Ex Parte Ylitalo

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 28, 2010

10209195 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 28, 2010)

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.
10/209,195 08/01/2002 Juha Ylitalo 846A.0018.U1 (US) 4700
29683 7590 09/29/2010
HARRINGTON & SMITH
4 RESEARCH DRIVE, Suite 202
SHELTON, CT 06484-6212
EXAMINER
VUONG, QUOCHIEN B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2010 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 JUHA YLITALO
____________

Appeal 2009-005464
Application 10/209,195
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304 or for filing a request for rehearing as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-005464
Application 10/209,195

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-5, 7, 9-15, 17, 19-25, 27, and 29-52. Claims 6, 8, 16, 18, 26, and
28 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
changing the radiation pattern of an antenna array comprising shaping the
radiation pattern of a transmitting antenna array on the basis of the directions
of arrival of the received signal by selecting a window function which
provides the desired radiation pattern of the antenna array and by
implementing the form of the window function by means of antenna element
specific coefficients. (Spec. ¶ [0008]).
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal and reads as follows:
1. A method of improving operation of a radio link, the
method comprising using an antenna beam directed by an antenna
array to establish a radio link, determining the directions of arrival of
a received signal, shaping the radiation pattern of a transmitting
antenna array on the basis of the directions of arrival of the received
signal by selecting a window function which provides the desired
radiation pattern of the transmitting antenna array and by
implementing the form of the window function by antenna element
specific coefficients, wherein the level of side beams in the
transmitting antenna array is determined according to the load in other
antenna sectors of the same system and according to the interference
level in other radio systems.

Claims 1-5, 7, 9-15, 17, 19-25, 27, 29-42, 44, 45, 47, 48, and 50-52
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Turcotte
(U.S. Patent No. 5,856,804, issued Jan. 5, 1999).
Appeal 2009-005464
Application 10/209,195

3
Claims 43, 46, and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Turcotte and Forssen (U.S. Patent No. 5,848,358,
issued Dec. 8, 1998).
We make reference to the Briefs (Appeal Brief filed November 13,
2006, and Reply Brief filed February 5, 2007) and the Answer (mailed
January 24, 2007) for Appellant’s and the Examiner’s arguments.

ISSUE
Appellant contends that:
Turcotte fails to teach or suggest shaping the radiation pattern
of a transmitting antenna array on the basis of the directions of
arrival of the received signal by selecting a window function
which provides the desired radiation pattern of the transmitting
antenna array and by implementing the form of the window
function by antenna element specific coefficients. In fact,
Turcotte is completely silent about shaping the radiation pattern
of the transmitter’s transmitting antenna array on the basis of
the location information on the receiver by defining a number
of antenna element specific coefficients which provide the
desired width of the main beam as zeros.
(App. Br. 7).
Appellant further argues that the proposed rejection is improper
because: “Turcotte fails to disclose, teach or suggest that the level of side
beams in the transmitting antenna array is determined according to the load
in the other antenna sectors of the same system and according to the
interference level in other radio systems” (id.).
Therefore, the issue specifically turns on whether the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Turcotte by showing that the reference
discloses (1) selecting a window function which provides the desired
radiation pattern of the transmitting antenna array and by implementing the
Appeal 2009-005464
Application 10/209,195

4
form of the window function by antenna element specific coefficients; and
(2) the level of side beams in the transmitting antenna array is determined
according to the load in the other antenna sectors of the same system and
according to the interference level in other radio systems.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FF) are relevant to the issue involved
in the appeal.
1. Turcotte, in column 4, lines 6-15, discloses:
In the present invention a digital beam former is used to
dynamically control the amplitude and phase of each of the
radiating elements to form multiple antenna beams.
Characteristics of the beams such as pointing direction of the
main beam, pointing direction of any of the other beams, the
bandwidth, location of nulls, corrections for aperture
irregularities and other characteristics of the beams are all
controlled through the use [of] dynamic adjustment of the beam
coefficients. Such flexibility is not possible in analog phased
array implementations.
2. Turcotte, in column 8, lines 34-61, discloses:
FIG. 3 illustrates a geostationary satellite with a digital
beam former in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the
present invention sharing spectrum with a non-geostationary
satellite. . . .
. . . Accordingly, any interference from the NGSO
ground terminal 68 is significantly reduced. Preferably another
null in the antenna pattern of GSO satellite 62 is directed
toward and tracks NGSO satellite 60. To accomplish this, DBF
receive and/or transmit coefficients are continually adjusted to
maintain a null in the direction of the NGSO satellite 60 as the
NGSO satellite 60 moves. Accordingly, these nulls are
dynamically controlled.
3. Turcotte, in column 10, lines 47-59, discloses:
Appeal 2009-005464
Application 10/209,195

5
In another embodiment, antenna beams are shaped in
responsive [sic] to demand for communication services.
Antenna beams 74 are modified and shaped, for example, to
approximate the contour of a geographic region having high
demand for communication services next to an area having
virtually no demand for communication services, e.g., the
ocean. Accordingly, communication capacity may be
concentrated where it is needed. In the preferred embodiment,
antenna beam[s] 70 are dynamically configured in real time in
response to demand for communication services. However, in
other embodiments of the present invention, antenna beams are
provided based on historic and measured demand for
communication services.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A rejection for anticipation requires that the four corners of a single
prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either
expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
practice the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

ANALYSIS
We disagree with the Examiner’s position (Ans. 3) that Turcotte, in
column 8, lines 34-61, teaches determining the level of side beams according
to the load and the interference level. In fact, as stated by Appellant (App.
Br. 7), Turcotte merely discloses that nulls of the antenna beam patterns are
directed toward any interfering signal source (FF 2). As asserted by
Appellant (Reply Br. 2), the relied on portion in column 10, line 47-59, of
Turcotte merely discusses shaping the antenna beams in response to demand
Appeal 2009-005464
Application 10/209,195

6
for communications services without mentioning anything about
determining the level of side beams in the transmitting antenna array (FF 3).
We also disagree with the Examiner stating (Ans. 3) that column 4,
lines 6-15, of Turcotte discloses selecting a window function to provide the
desired pattern by implementing the form of the window function by antenna
element specific coefficients. The cited portion of Turcotte states that a
digital beam former is used to dynamically control the amplitude and phase
of each of the radiating elements to form multiple antenna beams, where
characteristics of the beams are all controlled through the use dynamic
adjustment of the beam coefficients (FF 1). We find ourselves convinced by
Appellant’s assertion (App. Br. 8) that Turcotte does not explain how the
beam coefficients are controlled. The Examiner’s response to this assertion
is limited to characterizing this claim limitation in terms of nulls (Ans. 13)
and a conclusory statement regarding Turcotte’s implementing a window
using antenna specific coefficients (Ans. 14). Therefore, as pointed out by
Appellant (Reply Br. 1-2), nothing in Turcotte indicates selecting a window
function in the process of digital beam forming.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, we find
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Turcotte by
showing that the reference discloses (1) selecting a window function which
provides the desired radiation pattern of the transmitting antenna array and
by implementing the form of the window function by antenna element
specific coefficients; and (2) the level of side beams in the transmitting
antenna array is determined according to the load in the other antenna
Appeal 2009-005464
Application 10/209,195

7
sectors of the same system and according to the interference level in other
radio systems.
Therefore, since the other independent claims include limitations
similar to those of claim 1, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection
of independent claims 1, 11, 21, 31, 35, and 39, nor of claims 2-5, 7, 9, 10,
12-15, 17, 19, 20, 22-25, 27, 29, 30, 32-34, 36-38, 40-42, 44, 45, 47, 48, and
50-52 dependent thereon. Likewise, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 43, 46, and 49 over Turcotte and Forssen since the
Examiner has not identified any teaching in Forssen to overcome the
deficiency of Turcotte discussed above.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 9-15, 17, 19-25,
27, and 29-52 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc

HARRINGTON & SMITH
4 RESEARCH DRIVE, Suite 202
SHELTON, CT 06484-6212