Ex Parte Aldana et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2012

11237341 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CARLOS ALDANA and JOONSUK KIM

____________________

Appeal 2010-006042
Application 11/237,341
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before, KEVIN F. TURNER, JONI Y. CHANG, and
THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-006042
Application 11/237,341

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to beamforming wireless
communication systems. (Abs.) Figure 3, reproduced below, is a block
diagram showing a wireless communication device in accordance with
Appellants’ invention:

Figure 3 illustrates a wireless communication device.
Appellants’ wireless communication device includes the host device
18-32 (e.g., a laptop computer or cellular telephone) and an associated radio
60 that has a baseband processing module 100, memory 65, radio frequency
(RF) transmitters 106-110, a transmit/receive (T/R) module 114, and RF
receivers 118-120. (Spec. 12:29-13:1.) The baseband processing module
Appeal 2010-006042
Application 11/237,341

3
100 using the operational instructions stored in memory 65 executes digital
receiver functions (e.g., digital intermediate frequency to baseband
conversion, demodulation, and constellation demapping) and digital
transmitter functions (e.g., encoding, scrambling, and interleaving). (Spec.
13:1-10.) To improve wireless communications, Appellants’ baseband
processing module 100 includes a transmitter beamforming (V) module 132
and a receiver beamforming module (U) 144. (Spec. 15:21-24; 16:17-19;
19:9-14; Figs. 4-5.)
In general, beamforming is a processing technique to create a focused
antenna beam by shifting a signal in time or in phase to provide gain of the
signal in a desired direction and to attenuate the signal in other directions.
(Spec. 4:20-22.)

Representative Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative:
1. A method for feeding back transmitter beamforming information
from a receiving wireless communication device to a transmitting
wireless communication device, the method comprising:
the receiving wireless communication device receiving a
preamble sequence from the transmitting wireless device;
the receiving wireless device estimating a channel response
based upon the preamble sequence;
the receiving wireless device determining an estimated
transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) based upon the channel
response and a receiver beamforming unitary matrix (U);
the receiving wireless device decomposing the estimated
transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) to produce the transmitter
beamforming information; and
Appeal 2010-006042
Application 11/237,341

4
the receiving wireless device wirelessly sending the transmitter
beamforming information to the transmitting wireless device.
(Emphasis added.)
Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim1 and Hwang2;
2. Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Kim, Hwang, and Ma3; and
3. Claims 2, 10, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kim,
Hwang, and Reinhardt4. (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2.)5

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
During examination of a patent application, claims are given “their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” and “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). “The broadest-construction rubric coupled with the term
‘comprising’ does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims
to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention.” In re Suitco
Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). And an inventor may
choose to be his own lexicographer and to give terms uncommon meanings,
but “he must set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the

1 Kim et al, U.S. Publication No. 2002/0187753, Dec. 12, 2002.
2 Hwang et al., U.S. Publication No. 2004/0042558, Mar. 4, 2004.
3 Ma et al., “A unified algebraic transformation approach for parallel
recursive and adaptive filtering and SVD algorithms”, IEEE Transactions on
Signal Processing, Vol. 49, No. 2, Feb. 2001.
4 Reinhardt, U.S. Patent No. 5,541,607, Jul. 30, 1996.
5 Appellants’ Appeal Brief was filed July 20, 2009, and Reply Brief was
filed December 10, 2009.
Appeal 2010-006042
Application 11/237,341

5
patent disclosure so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the
change.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). When an
explicit definition is provided by the applicant for a term, that definition will
control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. Toro Co. v. White
Consolidated Industries Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
A conclusion of obviousness requires an accounting for all of the
limitations in a claim. CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333,
1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003). There must be a factual basis to support a conclusion
of obviousness. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“A
rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these
facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention
from the prior art.”) Further, “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007).
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite the following limitations
“determining an estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V)
based upon the channel response and a receiver beamforming unitary matrix
(U)” and “decomposing the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary
matrix (V) to produce the transmitter beamforming information.” The
Examiner relies upon Kim to describe these disputed limitations. (Ans. 3-4.)
However, Appellants contend that the combination of Kim and
Hwang does not teach or suggest those disputed limitations. (App. Br. 12.)
In particular, Appellants argue that Kim’s disclosure of “determining the
Appeal 2010-006042
Application 11/237,341

6
transmission power information does not teach or suggest any mechanism
for determining ‘transmitter beamforming information’” since the term
“beamforming” is defined in the specification as referring to “shifting as
signal in time or phase” and not in terms of “power.” (App. Br. 13.)
We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. As an initial matter, we
note that the Examiner’s inclusion of newly cited references in the Answer
(Ans.13), without designating them as a new ground of rejection, does not
provide Appellants with an adequate opportunity to respond. See In re
Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302 (CCPA 1976). Further, the rejection statement
itself does not include any of the newly cited references, and relies merely
upon Kim to describe the disputed limitations (Ans. 3-4). Therefore, our
review does not include any consideration of those newly cited references
(e.g., whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over
Kim, Tirkkonen, and Hwang). The principal issue in this appeal is whether
Kim describes the disputed limitations as recited in the claims.
As to claim interpretation, we recognize that Appellants’ specification
defines the term “beamforming” as “a processing technique to create a
focused antenna beam by shifting a signal in time or in phase to provide
gain of the signal in a desired direction and to attenuate the signal in other
directions.” (Spec. 4:20-22, emphasis added.) Appellants also cite several
references in the specification to support this definition. (Spec. 4:2-29.)
Furthermore, Appellants’ usage of the term “beamforming” is consistent
with that definition. Notably, Appellants’ specification discloses that “[t]he
beamforming module 132 generates the beamforming unitary matrix V to
satisfy the conditions of… a second row of polar coordinates including
phase shift values.” (Spec. 16:22-31, emphasis added.)
Appeal 2010-006042
Application 11/237,341

7
Accordingly, we conclude that in light of Appellants’ specification,
one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the claim term
“beamforming” as referring to “shifting a signal in time or phase” rather
than allocating the transmitter power as taught by Kim. (App. Br. 12-13.)
Applying this claim construction, we do not find that Kim teaches or
suggests a step or mechanism for determining an estimated transmitter
beamforming unitary matrix and decomposing the beamforming matrix to
produce the transmitter beamforming information.
It is not disputed that Kim does not expressly teach the disputed
limitations. (Final rejection 2-3.) The Examiner seems to imply that Kim
inherently or implicitly discloses the disputed limitations because the
Examiner states that “although the disclosure does not explicitly state
‘beamforming’, the Examiner interprets the decomposition means as pointed
out in paragraph 0009 and further cited areas which provide for the
determination of feedback information which directly effects the
functionality of the transmitter antenna array properties to fully encompass
the claimed limitations as currently stated.” (Id.) Regarding Kim, the
Examiner also states that “accounting for equation 2, the transmit power can
be seen to directly affect the beamforming matrices.” (Advisory Action.)
The Examiner finds that it would have been “obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art that the feedback and application of power information has a direct
relationship in appropriate system to the beamforming functionality of the
system, and therefore that the power information constitutes ‘beamforming
information’ in the sense that is information utilized by the system or
method to ultimately achieve beamforming adjustments.” (Ans. 12,
emphasis added.)
Appeal 2010-006042
Application 11/237,341

8
Upon consideration of Kim and the Examiner’s findings, we find that
the cited portions of Kim refer to a method of determining the transmission
power to be allocated to the transmitting antennas. (Kim ¶¶ 0007, 0009,
0017, 0019, 0024, 0065.) Further, we agree with Appellants that Kim’s
equation 2 describes a relationship between matrices used to allocate
transmission power among different channels. Kim’s matrices are power
matrices, rather than “beamforming” matrices that include time or phase
shift values. It could well be that such matrices, those of Kim and of the
instant claims, are synonymous in the art of wireless communication
systems, but the Examiner has not shown the same in the appealed rejection.
Additionally, a determination of feedback power information is not
necessarily a determination of the transmitter “beamforming” information
even if the feedback power information affects the functionality of the
transmitter antenna array properties. In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581
(CCPA 1981) (Inherency may not be established by probabilities or
possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set
of circumstances is not sufficient.) Kim does not teach or suggest
decomposing an estimated transmitter “beamforming” unitary matrix to
produce the transmitter “beamforming” information.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s determination that Kim discloses the
disputed limitations is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. As
such, we cannot sustain the rejections of claims 1-20 based on Kim and
Hwang.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the obviousness rejections of
claims 1-20 based on Kim and Hwang.
Appeal 2010-006042
Application 11/237,341

9

REVERSED