Theodore Rappaport

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 29, 2020

2020000432 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 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.
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