Maxlinear, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 17, 2020

2019005207 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2020)

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.
15/238,862 08/17/2016 Timothy Gallagher M3921.10017US02 7068
164869 7590 07/17/2020
MB - MAXLINEAR, INC.
1389 Center Drive, Suite 300
Park City, UT 84098
EXAMINER
ALKASSIM JR, AB SALAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2845
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/17/2020 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):
d@mabr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY GALLAGHER and CURTIS LING
Appeal 2019-005207
Application 15/238,862
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7. Appeal Br. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents:
Specification filed August 17, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed
January 7, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed April 22, 2019 (“Appeal
Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed June 11, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief
filed June 25, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Maxlinear, Inc.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005207
Application 15/238,862

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant states the invention relates to systems and methods for
interleaved multi-band antenna arrays. Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter with emphasis added to
highlight key disputed claim limitations (Appeal Br. 10, Claims Appendix):
1. An array based communications system comprising:
a first plurality of element processors, each element
processor of the first plurality of element processors being
operable to communicate in a first communication band,
each element processor of the first plurality of element
processors being operably coupled to an antenna element
in a first antenna array, wherein the first antenna array
comprises one or more antenna elements having a first
efficiency and one or more antenna elements having a
second efficiency, and wherein the one or more antenna
elements having the first efficiency are more efficient than
the one or more antenna elements having the second
efficiency, and wherein the one or more antenna elements
having the first efficiency are located closer to a center of
the first antenna array than the one or more antenna
elements having the second efficiency; and
a second plurality of element processors, each element
processor of the second plurality of element processors
being operable to communicate in a second
communication band, each element processor of the
second plurality of element processors being operably
coupled to an antenna element in a second antenna array,
one or more antenna elements of the second antenna array
being positioned between antenna elements of the first
antenna array.

Appeal 2019-005207
Application 15/238,862

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Smith et al.
hereinafter “Smith”
US 6,175,333 B1 January 16, 2001
Sreenivas et al.
hereinafter
“Sreenivas”
US 6,795,020 B2 September 21, 2004
Caille et al.
hereinafter “Caille”
US 2009/0303125 A1 December 10, 2009
Romney et al.
hereinafter
“Romney”
US 2014/0203995 A1 July 24, 2014
Oppenlaender et al.
hereinafter
“Oppenlaender”
US 2015/0188236 A1 July 2, 2015
Minami et al.
hereinafter “Minami”
US 2017/0149147 A1 May 25, 2017
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sreenivas and Caille. Final Act. 2–4.
2. The Examiner rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sreenivas, Caille, and Romney. Final Act. 4–5.
3. The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sreenivas, Caille, and Oppenlaender. Final Act.
5.
Appeal 2019-005207
Application 15/238,862

4
4. The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sreenivas, Caille, and Minami. Final Act. 6–7.
5. The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sreenivas and Caille. Final Act. 7–8.
6. The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sreenivas, Caille, and Smith. Final Act. 8–9.

OPINION
We limit our discussion to claim 1, which is sufficient to dispose of
the issues in this appeal.

Rejection 1
The Examiner’s Rejection
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious over Sreenivas and Caille, the
Examiner found, inter alia, that Sreenivas discloses an array based
communication system having the limitations recited in claim 1 with the
exception of a first antenna array that includes one or more antenna elements
having a first efficiency and one or more antenna elements having a second
efficiency, wherein the one or more antenna elements having a first
efficiency are more efficient than the one or more antenna elements having a
second efficiency. Final Act. 2–3.
The Examiner found Caille discloses an antenna array with one or
more antenna elements having a first efficiency and one or more antenna
elements having a second efficiency, where the antenna elements having a
first efficiency are more efficient than the antenna elements having a second
efficiency. Id. at 3, citing Caille ¶ 5. In the Answer, the Examiner explained
Appeal 2019-005207
Application 15/238,862

5
that although Callie discloses efficiency of amplifiers of the element
processors, rather than of the antenna elements themselves, “this does not
exclude the antenna elements from having different efficiencies.” Ans. 3.
The Examiner explained further that Caille discloses the technique of
“apodization” where more energy is placed at the center of an array than at
the periphery of the array in order to reduce unwanted “sidelobes,” which
may pick up unwanted signals and other interferences that determine an
antenna’s performance. Id. In this regard, the Examiner stated:
Placing more energy at the center of an array would cause
the one or more antenna elements placed at the center to have a
first efficiency, and consequently placing less energy at the
periphery of an array would cause the one or more antenna
elements at the periphery to have a second efficiency which is
less efficient since these one or more antenna elements at the
periphery would not be fed with the proper power and causes
them to have a weaker gain and be less efficient than the one or
more antenna elements at the center which are fed more power
and have a higher gain.
Id. at 3–4.
The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to have
incorporated the antenna element efficiency relationship disclosed in Caille
into the arrays of Sreenivas in order to taper the amplitude so that antenna
elements towards the edges have less power to obtain weak sidelobes, and to
tune the array based communication system to have desired characteristics
such as a strong main lobe with weak side lobes. Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 4.

Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant argues the Examiner has misinterpreted Caille and Caille
does not disclose the efficiency of antenna elements. Appeal Br. 7–8; Reply
Appeal 2019-005207
Application 15/238,862

6
Br. 6. Appellant argues the Examiner has improperly equated power or
energy to efficiency. Reply Br. 5.

Issue
The dispositive issue with respect to this rejection is:
Did the Examiner provide a sufficient basis to support the position
that antenna arrays with antenna elements having different efficiency
arrangements as recited in claim 1 would have been obvious over Sreenivas
and Caille?

Discussion
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has not
provided sufficient support that antenna elements with the efficiency
arrangement recited in claim 1 would have been obvious over Sreenivas and
Caille. As discussed above, the Examiner appears to apply two rationales as
to why the antenna element efficiency arrangement would have been
obvious. The first is that Callie’s disclosure of amplifiers having different
efficiencies at different power levels means that antenna elements also have
different efficiencies at antenna levels. The second is that power directly
correlates to efficiency such that antenna elements subjected to higher power
are inherently more efficient than antenna elements subject to lower power.
As to the first rationale, as discussed above, the Examiner stated that
“[e]ven if Callie [sic, Caille] does discuss the efficiency of the amplifiers of
the element processors, this does not exclude the antenna elements from
having different efficiencies.” Ans. 3. However, Caille discloses that
amplifiers in the active chains of array antennas have low energy efficiency
Appeal 2019-005207
Application 15/238,862

7
that becomes worse when the amplifiers are not used at their optimal power
level. Caille ¶ 5. Caille discloses this is a result of the “apodization” (taper)
technique, which places more energy at the center of the array than its
periphery in order “to obtain fairly weak sidelobes (of the antenna
patterns).” Id.
We, like Appellant, do not find any particular disclosure in Caille of
the efficiency of antenna elements. Thus, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner, by stating that the prior does not exclude antenna elements having
different efficiencies, has failed to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that antenna elements exhibit similar behavior to the amplifiers as
disclosed in Caille. Id. at 6; cf. Belden Inc. v. Berk–Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064,
1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not
only could have made but would have been motivated to make the
combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention.” (emphases in original)).
As to the Examiner’s second rationale, Appellant and the Examiner
disagree as to the meaning of the term “efficiency” in claim 1. Ans. 3;
Reply Br. 2–4. However, the Examiner provided no supporting evidence to
support the position that the term “efficiency” is very broad, and may be
construed as “a multitude of different things in the antenna art such as the
efficiency of the radiation compared to input power, the efficiency of the
gain, the efficiency of the signal to noise ratio, the efficiency of the feeding
point, etc.” Ans. 3. In this regard, the Specification acknowledges that
varying the power to the antenna array so that it tapers off toward the edges
reduces undesired sidelobes similar to the disclosure in Caille discussed
above. Spec. ¶ 32, Caille, ¶ 5. Although the Specification does not provide
Appeal 2019-005207
Application 15/238,862

8
an express definition of “efficiency,” the Specification discusses that
because of this difference in power, the “efficiency of antenna elements that
are closer to the edge is not as important as for elements closer to the center
of the array” and as a result “less efficient elements which are part of both
antenna arrays may be located near the edges” indicating that power and
efficiency are not necessarily directly correlated. Id.
Even accepting the Examiner’s understanding of the term
“efficiency,” we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not provided
sufficient evidence in order to support the position that by placing more
energy at the center of the array and less energy at periphery of the array, the
antenna elements at the periphery of the array would necessarily have a
second efficiency that is less than a first efficiency of the antenna elements
at the center of the array. Ans. 3–4. Although we acknowledge that
antennas operated at different power levels may exhibit different efficiencies
at those different power levels, we have not been directed to sufficient
evidence that the claimed arrangement of antenna elements having a first
higher efficiency located closer to a center of the first array and antenna
elements having a second lower efficiency would necessarily be present as a
result of application of higher power at the center of the array. See Spec.
¶ 32, Fig. 5C. That is, it could also be the case that antenna elements
subjected to higher power may be less efficient than those subjected to lower
power. Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194–96 (Fed.
Cir. 2014) (stating that “inherency may supply a missing limitation in an
obviousness analysis,” but “the use of inherency . . . must be carefully
circumscribed in the context of obviousness,” that is, “the limitation at issue
Appeal 2019-005207
Application 15/238,862

9
necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of
elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.”).
As a result, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Rejections 2–6
In rejecting claims 2–7, which depend from claim 1, the Examiner
relies on the same base combination of Sreenivas and Caille as discussed
above. Final Act. 4–9.
Accordingly, because Romney, Oppenlaender, Minami, and Smith fail
to remedy the deficiencies of Sreenivas and Caille discussed above, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–7 for the reasons identified
with respect to Rejection 1.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 103 Sreenivas, Caille 1
2 103 Sreenivas, Caille,
Romney
2
3 103 Sreenivas, Caille,
Oppenlaender
3
4, 5 103 Sreenivas, Caille,
Minami
4, 5
6 103 Sreenivas, Caille 6
7 103 Sreenivas, Caille,
Smith
7
Overall
Outcome
1–7

REVERSED