Theodore RappaportDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 29, 20202020000432 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 13/966,853 08/14/2013 Theodore S. Rappaport 08610010PA 2489 30743 7590 12/29/2020 W&C IP 11491 SUNSET HILLS ROAD SUITE 340 RESTON, VA 20190 EXAMINER SERAYDARYAN, HELENA H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3648 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2020 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 THEODORE S. RAPPAPORT ____________ Appeal 2020-000432 Application 13/966,853 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before DANIEL S. SONG, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision rejecting all pending claims 1, 3–12, 14–16, 18–20, and 22–37 in this application. We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies the solely-named inventor, Theodore S. Rappaport, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-000432 Application 13/966,853 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 4, and 8 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 illustratively recites, with our emphases added: 1. A method for avoiding radiation of a user or structure by a wireless device having at least one steerable antenna, comprising the steps of: detecting in a three dimensional space, using one or more cameras, microphones, audio sensors, ultrasound sensors or transducers, range finders, capacitive sensors, gyroscopes, light detectors, or motion detectors, an orientation of said wireless device relative to either or both said user and said structure; determining zones or spans of directions in the three dimensional space corresponding with one or more directions of either or both said user and said structure relative to said at least one steerable antenna; and adjusting one or more beam radiation patterns of said at least one steerable antenna to radiate in one or more directions which are not in said zones or spans of directions in the three dimensional space, wherein said at least one steerable antenna is configured to steer or direct its energy in particular directions while providing nulls or dead zones in other directions, and wherein said adjusting step adjusts one or more beam radiation patterns for direction of energy to one or more of said particular directions while avoiding said zones or spans of directions in the three dimensional space, and wherein said at least one steerable antenna operates on one or multiple bands and radiates at one or more frequencies in the range of 10 GHz to 500 GHz. Appeal Br. 37 (Claims App.) (emphases added). REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1, 3–12, 14–16, 18–20, 22–24, 26, 27, 29, 30, and 32–37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Dorsey (US 2009/ 0295648 A1, pub. Dec. 3, 2009). The rejection additionally refers to and Appeal 2020-000432 Application 13/966,853 3 discusses claim 13. See Final Act. 3, 10. However, Appellant canceled claim 13 via an Amendment filed on March 22, 2017. Therefore, claim 13 is not before us in this appeal. Claims 25, 28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Dorsey and VistaMAX (Duplexing Techniques — VistaMAX, WiMAX, IEEE 802.16-2004, Vecima Networks (2004)). OPINION A. Anticipation by Dorsey 1. Claims 1, 3, 12, 14, 15, 24, 26, 33, and 36 The Examiner finds Dorsey’s Figure 3 illustrates wireless device 10 having at least one steerable antenna 100, 101, or 102, because Dorsey indicates each of these antennas may comprise “an electronically steerable antenna array.” Final Act. 3 (citing Dorsey ¶¶ 7–8, 46, 60); Dorsey ¶ 46. The Examiner also finds processor 36 of device 10 determines a zone corresponding to a user of device 10, based on data gathered by sensors 200, 201, and 202. Final Act. 3 (citing Dorsey ¶¶ 45–46, 50, 62, 65, 69). The Examiner next finds Dorsey’s device 10 adjusts the beam radiation pattern of one antenna 100, 101, or 102, to radiate in a direction that is not in the determined zone, thereby providing a null or a dead zone in the determined zone and avoiding the determined zone, as recited in claim 1. Id. at 3–4 (citing Dorsey ¶¶ 45–46, 50, 62, 65, 69). In particular, according to the Examiner, switching circuitry 54 of device 10 “switch[es] the antenna elements,” which “corresponds to adjusting the beam radiation pattern” of a steerable antenna. Id. at 4. The Examiner further explains: Switching the beam from one antenna element to some other antenna element creates nulls and dead zones in some directions, Appeal 2020-000432 Application 13/966,853 4 while radiating the energy in some other zones or spa[n]s of directions. Moreover, according to Dorsey the antenna may be implemented as an array of antennas. Antennas may be formed of multiple antenna elements that make up an electronically steerable antenna array. Id. at 2 (citing Dorsey ¶ 46). Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Dorsey anticipates claim 1 in the foregoing regards. See Appeal Br. 26–33. We partly agree, for the following reasons. The Examiner correctly finds Dorsey’s device 10 determines a zone corresponding to a user of device 10, based on data gathered by sensors 200, 201, and 202. Dorsey discloses these sensors may be “environment sensors” that “monitor[] the environment around device 10.” Dorsey ¶ 45. In one example, device 10 may be a cellular telephone, as illustrated in Figure 6. Id. ¶ 57. Figure 6 is reproduced below: Figure 6 of Dorsey is a perspective view of device 10, which includes antenna structures in two different regions 18 and 21, and sensor 25 in Appeal 2020-000432 Application 13/966,853 5 region 21 near speaker port 23. Id. ¶¶ 16, 58–60. Sensor 25 “detects when an object such as a user’s ear is close to port 23,” which corresponds to determining a zone corresponding to the user as recited in claim 1, because it reflects “the proximity of the user’s head” to region 21. Id. ¶¶ 61–62. However, Dorsey does not disclose that device 10 reacts to this determination in the specific way required by claim 1. Dorsey indicates “device 10 may use sensor 25 to determine which of the two antennas is more likely to be suitable for wireless communications activities,” such that “when device 10 determines that the user’s ear is near port 23, device 10 may switch to using the antenna in region 18 for wireless communications since the antenna in region 21 is likely to have reduced performance due to the proximity of the user’s head.” Id. ¶ 62. More generally, pursuant to Dorsey’s “[a]ntenna diversity system,” a mobile device includes two or more “redundant” antennas and then selects which antenna to use for the best wireless communication performance, based on sensor data reflecting environmental conditions around the device. Id. ¶¶ 7–8, 45, 50, 69. Claim 1, by contrast, recites “one” antenna that is “steerable,” and requires adjusting the beam radiation pattern of the one steerable antenna to radiate in a direction that is not in the zone determined to correspond with the user of the device, thereby providing a null or a dead zone in the determined zone and avoiding the determined zone. The foregoing disclosures of Dorsey, which reflect selecting one of two or more separately located, steerable antennas to use for wireless communication, do not correspond to this claim requirement. None of the disclosures cited by the Examiner reflects adjusting the beam radiation pattern of one steerable antenna to avoid the zone where the user of the device is located. Appeal 2020-000432 Application 13/966,853 6 The Answer attempts to address this deficiency by finding that “[c]ell phones transmit radio waves in all directions.” Ans. 4 (emphasis added). The Answer further finds that “directional” antennas, such as the steerable antenna of claim 1, have a single peak direction in the antenna’s radiation pattern where the bulk of the radiated power travels to form a main radiation lobe, but they also have side radiation lobes in all other directions. Id. at 6–7. The foregoing findings are not supported by any citation to evidence in the record. See id. at 4–7. Nonetheless, even granting the Examiner’s point that steerable antennas will direct some (albeit reduced) radiation in the direction of what claim 1 describes as a null or dead zone where radiation is avoided, still Dorsey does not anticipate the claim. The Examiner does not cite any disclosure in Dorsey that reflects adjusting the beam radiation pattern of one steerable antenna to be directed away from the user of the device. Dorsey instead selects one antenna from among multiple redundant antennas in a mobile device, because the selected antenna’s location appears to provide the most unobstructed wireless communication path versus the locations of the other unselected redundant antennas. According to the Examiner, this disclosure in Dorsey is “an equivalent of” claim 1, because Dorsey’s selection of one antenna from among multiple redundant antennas “change[s] the direction of the radiation” to avoid blockages for successful communication. Ans. 8, 10 (emphasis added) (citing Dorsey ¶¶ 45–46, 50, 60, 62, 65, 69). It is not clear to us what the Examiner’s reference to equivalency means in the context of the present anticipation rejection. Anticipation requires Dorsey to expressly or Appeal 2020-000432 Application 13/966,853 7 inherently disclose each and every limitation of the claimed invention, not something close to the claimed invention. In any event, the Examiner’s finding that Dorsey’s selection of one antenna from among multiple redundant antennas changes the direction of the radiation is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Granted, Dorsey discloses that the antennas may each be “steerable.” Dorsey ¶¶ 46, 60. However, Dorsey does not disclose adjusting the individual radiation pattern of any one antenna. Id. Nor does Dorsey disclose how multiple steerable antennas might be directed in different directions, such that selection of one steerable antenna changes the direction of radiation. Id. Thus, the Examiner’s finding that Dorsey’s selection of one antenna from among multiple redundant antennas changes the direction of the radiation of at least one steerable antenna is based on speculation, not on the disclosure of Dorsey. Instead, Dorsey discloses selecting the antenna that appears from sensor data to be the furthest away from the user of the device, and therefore provides the greatest likelihood of an unobstructed wireless communication path. Id. ¶ 7–8 (“a diversity system may use information from the proximity sensors to determine which antennas have external objects nearby that may obstruct wireless signals and may then select an antenna that does not have an external object nearby”); id. ¶¶ 45–46, 50, 62, 65, 69. That is not what is claimed here. For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or of claims 3, 12, 14, 15, 24, 26, 33, and 36 depending therefrom, as anticipated by Dorsey. Appeal 2020-000432 Application 13/966,853 8 2. Claims 4–11, 16, 18–20, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, and 37 The Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 4 and 8 as anticipated by Dorsey relies on the same findings discussed above in connection with claim 1. See Final Act. 5–7 (claim 4), 7–9 (claim 8). Thus, for the reasons provided above in connection with claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 8, or of claims 5–7, 9–11, 16, 18–20, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, and 37 depending therefrom, as anticipated by Dorsey. B. Obviousness over Dorsey and VistaMAX The Examiner’s rejection of claims 25, 28, and 31 as having been obvious over Dorsey and VistaMAX relies upon the same findings concerning Dorsey’s disclosure discussed above in connection with claim 1. See Final Act. 15–17. Thus, for the reasons provided above in connection with claim 1, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 25, 28, and 31. SUMMARY OF DECISION In summary, we reverse the rejections presented on appeal: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–12, 14–16, 18–20, 22–24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32–37 102 Dorsey 1, 3–12, 14–16, 18–20, 22–24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32–37 25, 28, 31 103 Dorsey, VistaMAX 25, 28, 31 Overall Outcome 1, 3–12, 14–16, 18–20, 22–37 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation