QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 27, 2021

2020003069 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2021)

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.
14/992,924 01/11/2016 Amichai SANDEROVICH 151477US 5813
15055 7590 07/27/2021
Patterson + Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
OBAYANJU, OMONIYI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2021 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):
PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMICHAI SANDEROVICH
Appeal 2020-003069
Application 14/992,924
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 5–8, 10, 13–16, 20–23, 25, 28–30,
and 50–53, which are all claims pending in the application. Appellant has
canceled claims 2–4, 9, 11, 12, 17–19, 24, 26, 27, and 31–49. See Appeal
Br. 18–23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Qualcomm, Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003069
Application 14/992,924

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The claims are directed to “wireless communications and, more
particularly, to determining and reporting the location of devices in a
wireless communication system.” See Spec. ¶ 2.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
Appeal (emphases added to contested prior-art limitations):
1. An apparatus for wireless communications,
comprising:
a receive interface configured to obtain, via a plurality of
receive antennas, a signal transmitted from a first device;
a processing system configured to:
determine one or more values indicative of an orientation
of the apparatus relative to the first device, based on a
difference in phase of the signal as received at the plurality of
receive antennas; and
generate at least one frame comprising an indication of a
degree of accuracy in the determined one or more values
indicative of the relative orientation, wherein:
the indication of the degree of accuracy comprises an
indication of an ambiguity in the determined one or more
values indicative of the relative orientation;
the indication of the ambiguity comprises an indication
of a number of different values determined for the relative
orientation that are based on a same value of the difference in

2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
Dec. 17, 2019); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed March 17, 2020);
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 4, 2020); Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed August 8, 2019); and the original Specification
(“Spec.,” filed Jan. 11, 2016) (claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to
US 62/102,577, filed Jan. 12, 2015).
Appeal 2020-003069
Application 14/992,924

3
phase of the signal as received at the plurality of receive
antennas; and
the one or more values indicative of the relative
orientation comprises at least one of an azimuth, elevation, roll,
or distance of the apparatus relative to the first device; and
a transmit interface configured to output the at least one
frame for transmission to the first device.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence:
Name Reference Date
Lee US 2007/0037539 A1 Feb. 15, 2007
Marinier US 2013/0328727 A1 Dec. 12, 2013
Schrabler et al. (“Schrabler”) US 2016/0209489 A1 July 21, 2016
REJECTION
Claims 1, 5–8, 10, 13–16, 20–23, 25, 28–30, and 50–53 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee,
Marinier, and Schrabler. Final Act. 4.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 8–17) and our discretion
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of the obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 5–8, 10, 13–16, 20–23, 25, 28–30, and 50–53 on the
basis of representative claim 1.
ISSUE
Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 8–14; Reply Br. 2–4) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
Appeal 2020-003069
Application 14/992,924

4
combination of Lee, Marinier, and Schrabler is in error. These contentions
present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests “the indication of the ambiguity comprises an indication of a
number of different values determined for the relative orientation that are
based on a same value of the difference in phase of the signal as received at
the plurality of receive antennas,” as recited in claim 1?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). “The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 425.
In KSR, the Court stated “[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007).
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. . . . [A] court
Appeal 2020-003069
Application 14/992,924

5
must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.
Id. at 417.
Further, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth
“some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. To the extent Appellant has not
advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other
issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments with respect to the rejection
of claim 1 and, unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by reference herein
and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and
rebuttals set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s
arguments.3 We highlight and address specific findings and arguments
regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.

3 See Icon Health and Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1042 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (“As an initial matter, the PTAB was authorized to incorporate
the Examiner’s findings.”); see also In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1564 n.13
(Fed. Cir. 1995) (upholding the PTAB’s findings, although it “did not
expressly make any independent factual determinations or legal
conclusions,” because it had expressly adopted the examiner’s findings).
Appeal 2020-003069
Application 14/992,924

6
The Examiner finds Schrabler’s ambiguities in direction information,
where the direction from the receive module to the transmit module is
preferably determined from the phase difference as shown in Figure 1,
teaches or at least suggests “the indication of the ambiguity comprises an
indication of a number of different values determined for the relative
orientation that are based on a same value of the difference in phase of the
signal as received at the plurality of receive antennas.” Final Act. 6. The
Examiner, citing to paragraph 54 of Schrabler, further finds:
[A] phase difference (value) or a difference in phase (value), is
determined based on the difference in the different phase angles
as shown above (see also pp0054), wherein the different
directions or distances (i.e. relative orientation) is based on or
determined by the (single) phase difference or difference in
phase.
Ans. 5 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner also finds Schrabler’s interferometer method concept
describes that, since a specific phase difference may correspond not only to a
specific distance, but also may correspond to any given multiple of this
distance. Id.
Appellant argues in response, citing to paragraph 11: “Schrabler,
given a value of the phase difference, teaches that only a single direction is
determined for that value of the phase difference. Schrabler, ¶ [0011].”
Reply Br. 3 (emphasis omitted). Appellant further contends: “Schrabler
makes clear that only a single direction is determined because it is a
requirement of the interferometer method that ‘the spacing of the at least two
antennas must not be greater than the half wavelength of the communication
signal, since ambiguities in the direction information otherwise occur.’”
Reply Br. 4 (quoting Schrabler ¶ 11).
Appeal 2020-003069
Application 14/992,924

7
During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard,
we interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant's specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because Appellant
does not traverse the Examiner’s specific findings regarding the teachings
and suggestions of paragraph 54 of the Schrabler reference, which the
Examiner cites to for teaching the disputed limitation in the Answer, i.e.,
“the indication of the ambiguity comprises an indication of a number of
different values determined for the relative orientation that are based on a
same value of the difference in phase of the signal as received at the
plurality of receive antennas.” Ans. 4–5.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Schrabler’s phase
difference is determined based on the difference in the different phase angles
as described in paragraph 54, wherein the different directions are determined
based upon the phase difference. We agree with the Examiner that
Schrabler’s teachings in paragraph 54, including that the interferometric
method in Figure 1, is unambiguous only through 180 degrees because
transmit module 14 could also be located on the left side of the receive
module, and therefore at least suggests “an indication of a number of
Appeal 2020-003069
Application 14/992,924

8
different values determined for the relative orientation that are based on a
same value of the difference in phase of the signal as received.”
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument in the Reply Brief and
agree with the Examiner because Appellant does not address the Examiner’s
additional specific findings regarding Schrabler. Ans. 4–5. The Examiner
finds Schrabler’s teachings in paragraph 54, including the interferometer
method shown in Figure 1, teaches or at least suggests the disputed
limitation. However, we reiterate that Appellant does not address the
Examiner’s additional findings regarding paragraph 54 of Schrabler.
Based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded
of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art combination to teach
or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 1, nor do we find error in the
Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped
claims 5–8, 10, 13–16, 20–23, 25, 28–30, and 50–53.
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellant may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 2–4) not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s position in
the Answer, arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the
Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s
Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellant has not shown.

Appeal 2020-003069
Application 14/992,924

9
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 5–8, 10, 13–16, 20–23, 25, 28–30, and 50–53 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the cited prior art combination of record, and we sustain the
rejection.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–8, 10,
13–16, 20–
23, 25, 28–
30, 50–53
103(a) Lee, Marinier, Schrabler
1, 5–8, 10,
13–16, 20–
23, 25, 28–
30, 50–53

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED