Texas Instruments Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 15, 2020

15632858 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 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.
15/632,858 06/26/2017 Nirmal Chindhu WARKE TI-69060.1A 7334
23494 7590 09/15/2020
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, MS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
PATEL, PARTHKUMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2020 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NIRMAL CHINDHU WARKE, SRINATH HOSUR,
MARTIN J. IZZARD, SIRAJ AKHTAR, BAHER S. HAROUN, and
MARCO CORSI
Appeal 2019-003862
Application 15/632,858
Technology Center 2400
BEFORE ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 16. Claims 2–15 and 17–20 were
previously cancelled. Amendment Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.33(b) dated
November 20, 2018; Appeal Br.2 2, 11. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 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 Texas
Instruments Incorporated. Appeal Br. 2.
2 We use “Spec.” to refer to the Specification filed June 26, 2017, “Final
Act.” to refer to the Final Action mailed April 20, 2018, “Appeal Br.” to
Appeal 2019-003862
Application 15/632,858
2
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Specification is directed “to inter- and intra-chip
communication using millimeter wave transmissions.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Specifically, a router or switch uses millimeter wave transmissions across a
waveguide or wireless interface. Id.
A beam forming antenna array steers the transmission signal to
combine “RF energy in a particular direction while significantly reducing it
in all other directions.” Id. ¶ 42. The magnitude and phase of the signal
transmitted by each antenna is selected to form a beam. Id. The antenna
beam “may be swept by a variable angle Ө.” Id. The radiation pattern from
the combined RF energy from the antenna elements “can be pointed
electronically in any arbitrary direction without physically moving the
antenna array.” Id.
Independent claims 1 and 16 are the only pending claims and are
reproduced below as illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A networking device, comprising:

an input port circuit having a transmitter circuit coupled one or
more transmitter antennas, wherein the input port circuit
transmits a data packet to a first output port circuit using
millimeter wave signals;

output port circuits including at least the first output port circuit,
each of the output port circuits having a receiver circuit
coupled to one or more receiver antennas; and

refer to the Appeal Brief filed November 20, 2018, “Ans.” to refer to the
Examiner’s Answer mailed February 15, 2019, and “Reply Br.” to refer to
the Reply Brief filed April 15, 2019.

Appeal 2019-003862
Application 15/632,858
3

a beamforming circuit coupled to the one or more transmitter
antennas of the input port circuit, wherein the beamforming
circuit causes the one or more transmitter antennas to transmit
an antenna beam directed at the one or more receiver antennas
of the first output port circuit, wherein the antenna beam is
swept by a variable angle.

16. A method for transmitting a data packet, comprising:

identifying, by an input port circuit, a destination output port
circuit corresponding to a destination address in the data
packet;

retrieving, from stored sets of antenna array coefficients at the
input port circuit, a set of antenna array coefficients
corresponding to the destination output port circuit; and

transmitting, using an antenna array of the input port circuit, the
data packet as a radio frequency (RF) signal over a wireless
interface by using the set of antenna array coefficients to
create a transmission beam targeting the destination output
port circuit; and

sweeping the transmission beam by a variable angle.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Warke US 9,699,705 B2 Jul. 4, 2017
Rofougaran US 2009/0125746 A1 May 14, 2009
Yoshida US 2003/0053412 A1 Mar. 20, 2003
Mehrotra US 2003/0091043 A1 May 15, 2003
Cleveland US 2005/0105485 A1 May 19, 2005
REJECTIONS
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as
being unpatentable over claims 12–18 of Warke. Final Act. 2–8.
Appeal 2019-003862
Application 15/632,858
4
Claim 1 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rofougaran and Yoshida. Id. at 9–11.
Claim 16 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mehrotra, Yoshida, and Cleveland. Id. at 18–20.
OPINION
I. Nonstatutory Double Patenting
Appellant does not appeal the double patenting rejection that claim 1
would have been obvious over claims 12–18 of Warke. Appeal Br. 3.
Appellant states, “Appellant is amenable to filing a termina[l] disclaimer”
when the claims are indicated as allowable. Id. at 3–4. Because Appellant
does not argue the double patenting rejection, we sustain the double
patenting rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (arguments not made are
waived).
II. Does Yoshida teach “transmit an antenna beam directed at the one or
more receiver antennas of the first output port circuit, wherein the
antenna beam is swept by a variable angle”/”sweeping the
transmission beam by a variable angle” (“sweeping limitation”) as
recited respectively in claims 1 and 16?

With respect to the sweeping limitation, Appellant’s arguments are all
but the same as between claims 1 and 16. Compare Appeal Br. 6–8 (claim
1), with Appeal Br. 8–11. We address the Examiner’s findings and
Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 1 as representative of the issue.
The Examiner finds that Rofougaran “fails to state[s] about wherein
the antenna is swept by a variable,” i.e., the sweeping limitation, but relies
on Yoshida. Final Act. 11 (citing Yoshida ¶ 93). A portion of paragraph 93
of Yoshida is reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-003862
Application 15/632,858
5
The moving-direction detector 51 switches among the antennas
periodically so as to sweep the antenna beam direction over an
angle of 360°, calculates the average amount of shift of phase
variation and decides that the direction for which the average
amount of shift is maximum is the moving direction. Though an
antenna changeover unit and a calculation unit for calculating the
average amount of shift in variation are required in order to
detect the moving direction, the DBF unit 52 and calculation unit
18 can be used for these purposes as well.

Yoshida ¶ 93. Relying on the above disclosure from Yoshida, the Examiner
finds the Yoshida teaches “the antenna is swept by a variable angle; greater
wa[ve]fading control can be carried out can be carried out in the
communication system.” Final Act. 11 (citing Yoshida ¶ 93).
Appellant argues:
The emphasized sentences in the cited passage of Yoshida
are the only instance in which the term “sweep” appears at all in
Yoshida, and it states that the sweep is performed over an angle
of 360 degrees. Thus, as best understood, Yoshida teaches
sweeping the antenna beam over a constant angle (e.g., a full
360 degrees; one full circle). However, Yoshida contains no
teaching or suggestion that that such a sweep is performed at a
variable angle (e.g., an angle that can be varied, i.e., changed),
or that such a sweep is performed at an angle other than the
disclosed 360 degrees.

Appeal Br. 7. Appellant contends Yoshida does not teach “sweeping the
antenna beam over any other angular value and, thus, one skilled in the art
would logically understand Yoshida to be teaching the sweeping of an
antenna beam at a constant angle (always 360 degrees), not a variable angle
as claim 1 recites.” Id. at 8.
In the Answer, the Examiner emphasizes certain portions of paragraph
93 of Yoshida as follows:
Appeal 2019-003862
Application 15/632,858
6
the moving-direction detector 51 switches among the
antennas periodically so as to sweep the antenna beam
direction over an angle of 360.degree calculates the average
amount of shift of phase variation and decides that the direction
for which the average amount of shift is maximum is the moving
direction.

Ans. 4 (quoting Yoshida ¶ 93). Appellant responds that the emphasized part
of paragraph 93 “teaches that the 360 degree sweep is used to determine a
moving direction.” Reply Br. 4. Appellant interprets paragraph 93 as
meaning that “Yoshida’s detector looks in all available directions (e.g., 360
degrees) in order to identify a specific direction as a moving direction based
on the phase variation shift information.” Id.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Paragraph 93 of Yoshida
does not mean that a “sweep” over 360° is limited to a full circle (360°) or
that no other angle is taught. See Reply Br. 3. As Appellant recognizes
Yoshida teaches identifying a specific “direction.” Id. at 4. This is
consistent with claim 1’s sweeping limitation, “to transmit an antenna beam
directed at the one or more receiver antennas of the first output port circuit,
wherein the antenna beam is swept by a variable angle.” In other words, the
sweeping limitation requires that the “antenna beam is directed” and is
“swept by a variable angle.” Claim 16’s sweeping limitation is similar,
substituting “targeting” a transmission beam for a “directed” beam while
also requiring “sweeping the transmission beam by a variable angle.”
Yoshida teaches directing or targeting the beam over a sweep angle.
Yoshida discloses that a moving direction of the beam is detected by the
moving direction detector. Yoshida ¶ 93. A “DBF (Digital Beam Former)”
points the beam in the moving direction. Id. The direction is not fixed but
“switches . . . so as to sweep the antenna beam direction over an angle of
Appeal 2019-003862
Application 15/632,858
7
360°.” Id. (emphasis added). See also Final Act. 10–11 (citing Yoshida ¶
93). Appellant does not persuasively argue that “over an angle of 360°”
means only 360° or a “constant angle” of 360°. See Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br.
3. Appellant also does not explain why Yoshida’s disclosure of “sweep” in
paragraph 93 precludes a sweep by a variable angle.
Further, neither claim 1 nor claim 16 limit the angle over which the
beam is “swept.” Nothing in the claim precludes sweeping the beam in a
full circle, i.e., 360°. Although the Specification explains that there is a
finite variable angle Ө through which the beam is swept, the claims are not
so limited. See Spec. ¶ 42, Fig. 6.
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
and 16.

Appeal 2019-003862
Application 15/632,858
8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 Nonstatutory
Double Patenting
1
1 103 Rofougaran,
Yoshida
1
16 103 Mehrotra, Yoshida,
Cleveland
16
Overall
Outcome
1, 16

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED