Ex Parte Pallonen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 16, 2013

10446144 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2013)

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.
10/446,144 05/28/2003 Jorma Pallonen 088245-0150 8787
23524 7590 04/17/2013
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
3000 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109
EXAMINER
IQBAL, KHAWAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/17/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte JORMA PALLONEN and HANS-OTTO SCHECK
________________

Appeal 2010-009979
Application 10/446,144
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-4, 6-13, 19-22, 24, and 26-45. Claims 5, 14-18, 23, and
25 are canceled. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed January 5, 2010; the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans.) mailed April 14, 2010; and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed
June 3, 2010.
Appeal 2010-009979
Application 10/446,144

2
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 19-22, 24, and 26-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Judd (US 6,701,137 B1; issued Mar. 2, 2004; filed
Mar. 31, 2000), Hiramatsu (US 2005/0148369 A1; published July 7, 2005;
filed Feb. 10, 2005; continuation of Application No. 10/181,976, filed July
24, 2002, now U.S. Patent No. 6,876,870), and Legnain (US 2004/0092291
A1; published May 13, 2004; filed Nov. 3, 2003; continuation-in-part of
Application No. 09/733,059, filed Dec. 11, 2000; non-provisional of
Provisional Application No. 60/423,084, filed Nov. 1, 2002). Ans. 3-13.2
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to an antenna arrangement in a base
transceiver station of a telecommunication system. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. An antenna arrangement comprising:
an active antenna configured to perform conversion between a low-
frequency digital signal and a radio frequency electromagnetic field, the
active antenna comprising
an antenna element configured to perform conversion between a
radio frequency signal and the radio frequency electromagnetic field, and
a transceiver coupled to and integrated at least partially with the
antenna element and configured to perform conversion between the low-
frequency digital signal and the radio frequency signal, the transceiver
comprising an up-converter, a first local oscillator to control the frequency
of the up-converter, a down-converter, a second local oscillator to control
the frequency of the down-converter, and a signal processing unit configured
to process the low frequency digital signal, and

2 The Answer lists the rejected claims as 1-13, 19-22, 24, and 26-45. Ans. 3.
Claim 5 is canceled. App. Br. 3. We omit claim 5 from our list of the
rejected claims.
Appeal 2010-009979
Application 10/446,144

3
a control unit connected to the transceiver and configured to receive
feedback information from the transceiver and to control the active antenna
according to the feedback information, wherein the feedback information is
measured as electric signals from a transmit branch or a receive branch of
the transceiver, the control unit further configured to transmit control
information to the active antenna,
wherein the antenna arrangement is configured in a base transceiver
station of a cellular telecommunication system.

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 1, that
the combination of Judd, Hiramatsu, and Legnain teaches the recited
elements. Ans. 3-6. The Examiner relies on Hiramatsu’s feedback
information selection section 106 (Fig. 1) for teaching the recited control
unit. Ans. 5 (citing Hiramatsu, ¶¶ 33-34, 51-56; Figs. 1, 6). See also Ans. 13-
15 (citing Hiramatsu, ¶¶ 33, 35).
Appellants argue Hiramatsu does not teach a control unit connected to
the transceiver and configured to receive feedback information from the
transceiver and to control the active antenna according to the feedback
information, wherein the feedback information is measured as electric
signals from a transmit branch or a receive branch of the transceiver. App.
Br. 10-11. Appellants further argue Hiramatsu’s terminal apparatus
generates feedback information that is sent to Hiramatsu’s base station, and
Hiramatsu’s base station receives and processes a signal to extract the
feedback information. App. Br. 11-13. Appellants further argue Hiramatsu’s
base station merely obtains a signal and outputs the feedback information to
the feedback information selection section 106, and does not teach feedback
Appeal 2010-009979
Application 10/446,144

4
information is measured as electric signals as recited in claim 1. App. Br.
13. See also Reply Br. 8-14.
Hiramatsu illustrates a control unit (feedback information selection
section 106, Fig. 1) connected to a transceiver (all of Fig. 1). Hiramatsu
describes (¶ 33) feedback information selection section 106 receiving
feedback information (phase difference information or phase
difference/amplitude information) for transmission diversity from the
received signal line. Hiramatsu further describes (¶ 35), in feedback
information selection section 106, a weight for transmission diversity is
calculated based on the selected feedback information, and the transmission
diversity weight is output to diversity multiplication sections 112a and 112b.
Thus, Hiramatsu describes a control unit connected to the transceiver and
configured to receive feedback information from the transceiver and to
control the active antenna according to the feedback information.
Accordingly, this appeal hinges on one question: does Hiramatsu
teach “the feedback information is measured as electric signals from a
transmit branch or a receive branch of the transceiver”? The answer to this
question is driven by the answer to another question: what is the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “measure”?
Regarding Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 8-14)
that Hiramatsu does not teach feedback information is measured as electric
signals as recited in claim 1, we see no error in the Examiner’s findings.
Appellants’ Specification (¶ 72) describes
In certain implementations of the invention, the control
unit 332 [(Figure 3)] is configured to collect feedback
information 336, 338 from the transceiver 302 and perform
control tasks accordingly. The feedback information may 336,
Appeal 2010-009979
Application 10/446,144

5
338 be obtained by measuring electric signals from the transmit
branch and/or receive branch of the transceiver 302. The control
tasks requiring feedback information include, for example,
digital pre-distortion and phase adjustment.
Although this discussion informs our construction of “measure,” it is not
limiting. Notably, Appellants do not define the term “measure” in the
Specification, but rather describe it in connection with preferred
embodiments.
A broad, but reasonable, construction of the term “measure” that is
not inconsistent with the Specification is its plain meaning wherein
“measure” is defined, in pertinent sense, as “4: to ascertain the
measurements of.”3 We note that the claim does not recite what information
comprises the feedback information or where that information originates,
merely that the information is “receive[d] . . . [by the control unit] from the
transceiver” and is “measured as electric signals from a transmit branch or a
receive branch of the transceiver.”
With this construction, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on
Hiramatsu’s feedback information selection section 106 for teaching the
feedback information is measured as electric signals from a transmit branch
or a receive branch of the transceiver as recited in claim 1.
Hiramatsu’s (¶ 33) feedback information selection section 106, by
receiving phase difference information or phase difference/amplitude
information from the received signal line, ascertains the measurements of the
feedback information as electric signals from a receive branch of the
transceiver.

3 MERRIAM WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 720 (10th ed. 1997).
Appeal 2010-009979
Application 10/446,144

6
We further note that in order to calculate (Hiramatsu, ¶ 35), in
feedback information selection section 106, a weight for transmission
diversity based on the selected feedback information, and output the
transmission diversity weight to diversity multiplication sections 112a and
112b, the selected feedback information must first be ascertained (i.e.,
measurements of the feedback information must be ascertained) by feedback
information selection section 106.
Weighing Appellants’ arguments against the Examiner’s findings, we
conclude Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection based on Judd, Hiramatsu, and Legnain of claim 1. We, therefore,
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2-4, 6-13, 19-
22, 24, and 26-45, which are not argued separately.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6-13, 19-22, 24, and
26-45 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).

AFFIRMED

babc