Ex Parte Moshfeghi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2017

13473160 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2017)

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.
13/473,160 05/16/2012 Mehran Moshfeghi GLBA.P0040 1033
48947 7590 02/
ADELI LLP
11859 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 408
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
EXAMINER
CHAKRABORTY, RAJARSHI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2017 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):
Mail @ adelillp. com
PatentOffice @ adelillp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MEHRAN MOSHFEGHI
Appeal 2016-003676
Application 13/473,160
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 8—14, 16, and 18—28, which are all the claims
pending and rejected in the application. Claims 5,1, 15, and 17 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
communications. See generally Spec. 2. Claim 1 is exemplary:
Appeal 2016-003676
Application 13/473,160
1. A method, comprising:
in a first device that comprises a plurality of distributed
transceivers, each distributed transceiver in the plurality of
distributed transceivers of the first device comprising an
antenna array comprising a plurality of antennas:
identifying conditions of a propagation environment
between the first device and a second deceive, the second
device comprising a set of distributed transceivers, each
distributed transceiver in the set of distributed transceivers of
the second device comprising an antenna array comprising a
plurality of antennas;
based on the conditions of the propagation environment,
configuring (i) the antenna arrays of a first set of distributed
transceivers in the plurality of distributed transceivers of the
first device to generate a first beam pattern to transmit a first
data stream to the second device, (ii) the antenna arrays of a
second set of distributed transceivers in the plurality of
distributed transceivers of the first device to generate a second
beam pattern to transmit a second data stream to the second
device, and (iii) the antenna arrays of the set of distributed
transceivers of the second device to receive said first and
second data streams, the first and second data streams
comprising a same data content and the first beam pattern
different than the second beam pattern to provide a spatial
diversity for said data streams; and
concurrently communicating the first and second data
streams via said first and second sets of distributed transceivers
using a same carrier frequency.
References and Rejection
Claims 1—4, 6, 8—14, 16, and 18—28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wietfeldt (US 2010/0304770 Al,
pub. Dec. 2, 2010) and Chang (US 2007/0116012 Al; pub May 24, 2007).
2
Appeal 2016-003676
Application 13/473,160
ANALYSIS
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our
analysis below.1
Appellant contends Wietfeldt and Chang do not collectively teach
based on the conditions of the propagation environment,
configuring (i) the antenna arrays of a first set of distributed
transceivers in the plurality of distributed transceivers of the
first device to generate a first beam pattern to transmit a first
data stream to the second device, (ii) the antenna arrays of a
second set of distributed transceivers in the plurality of
distributed transceivers of the first device to generate a second
beam pattern to transmit a second data stream to the second
device, and (iii) the antenna arrays of the set of distributed
transceivers of the second device to receive said first and
second data streams, the first and second data streams
comprising a same data content and the first beam pattern
different than the second beam pattern to provide a spatial
diversity for said data streams; and concurrently
communicating the first and second data streams via said first
and second sets of distributed transceivers using a same carrier
frequency,
as recited in claim 1 (emphases added). See App. Br. 7—10; Reply Br. 4—6.
In particular, Appellant asserts:
Wietfeldt, neither in para. Ill nor anywhere else
discloses that spatial-based mitigation involves operating two
antenna arrays to transmit two streams with the same data
content using the same frequency as recited by claim 1.
1 To the extent Appellant advances new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellant has waived such arguments. See 37
C.F.R. §41.41 (b)(2).
3
Appeal 2016-003676
Application 13/473,160
Specifically, Wietfeldt doesn't disclose or suggest a method . . .
where the first and second data streams comprise the same data
and the fsicl use the same carrier frequency. In Wietfeldt, the
disclosed radios operate in different frequency channels (see
Fig. 7 of Wietfeldt where each radio is disclosed to operate on a
different frequency band and/or frequency channel). Also, in
Wietfeldt the disclosed radios each have a different protocol
(e.g. one radio is LTE and another radio is WLAN). See Fig. 7
and para. 64 Wietfeldt.
In addition, the architecture disclosed in Chang does not
deploy multiple transceivers, where each transceiver has an
antenna array within a device. Even though the mobile device
in Chang deploys multiple radios operating in different
standards, these radios are not configured such that the antenna
arrays of first and second sets of distributed transceivers of a
first device transmit first and second data streams to the second
device and the antenna arrays of the set of distributed
transceivers of a second device receives the first and second
data streams.
App. Br. 8—9; see also Reply Br. 4—6.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error.
First, because the Examiner relies on the combination of Wietfeldt
and Chang to teach the disputed claim limitations, Appellant cannot
establish nonobviousness by attacking Chang individually. See In re Merck
& Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner finds—and
Appellant does not offer substantive arguments to dispute—Wietfeldt
teaches the following claim limitations:
based on the conditions of the propagation environment,
configuring (i) the antenna arrays of a first set of distributed
transceivers in the plurality of distributed transceivers of the
first device to generate a first beam pattern to transmit a first
data stream to the second device, (ii) the antenna arrays of a
second set of distributed transceivers in the plurality of
distributed transceivers of the first device to generate a second
4
Appeal 2016-003676
Application 13/473,160
beam pattern to transmit a second data stream to the second
device, and (iii) the antenna arrays of the set of distributed
transceivers of the second device to receive said first and
second data streams,. . . and the first beam pattern different
than the second beam pattern to provide a spatial diversity for
said data streams; and . . . communicating the first and second
data streams via said first and second sets of distributed
transceivers.
See Final Act. 6—7; Ans. 3^4.
Further, the Examiner correctly finds Wietfeldt teaches
“communicating the first and second data streams . . . using a same carrier
frequency” (emphasis added), because under Wietfeldt’s TDMA protocol,
data streams are communicated using a same carrier frequency’s different
time slots. See Ans. 3 (citing Wietfeldt || 5, 28). Appellant ignores that
specific finding and the associated Wietfeldt paragraphs cited by the
Examiner, and insists Wietfeldt’s Figure 7—not cited by the Examiner—
does not teach “using a same carrier frequency.” See App. Br. 8; Reply Br.
4.
In addition, Appellant has not explained how the argument that “in
Wietfeldt the disclosed radios each have a different protocol (e.g. one radio
is LTE and another radio is WLAN).... Fig. 7 and para. 64 Wietfeldt”
(App. Br. 8—9) renders the Examiner’s mapping incorrect. In any event, that
argument contradicts the record, because Wietfeldt’s Figure 7 shows
multiple radios using the LTE protocol. See Wietfeldt, Fig. 7.
Second, Appellant acknowledges Chang teaches “the first and second
data streams comprising a same data content. . . and concurrently
communicating the first and second data streams,” because “Chang[]
discloses a macro diversity schema where the same IP packet is transmitted
concurrently.” Reply Br. 6. Therefore, Chang teaches “the first and second
5
Appeal 2016-003676
Application 13/473,160
data streams comprising a same data content. . . and concurrently
communicating the first and second data streams, ” as recited in claim 1
(emphases added).
Because in the Appeal Brief, Appellant does not contend it is
improper to modify Wietfeldt’s method to incorporate Chang’s teachings,
the Examiner determines Wietfeldt and Chang collectively teach
based on the conditions of the propagation environment,
configuring (i) the antenna arrays of a first set of distributed
transceivers in the plurality of distributed transceivers of the
first device to generate a first beam pattern to transmit a first
data stream to the second device, (ii) the antenna arrays of a
second set of distributed transceivers in the plurality of
distributed transceivers of the first device to generate a second
beam pattern to transmit a second data stream to the second
device, and (iii) the antenna arrays of the set of distributed
transceivers of the second device to receive said first and
second data streams, the first and second data streams
comprising a same data content and the first beam pattern
different than the second beam pattern to provide a spatial
diversity for said data streams; and concurrently
communicating the first and second data streams via said first
and second sets of distributed transceivers using a same carrier
frequency,
as recited in claim 1 (emphases added).
Appellant’s assertion that in Chang, “these radios are not configured
such that the antenna arrays of first and second sets of distributed
transceivers of a first device transmit first and second data streams to the
second device and the antenna arrays of the set of distributed transceivers of
a second device receives the first and second data streams” (App. Br. 9) and
“[t]he system of Chang does not disclose such capability or mode of
operation between the disclosed radios. In fact there is no enablement that
standard LTE and WLAN radios disclosed in Chang can support such a
6
Appeal 2016-003676
Application 13/473,160
capability or mode of operation” (App. Br. 10) is not directed to the
combination proposed by the Examiner, as the Examiner modifies
Wietfeldf s method to incorporate Chang’s teachings.
In the Reply Brief and for the first time, Appellant belatedly argues
the Examiner has not provided a proper rationale for combining the
teachings of Wietfeldt and Chang. See Reply Br. 5—6. However, the
Examiner has provided a rationale for combining the teachings of Wietfeldt
and Chang in the final rejection (Final Act. 8), and reiterates the same
rationale in the Answer (Ans. 4). Therefore, Appellant has waived such
arguments because they are untimely, and Appellant has not demonstrated
any “good cause” for the belated presentation. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2)
(2012).
Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claim 11 for similar reasons.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2-4, 6, 9, 10, 12—14, 16, and 19—28, as Appellant does not advance
separate substantive arguments for those claims.
Separately Argued Dependent Claims
Regarding dependent claims 8 and 18, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s contentions and the evidence of
record. We concur with Appellant’s contention that the Examiner erred in
finding Wietfeldt teaches “configuring, based on location of one or more
reflectors, beamforming settings and antenna arrangement for the antenna
arrays of one or more of said first and second sets of distributed
7
Appeal 2016-003676
Application 13/473,160
transceivers,” as recited in claim 8 and 18 (emphasis added). See App. Br.
11; Reply Br. 6—7.
Initially, the Examiner does not map the italicized claim limitation.
See Final Act. 11. In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner
finds:
The term “reflector” is extremely broad and can be any radio
transceiver, antenna, relay device or any other network element
in a communication system[2] . . . Wietfeldt et al. teaches a
coexistence management method wherein a central processor
configures switchplexers, antennas and management systems to
achieve beamforming, steering, selection diversity etc.
(paragraphs 38, 39, 124, 125 and 126). That is, beamforming is
based on selection diversity of available antennas and the radio
transceivers.
Ans. 4.
It is well established that during examination claims are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and
should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art, but without importing limitations from the
specification. See In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004); SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870,
875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, the Specification does not specifically
define the term reflectors. See, e.g., Spec. 35—37.
The Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed “reflectors” is
inconsistent with the Specification, which uses different terms for reflectors,
2 Regardless of whether the claimed reflectors can be “relay device or any
other network element in a communication system” (Ans. 4), the Examiner
does not show under such interpretation, Wietfeldt teaches the disputed
claim limitation.
8
Appeal 2016-003676
Application 13/473,160
antennas, and transceivers. See, e.g., Spec. Tflf 24, 35—37, 51, 62 (using
different terms for reflectors, antennas, and transceivers). Further, claims 8
and 18 expressly recite reflectors, antennas, and transceivers as different
terms. As a result, the Examiner’s finding that “[Wietfeldf s] beamforming
is based on selection diversity of available antennas and the radio
transceivers” (Ans. 4) is insufficient for showing Wietfeldt teaches
“configuring, based on location of one or more reflectors, beamforming
settings and antenna arrangement for the antenna arrays of one or more of
said first and second sets of distributed transceivers,” as required by claim 8
and 18 (emphasis added).
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 18.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6, 9—14, 16,
and 19-28.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8 and 18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9