Blue Danube Systems, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 26, 2022

2020005507 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2022)

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. 14/799,935 07/15/2015 Ramesh Chembil-Palat 30156-003001 4342 69713 7590 01/26/2022 OCCHIUTI & ROHLICEK LLP 50 Congress Street Suite 1000 Boston, MA 02109 EXAMINER YI, ALEXANDER J. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2643 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/26/2022 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): INFO@ORPATENT.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte RAMESH CHEMBIL-PALAT, DAVID M. POTICNY, YIPING FENG, MARK R. PINTO, and MIHAI BANU ________________ Appeal 2020-005507 Application 14/799,935 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before MARC S. HOFF, JASON J. CHUNG, and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 9-15, and 23-29.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. INVENTION The invention relates to wireless systems using narrow beams in lieu of or in addition to conventional antenna radiation patterns and methods to 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Blue Danube Systems, Inc. is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 2, 6-8, and 16-22 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 18-20. Appeal 2020-005507 Application 14/799,935 2 use these narrow beams to increase the capacity of wireless systems. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method for operating a phased array antenna for a wireless communication system serving a sector in which communications demands from a plurality of mobile communication devices change as a function of time, said method comprising: for each time period of a plurality of successive time periods, (1) scanning a probe beam over a range of directions covering the entire sector and using the scanned probe beam to determine spectrum efficiency as a function of probe beam direction; (2) using the spectrum efficiency as a function of probe beam direction to provide a measure of a total mobile communications demand density as a function of beam direction for that time period; (3) using the measure of total mobile communications demand density as a function of beam direction to identify a beam direction for which the total mobile communications demand density is high for that time relative to other directions; and (4) with the phased array antenna, electronically generating a communication beam directed in the identified direction for which total mobile communications demand density is high for that time relative to other beam directions. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims Appendix). REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goldberg (US 2005/0272472 A1; published Dec. 8, 2005). Final Act. 8-12. Appeal 2020-005507 Application 14/799,935 3 The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, and 9-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Goldberg and Zhang (US 2015/0365939 A1; filed June 16, 2014). Final Act. 12-19. The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Goldberg and Scherzer (US 2002/0146983 A1; published Oct. 10, 2002). Final Act. 20-26. The Examiner rejects claims 24-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Goldberg, Zhang, and Banu (US 2012/0258754 A1; published Oct. 11, 2012). Final Act. 26-33. ANALYSIS I. Claims 1, 3, 4, 9-15, and 24-27 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 The Examiner finds that Goldberg teaches detecting a horizontal and vertical location of a beam to define hot zones with a high concentration of users that can be served with appropriate resources, which the Examiner maps to “scanning a probe beam over a range of directions covering the entire sector and using the scanned probe beam to determine [a traffic characteristic] as a function of probe beam direction” recited in claim 1. Ans. 3-18 (citing Goldberg ¶¶ 38, 41, 77, 78); Final Act. 13-14 (citing Goldberg ¶¶ 39, 41, 48, 50, 78). Moreover, the Examiner finds that Goldberg teaches detecting a horizontal and vertical location of a beam to define hot zones with a high concentration of users that can be served with appropriate resources, which the Examiner maps to using the traffic characteristic “as a function of probe beam direction to provide a measure of a total mobile communications demand density as a function of beam direction for that time period” recited in claim 1. Ans. 3-18 (citing Goldberg ¶¶ 38, 41, 77, 78); Final Act. 14 (citing Goldberg ¶¶ 73, 77, 78). Appeal 2020-005507 Application 14/799,935 4 The Examiner finds Goldberg teaches detecting a horizontal and vertical location of a beam to define hot zones with a high concentration of users that can be served with appropriate resources, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “using the measure of total mobile communications demand density as a function of beam direction to identify a beam direction for which the total mobile communications demand density is high for that time relative to other directions” recited in claim 1. Ans. 3-18 (citing Goldberg ¶¶ 38, 41, 77, 78); Final Act. 14 (citing Goldberg ¶ 77). The Examiner finds Zhang teaches using signal to noise ratio for scheduling transmissions to two neighboring UE’s, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “spectrum efficiency.” Ans. 20-21 (citing Zhang ¶¶ 51, 52, 79, 84); Final Act. 15 (citing Zhang ¶¶ 79, 84). Appellant argues that Goldberg merely teaches directing signals to different locations to define hot spots and zones, but that Goldberg fails to teach scanning a probe beam as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 5-8. Appellant argues that Goldberg fails to teach gathering some type of data “as a function of probe beam direction,” “a measure of total mobile communications demand density as a function of beam direction,” and “identify a beam direction for which the total mobile communications demand density is high for that time relative to other directions” as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 8-10. Appellant argues Zhang merely teaches using signal to noise ratio for scheduling transmissions to two neighboring UE’s, but fails to mention hot spots or hot zones and fails to remedy the deficiencies of Goldberg. Appeal Br. 10-13. We disagree with Appellant. Goldberg teaches detecting (i.e., Goldberg’s horizontal and vertical detection teaches “scanning a probe beam over a range of directions over the Appeal 2020-005507 Application 14/799,935 5 entire sector”) a horizontal and vertical location of a beam to define hot zone sectors with a high concentration of users (i.e., determine a traffic characteristic as a function of probe beam direction) that can be served with appropriate resources, which teaches “scanning a probe beam over a range of directions covering the entire sector and using the scanned probe beam to determine [a traffic characteristic] as a function of probe beam direction” recited in claim 1. Goldberg ¶¶ 77, 78 (cited at Ans. 3-18); Goldberg ¶ 78 (cited at Final Act. 13-14)). Furthermore, Goldberg teaches detecting a horizontal and vertical location of a beam to define hot zones (i.e., Goldberg’s defining of hot zones teaches “as a function of probe beam direction to provide a measure of total communication demand density”) with a high concentration of users (i.e., using the traffic characteristic) that can be served with appropriate resources, which teaches using the traffic characteristic “as a function of probe beam direction to provide a measure of a total mobile communications demand density as a function of beam direction for that time period” recited in claim 1. Goldberg ¶¶ 77, 78 (cited at Ans. 3-18); Goldberg ¶ 78 (cited at Final Act. 14). Goldberg teaches detecting a horizontal and vertical location of a beam to define hot zones with a high concentration of users (i.e., Goldberg’s defining of hot zones with a high concentration of users teaches “identify a beam direction for which the total mobile communications demand density is high for that time relative to other directions”) that can be served with appropriate resources, which teaches the limitation “using the measure of total mobile communications demand density as a function of beam direction to identify a beam direction for which the total mobile communications demand density is high for that time relative to other directions” recited in claim 1. Goldberg Appeal 2020-005507 Application 14/799,935 6 ¶¶ 77, 78 (cited at Ans. 3-18); Goldberg ¶ 77 (cited at Final Act. 14). We disagree with Appellant’s argument that Zhang merely teaches using signal to noise ratio for scheduling transmissions to two neighboring UE’s, but fails to mention hot spots or hot zones and fails to remedy the deficiencies of Goldberg. Appeal Br. 10-13. To the extent that Appellant is arguing that Zhang is not analogous to Goldberg, Appellant’s argument is misplaced. The correct test for analogous art is whether a reference “qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention.” In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (emphasis added). Furthermore, one cannot show nonobviousness “by attacking references individually” where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). In this case, the Examiner relies on Zhang to teach using signal to noise ratio for scheduling transmissions to two neighboring UE’s, which teaches the limitation “spectrum efficiency.” Ans. 20-21 (citing Zhang ¶¶ 51, 52, 79, 84); Final Act. 15 (citing Zhang ¶¶ 79, 84). Appellant does not argue claims 3, 4, 9-15, and 24-27 separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 5-17. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of: (1) independent claims 1 and 24; and (2) dependent claims 3, 4, 9-15, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. II. Claims 28 and 29 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) The Examiner finds Goldberg discloses detecting a horizontal and vertical location of a beam to define hot zones with a high concentration of users that can be served with appropriate resources, which the Examiner Appeal 2020-005507 Application 14/799,935 7 maps to using a probe beam “to measure the density of radio data to identify a beam direction for which the total mobile communications demand density is high for that time relative to other directions.” Ans. 51-54 (citing Goldberg ¶¶ 77, 78, 81); Final Act. 12 (citing Goldberg ¶¶ 35, 73). Appellant argues Goldberg merely teaches defining hot zones and hot spots but fails to teach using a probe beam “to measure the density of radio data to identify a beam direction for which the total mobile communications demand density is high for that time relative to other directions” as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 15. We disagree with Appellant. Goldberg discloses detecting a horizontal and vertical location of a beam to define hot zones (i.e., identify a beam direction for which the total mobile communications demand density is high for that time relative to other directions) with a high concentration of users (i.e., measure the density of radio data) that can be served with appropriate resources, which discloses using a probe beam “to measure the density of radio data to identify a beam direction for which the total mobile communications demand density is high for that time relative to other directions.” Ans. 51-54 (citing Goldberg ¶¶ 77, 78, 81); Final Act. 12 (citing Goldberg ¶¶ 35, 73). Appellant’s arguments pertaining to independent claim 28 are similar to those of independent claim 1. Thus, Appellant does not argue claim 28 separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 5-17. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). III. Claims 5 and 23 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 The Examiner finds Goldberg teaches detecting a horizontal and vertical location of a beam to define hot zones with a high concentration of users that can be served with appropriate resources, which the Examiner Appeal 2020-005507 Application 14/799,935 8 maps to “indicative of the total mobile communications demand density as a function of a probe beam direction” recited in claim 5. Ans. 55-65 (citing Goldberg ¶¶ 77, 78); Final Act. 20-25 (citing Goldberg ¶¶ 77, 78). Moreover, the Examiner finds Scherzer teaches historical beam forming parameter information, which the Examiner maps to “historical information” recited in claim 5. Ans. 59-61 (citing Scherzer ¶¶ 48, 53, 68); Final Act. 25 (citing Scherzer ¶¶ 53, 66, 68). Appellant argues Scherzer merely teaches storing historical beam forming parameter information for one or more segments but fails to teach the limitation “historical information indicative of the total mobile communications demand density as a function of a probe beam direction” recited in claim 5. Appeal Br. 16-17. We disagree with Appellant. One cannot show nonobviousness “by attacking references individually” where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). In this case, the Examiner relies on Goldberg to teach detecting a horizontal and vertical location of a beam to define hot zones (i.e., as a function of a probe beam direction) with a high concentration of users (i.e., total mobile communications demand density) that can be served with appropriate resources, which teaches the limitation “indicative of the total mobile communications demand density as a function of a probe beam direction” recited in claim 5. Ans. 55-65 (citing Goldberg ¶¶ 77, 78); Final Act. 20-25 (citing Goldberg ¶¶ 77, 78). Moreover, Scherzer teaches historical beam forming parameter information, which teaches “historical information” recited in claim 5. Ans. 59-61 (citing Scherzer ¶¶ 48, 53, 68); Final Act. 25 (citing Scherzer ¶¶ 53, 66, 68). Appeal 2020-005507 Application 14/799,935 9 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 28, 29 102(a)(1) Goldberg 28, 29 1, 3, 4, 9- 15 103 Goldberg, Zhang 1, 3, 4, 9- 15 5, 23 103 Goldberg, Scherzer 5, 23 24-27 103 Goldberg, Zhang, Banu 24-27 Overall Outcome 1, 3-5, 9- 15, 23-29