
comprising:
determining a first model of single channel (SC) communication
signals received in a first receive antenna and at least one additional model
of SC communication signals received in at least one additional receive
antenna;
combining said first model and said at least one additional model to
determine a combined signal component and a combined noise component;
determining a plurality of signal strength parameters based on said
combined signal component and said combined noise component; and
adjusting a phase and an amplitude of at least a portion of said
received SC communication signals at each of said at least one additional
receive antennas based on a highest value of said determined plurality of
signal strength parameters.
7. The method of claim 1, comprising determining a plurality of
signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) based on said combined signal component and
said combined noise component.
(App. Br. 25-26.)
The Examiner rejected claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Abu-Dayya, U.S. 5,848,742 (Nov.17, 1998), and
Kiyanagi, U.S. 6,029,056 (Feb. 22, 2000). (Ans. 3.)

Appeal 2010-002372
Application 11/174,252

3
FINDINGS OF FACT
The ‘252 Specification
S1. To show support the “plurality of signal strength parameters”
phrase recited in claims 1 and 11, the Appeal Brief relies on the
Specification which describes using a single SNR (signal to noise ratio)
equation to obtain a maximum SNR as a function of amplitude and phase
values. In other words, the plurality of parameters simply includes multiple
SNR parameters with each single SNR parameter calculated as a function of
a different amplitude and phase value. (See App. Br. 4 (citing Spec. 32:18 to
33:8; 33:1-18; Fig. 6, step 610).) The Specification also discloses a similar
process for a similar SINR (signal to interference plus noise ratio) equation.
(See Spec. ¶ 86.)
S2. The Specification teaches that weight factors can include
amplitude and phase factors and be employed to maximize the SNR or
SINR. (Spec. ¶¶ 74, 76.)
Abu-Dayya
A1. As background, Abu-Dayya teaches that space diversity systems
have been known to enhance reception and reduce the effects of interference
by employing optimal weights with which to modify the received signals to
account for the interference and fading. (Col. 1, ll. 27-36.)
Abu-Dayya’s diversity based receiver system uses optimized
weighted values on signals to “optimize signal to interference pulse noise
ratio.” (Abstract.) For each symbol k to be demodulated, a weight
calculator produces these optimum weights and the system multiplies them
against the signals, employing an iterative process. (See Figs. 1 and 5;
Eq. 3; col. 5, ll. 44-67; col. 9, ll. 38-56.)
Appeal 2010-002372
Application 11/174,252

4
A2. Abu-Dayya’s diversity system “minimize[s] the mean-squared
error (MSE) at the output of the demodulator 18, or equivalently,
maximize[s] the SINR at the output of the CCIC 16.” (Col. 6, ll. 6-9.) The
SINR value, SINR(k), is described at Equation 5 as occurring at multiple
times t=kT. (Col. 5, ll. 50-65.) SINR(k) is a function of weight factors
which the system continually optimizes. (Equation 5: col. 6, ll. 42-46.)
A3. A feedback signal employs a complex symbol associated with a
quantized phase angle determined as part of the demodulation process. The
feedback signal is supplied to an exponential function unit and then to the
weight calculator. (Col. 9, l. 58 to col. 10, l.9; Fig. 5, box 52.)
A4. Abu-Dayya’s system contemplates two or more antennae
providing diversity paths. (Col. 1, ll. 37-40.)
Kiyanagi
K1. Kiyanagi’s diversity based receiver system provides amplitude
and phase control as part of a multi-stage process. The system compares
differences between the input signals and/or monitors the combined input
signals, and decides to either maximize the combined signals using phase
control based on set values, or employ an amplitude deviation phase control
method to minimize differences between the signal levels based on the set
values. The system provides amplitude adjustment and equalization and
eliminates deviations in signal amplitude so as to provide accurate phase
control. (Abstract, col. 4, ll. 44-59; Figs. 12, 16.)
K2. Kiyanagi’s system improves the C/N ratio and code error rate.
(Col. 3, ll. 33-39; col. 4, ll. 37-39; col. 15, ll. 8-10.)
Appeal 2010-002372
Application 11/174,252

5
K3. Kiyanagi teaches changing the phase in incremental steps of for
example, 1.4 degrees, which Kiyanagi notes is equal to 360/2
8
. (Col. 6,
ll. 56-67.)
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite similar limitations. Based on the
arguments presented and except as otherwise noted below, claim 1 is
selected as a representative claim for most of the claims on appeal.
Appellants take the position that SINR(k), where k=0, . . . 7, does not
represent a plurality of signal strength parameters because SINR(k)
“represents the same signal parameter, SINR, at different time intervals.”
(App. Br. 7.) Appellants’ position fails to show error in the Examiner’s
claim interpretation. (See Ans.10.)
Abu-Dayya’s different SINR ratios at different times are similar to the
different SINR ratios calculated at different phase angles and amplitudes
according to the disclosed method in the ‘252 Specification. (S1.) The
Specification describes an algorithm which calculates different SNR (or
SINR) values from a single equation, using different phase and amplitude
values to find a maximum SNR or SINR. (See S1, S2.) Those calculations
“represent the same signal parameter, SINR” (see Appellants’ argument
supra) at different amplitude and phase values (and implicitly at different
times during the algorithm which compares the different SINR results as a
function of such values). As such, based on the disclosed method and
Appellants’ argument, Abu-Dayya’s plurality of separate SINR calculations,
i.e., SINR(k) for k=0, . . . 7, reasonably satisfies the disputed claim
limitation of a “plurality of signal strength parameters.”
Appeal 2010-002372
Application 11/174,252

6
Appellants rely on similar arguments with respect to claims 7, 8, 17,
and 18. (See App. Br. 15-17.) These arguments fail to show error. Claims 7
and 8 also support the just-described interpretation of claim 1, since
determining the plurality of parameters in claims 7 or 8 involves determining
SNR or SINR ratios. With further respect to claims 7 and 8, Appellants do
not base any argued patentability distinctions on a difference between
determining SNR and SINR ratios. Nonetheless, the Examiner explains that
the SNR can be determined from the SINR since noise is involved in both
calculations. (See Ans. 18.) Determining SNR(k) from SINR(k) using Abu-
Dayya’s system would have been obvious since a similar calculation is
involved in both determinations, and the interference (I) may not always be
present or constitute a dominant form of degradation requiring
quantification.
Appellants also argue that Abu-Dayya does not disclose a current
highest value of SINR. (App. Br. 10.) Appellants argue that Abu-Dayya
only “produc[es] a combined signal having an enhanced SINR.” (Id.) These
arguments are not persuasive.
Abu-Dayya’s method uses weighted values “to optimize signal to
interference plus noise ratio” (i.e., SINR). (A1.) After discussing the
“(SINR) at the output of the CCIC 16 at the time t=kT),” (col. 5, l. 60), Abu-
Dayya discloses “maximiz[ing] the SINR at the output of the CCIC 16.”
(A2.). In other words, as the Examiner finds, Abu-Dayya teaches
maximizing the SINR(k) for each k value and adjusting the weights using an
iterative process. (See Ans. 11-13; A1, A2.) Alternatively, claim 1 is broad
enough to read on Abu-Dayya’s method even if the plurality of SINR(k)
Appeal 2010-002372
Application 11/174,252

7
values are only maximized for a subset of the k values, since at least some of
the maximum SINR(k) values are used to calculate optimal weight values.
Appellants also argue that Abu-Dayya only discloses mapping a phase
angle to a quantized angle and does not disclose or suggest adjusting the
phase of the received signals. (App. Br. 9.) To the contrary, as the
Examiner finds, Abu-Dayya discloses both actions, mapping the phase to
quantized values to demodulate the signals and also providing feedback to
the signal path’s weights to provide an optimal SNR or SINR. (Ans. 4; Abu-
Dayya, Fig. 5, box 56 (showing phase angle supplied to weight calculator);
A3.) Appellants fail to address the Examiner’s finding regarding Abu-
Dayya’s disclosed feedback phase signal.
Appellants argue that Kiyanagi’s amplitude deviation method would
not be performed on a highest value of a signal strength parameter as
required by claim 1, and that the Examiner does not provide a reason for
such a modification to Abu-Dayya’s system. (App. Br. 11-12.)
In response, the Examiner relies on Abu-Dayya’s method as a primary
teaching for maximizing the SINR(k) based on phase and relies on the
combined teachings to render obvious the claimed maximization based on
both phase and amplitude. (Ans. 4, 14.) The Examiner reasons that
Kiyanagi teaches that performing amplitude and phase modification would
result in accurate phase control. (Ans. 13-15.) The Examiner also reasons
that Kiyanagi’s method of maximizing the combined signal levels is a form
of amplitude and phase signal adjustment performed on all the received
signals. (Ans. 18 (discussing claims 6 and 16).)
The record supports the Examiner’s position. Both references
ultimately teach improving the signal to noise and/or interference ratio by
Appeal 2010-002372
Application 11/174,252

8
modifying different diversity path signals in some combined form. (See A1,
A2, K1, K2.)
And while the Examiner reasons that “Abu-Dayya does not
expressly teach that an amplitude can be adjusted with the phase” (Ans. 4),
Abu-Dayya does expressly teach multiplying the signals by weight factors
and feeding back phase angle information to the weight calculator. (See
Abu-Dayya’s Fig. 1, Fig. 5; A1-A3.) Abu-Dayya’s disclosure of
multiplying a weight factor by the signal implies or suggests what Kiyanagi
explicitly teaches - modifying the amplitude and the phase of the different
received diversity signals in order to cancel out the effects of interference or
noise; i.e., maximizing the SINR or SNR, and thereby lowering error rates in
the digital signals.
1

The combination of similar diversity system methods for controlling
degradation suggests adjusting the signal amplitudes and phases in Abu-
Dayya to maximize the SINR(k) for each of the plurality of signals to be
demodulated. Persons of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
time varying signals mathematically are modeled according to amplitude,
phase, and frequency. The signals here involve a set frequency range. Thus,
it would have been obvious to modify such signals by adjusting the available
variables - amplitude and phase. The combination of prior art techniques
involving a limited set of variables (amplitude and phase) would have
predictably resulted in enhanced SNR or SINRs based on varying this
limited set of variables – variables known to effect the SNR and SINR

1
In similar fashion, the ‘252 Specification explains that the disclosed
method may include weights which involve amplitude and phase
information. (See S2.)
Appeal 2010-002372
Application 11/174,252

9
according to the prior art of record. The combination also would have
provided better phase information as the Examiner finds Kiyanagi teaches
(Ans. 15) - information required to demodulate (quantize) the signals in
Abu-Dayya’s system. (See A3.)
Claims 6 and 16, briefly discussed supra, call for an additional signal
model to comprise amplitude and phase factors. These claims seem to recite
what is already recited in claim 1, at least implicitly. In any event,
Appellants primarily restate the unpersuasive arguments pertaining to claim
1 and point to other claim limitations without clearly outlining purported
deficiencies in the references related to those other limitations. (App. Br.
17-18.) As discussed supra, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings
to render obvious adjusting the amplitude and phase to maximize a plurality
of SINR parameters for each model. (See Ans. 18-19.) Appellants’
responses do not demonstrate error in the rejection of claims 6 and 16.
Claims 9 and 19 call for using incremental phase factor steps. The
Examiner relies on Kiyanagi for its teaching of incrementing phase factors
by 1.4 degree steps, which Kiyanagi notes amounts to 2
8
(i.e., 256)
increments in a 360 degree range. (See K3; Ans. 19 (citing 1.4 degree
increments).) Appellants rely on arguments presented with respect to claim
1 and also argue that Kiyanagi fails to teach determining parameters over
phase factor steps in a 360 degree rotation. (See App. Br. 20-21.) Assuming
that Appellants are arguing that the steps must occur over the full 360 degree
rotation (which is not entirely clear), the Examiner also relies in part on
Figure 12 and step 204 of Kiyanagi. (Ans. 19.) That figure, showing a flow
diagram, reasonably shows or suggests an iterative process whereby phase
angle steps may occur, for some signals, over the full 360 degree range
Appeal 2010-002372
Application 11/174,252

10
depending on decisions about signal amplitude levels made in flow boxes
201 and 203. Appellants’ argument does not show error.
Claims 10 and 20 call for using a plurality of amplitude factors in a
range. Appellants argue that Kiyanagi does not “disclose[]” that limitation.
(App. Br. 21.) The Examiner reasons that Kiyanagi teaches varying
amplitude factors within a finite range where Kiyanagi’s system compares
and maximizes combined signals and minimizes signal differences while
adjusting the phase. Kiyanagi supports the Examiner’s rationale.
In Figure 12, Kiyanagi’s system compares different amplitude levels
to a “set level” in an iterative process involving phase steps and different
amplitude levels. (See also K1.) In flow box 202 of Figure 12, for example,
the minimum amplitude deviation method involves a signal subtraction
which decreases the signal amplitude in resultant signal S3 (and also
involves phase adjustment which minimizes interference). (See Kiyanagi,
col. 2, ll. 32-40; Fig. 23.) Comparisons are made thereafter in an iterative
flow process as described supra with respect to claims 9 and 19. (Kiyanagi,
Fig. 12.) Kiyanagi also uses AGC (automatic gain control) amplifiers and
amplitude equalizers, further suggesting a limit (a range) for the processed
input voltages. (See Fig. 16.) Abu-Dayya’s method involves making
decisions about weight factors which also suggests using amplitude levels
over a range. (See A1.) Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
determining that the combined teachings render obvious claims 10 and 20.
With respect to claim 22, Appellant argues that the combination of
Abu-Dayya and Kiyanagi does teach or suggest “said SWBBG generates a
signal that indicates that the channel weight for each of the additional
receive antennas has been determined.” (App. Br. 13.) It is not clear
Appeal 2010-002372
Application 11/174,252

11
whether Appellants are arguing about the lack of a signal or the lack of
calculated channel weights for each of the additional receive antennas. Abu-
Dayya’s system generates channel weights for antennae receive paths as
discussed supra and generally teaches finding channel weights for each of
multiple antennae of a system. (See A1, A4; Ans. 16.) Of course, the
process impliedly employs some type of a signal to tell the system to stop
calculating the weights –for example, when it reaches the last antenna in the
system. In any event, Appellants fail to explain in a clear manner how the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Abu-Dayya and Kiyanagi
renders claim 22 obvious. (Compare App. Br. 13 with Ans. 5, 15-16.)
The Examiner maps the different structural receiver components
recited in claim 23 onto the combination of Abu-Dayya and Kiyanagi and
provides a reason for combining the known components. (See Ans. 8.)
Appellants rely on patentability arguments advanced with respect to claim 1
and also state that any channel estimation “units are outside of [Abu-
Dayya’s] CCIC 16.” (App. Br. 22.)
In response, the Examiner reasons that rearranging these known
receiver components would have been within the purview of skilled artisans
and obvious for providing a maximum combined signal. (See Ans. 8, 21.)
The Examiner also persuasively responds to Appellants’ delay line
arguments and other arguments. (Ans. 20-21.) Appellants’ remarks are not
persuasive to show that the claimed combination amounts to more than the
predictable rearrangement of prior art receiver components according to
their known functions as arranged in standard diversity control
communications systems.
Appeal 2010-002372
Application 11/174,252

12
Appellants do not present separate patentability arguments for the
remaining claims on appeal. Based on the foregoing discussion, Appellants
have not shown error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-
23.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-23.
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).

AFFIRMED

ak