Ex Parte Lagnado et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 6, 2012

11144467 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte ISAAC LAGNADO, TIMOTHY NEIL and RAVINDRA P. MALALASEKERA ________________ Appeal 2010-006497 Application 11/144,467 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006497 Application 11/144,467 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s non- final rejection of claims 1 – 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1). We affirm-in-part. Invention The invention relates to employing usage mode-based antenna selection. A usage mode of a device is determined and a subset of available antennas is selected, the subset corresponding to the usage mode. See Spec. ¶ [0005]. Exemplary Claims (Emphases Added) 1. A method of configuring a device, the method comprising: determining a usage mode of the device; and selecting a subset of a plurality of antennas, the subset corresponding to a particular antenna diversity configuration for the usage mode. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the usage mode comprises identifying a mode in a usage mode set, the set comprising at least one usage mode for each orientation of a display. 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the subset for each usage mode comprises those antennas expected to be near an edge of the device most distal from a user when the device is used with the display having the orientation for that usage mode. Appeal 2010-006497 Application 11/144,467 3 5. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the usage mode comprises sensing whether a keyboard is deployed, and if so, identifying a usage mode corresponding to a device configuration with an extended keyboard. 11. The device of claim 7, further comprising a substantially rectangular surface having a display screen, wherein the plurality of antennas comprises an antenna near each corner of the substantially rectangular surface. 14. A computer-readable medium for providing software to a portable computing device, wherein the software configures the portable computing device to: couple a subset of multiple antennas to a wireless communications module when the device is configured for a first usage mode; and couple a different subset of multiple antennas to the wireless communications module when the device is configured for a second, different usage mode. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1 – 10 and 14 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Duong (US 2007/0188380 A1; Aug. 16; 2007; filed Mar. 30, 2004). Ans. 5 – 10. The Examiner rejects claims 11 – 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Duong and Masaki (US 2005/0093753 A1; May 5, 2005; filed Oct. 28, 2004). Ans. 11 – 12. Appeal 2010-006497 Application 11/144,467 4 ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Duong discloses “selecting a subset of a plurality of antennas, the subset corresponding to a particular antenna diversity configuration for the usage mode,” as recited in claim 1? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Duong discloses a “computer- readable medium for providing software to a portable computing device,” as recited in claim 14? 3. Did the Examiner err in finding that Duong discloses “identifying a mode in a usage mode set, the set comprising at least one usage mode for each orientation of a display,” as recited in claim 2? 4. Did the Examiner err in finding that Duong discloses “the subset for each usage mode comprises those antennas expected to be near an edge of the device most distal from a user,” as recited in claim 3? 5. Did the Examiner err in finding that Duong discloses “identifying a usage mode corresponding to a device configuration with an extended keyboard,” as recited in claim 5? 6. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Duong and Masaki teaches or suggests “the plurality of antennas comprises an antenna near each corner of the substantially rectangular surface,” as recited in claim 11? ANALYSIS Claims 1, 6 – 8, 19, and 20 — § 102(e) Claim 1 recites “selecting a subset of a plurality of antennas, the subset corresponding to a particular antenna diversity configuration for the usage mode.” The Examiner finds that Duong, which is directed to a Appeal 2010-006497 Application 11/144,467 5 portable device and method employing beam selection to obtain satellite network positioning signals, discloses this recitation. See Ans. 5 (citing Duong ¶ [0032]). Duong depicts a handheld device that can be open or closed, with a stub antenna and an antenna in the flip portion. See Duong ¶ [0032]. The device is able to select one of the two antennas, thus “improved beam angle diversity is provided using a movable antenna configuration.” Id. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred, arguing that “antenna diversity is understood to require combining signals received from multiple antennas . . . . Duong’s device simply chooses between two single antennas.” App. Br. 10 (citing, e.g., Spec, ¶¶ [0003] and [0020]). However, neither the claim recitations nor the Specification support Appellants’ narrow reading of “antenna diversity.” In particular, the Specification states that with antenna diversity, “the receiving device can combine signals from the various antennas in such a manner as to ‘focus’ the array on the transmitting device in some cases, or in other cases, to simply enhance sensitivity in certain directions while suppressing sensitivity in other directions.” Spec ¶ [0003]. In Duong’s device, selection of one of a plurality of antennas combines their signals (i.e., signals received at either one of the antennas may be used) and enhances sensitivity in certain directions (i.e., the directions to which the selected antenna is most sensitive) and suppresses sensitivity in other directions (i.e., the directions to which the non-selected antenna is most sensitive). During examination of a patent application, a pending claim is given the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification and should be read 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 Appeal 2010-006497 Application 11/144,467 6 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, a broad, but reasonable interpretation of “antenna diversity” encompasses selection of one of a plurality of antennas, as described in Duong. See Duong ¶ [0032]. Appellants further argue that claim 1 requires that the “antenna selection be based on the usage mode of a corresponding device,” but “Duong’s antenna selection is still based on actively detecting which antenna detects a higher number of satellites.” Reply Br. 3; see also App. Br. 13. Appellants argument is not persuasive, however, because Duong’s “method includes detecting whether the flip portion 402 is open and if it is open, the method includes switching to the preferred antenna if the preferred antenna is not already selected.” Duong ¶ [0028] (emphasis added); see also Duong fig. 3. That is, in order to ascertain detect which antenna detects a higher number of satellites, Duong selects a particular antenna diversity configuration (a preferred antenna) for the usage mode (if the flip portion is open). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Duong discloses “selecting a subset of a plurality of antennas, the subset corresponding to a particular antenna diversity configuration for the usage mode,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 1, and of claims 6 – 8, 19, and 20, which are not argued separately with sufficient specificity. See App. Br. 11, 14; Reply Br. 3. Claim 14 — § 102(e) Most of Appellants’ arguments for claim 14, which is directed to a “computer-readable medium for providing software to a portable computing device,” are essentially the same as those made for claim 1. Thus, for the Appeal 2010-006497 Application 11/144,467 7 same reasons given above with respect to claim 1, we do not find these arguments persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Appellants further argue that Duong does not disclose the claimed “computer-readable medium” because “Duong’s system has various circuits with no mention of software nor [sic.] a computer-readable medium for providing software.” App. Br. 13 – 14 (emphasis added). However, Appellants’ argument is contradicted by Duong’s explicit disclosure that its “beam selection control circuit 20 may be implemented in any suitable manner such as . . . any suitable combination of hardware, software and firmware.” Duong ¶ [0018] (emphasis added). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Duong discloses a “computer-readable medium for providing software to a portable computing device,” as recited in claim 14. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 14. Claim 2, 9, and 15 — § 102(e) Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and further recites “identifying a mode in a usage mode set, the set comprising at least one usage mode for each orientation of a display.” The Examiner finds that Duong, which determines which antenna to use when the device is open or closed (i.e., turned on or in an idle mode, respectively), discloses this recitation. See Ans. 5 – 6 (citing, Duong ¶ [0032] and fig. 6); see also Ans. 13 – 14 (further citing Duong fig. 5). Appellants contend that the Examiner erred, arguing that “the open and closed position of a flip phone is not directly related to orientation of a display.” App. Br. 11. However, claim 2 does not specify what the Appeal 2010-006497 Application 11/144,467 8 “orientation of a display” is with respect to. A broad, but reasonable interpretation of “orientation of a display” includes the orientation of the display with respect to the base of the flip phone as disclosed by Duong. As Duong depicts, the orientation of the display with respect to the base changes depending on whether the flip phone is open or closed. See Duong figs. 5 – 6. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Duong discloses “identifying a mode in a usage mode set, the set comprising at least one usage mode for each orientation of a display,” as recited in claim 2. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 2, and of claims 9 and 15, which are not argued separately with sufficient specificity. See Reply Br. 3. Claims 3, 4, 17, and 18 — § 102(e) Claim 3 recites “the subset for each usage mode comprises those antennas expected to be near an edge of the device most distal from a user.”. The Examiner finds that Duong, by selecting one of a plurality of antennas, discloses this recitation. See Ans. 6. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred, arguing that “each subset of antennas in claim 3 includes multiple antennas.” App. Br. 11. However, a broad, but reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation “the subset for each usage mode comprises those antennas” includes subsets of as few as one antenna. The use of the plural form of antennas merely makes clear that the subset is not limited to only one antenna “expected to be near an edge of the device most distal from a user,” but can optionally include multiple antennas. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Duong discloses “the Appeal 2010-006497 Application 11/144,467 9 subset for each usage mode comprises those antennas expected to be near an edge of the device most distal from a user,” as recited in claim 3. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 3, and of claims 4, 17, and 18, which are not argued separately with sufficient specificity. See Ans. 11 – 12 and 14. Claim 5, 10, and 16 — § 102(e) Claim 5 recites “identifying a usage mode corresponding to a device configuration with an extended keyboard.” The Examiner finds that Duong discloses such identification because Duong’s “method includes detecting whether the flip portion 402 is open.” Ans. 7; see also Duong figs. 4 and 5, ¶ [0028]. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred, arguing that “Duong’s flip phone does not have an extended keyboard as in claim 5.” App Br. 12. Neither the claim nor the Specification clearly defines “extended keyboard.” Appellants direct our attention to figures 5 and 6, and paragraph [0034] of the Specification. See App. Br. 7. However, the most detail that the Specification provides is that “the usage mode determination may be based in part on whether the keyboard is deployed, i.e., one usage mode may correspond to a device configuration with an extended keyboard, while another usage mode may correspond to a device configuration with a stowed keyboard.” Spec. ¶ [0034]. Thus, a broad, but reasonable, interpretation of “extended keyboard” encompasses a deployed keypad such as the one depicted on the base of Duong’s flip phone. See Duong fig. 5. When the flip portion 402 of Duong’s flip phone is open, the keypad is accessible and thus deployed or extended; when the flip portion 402 of Duong’s flip phone is Appeal 2010-006497 Application 11/144,467 10 closed, the keypad is inaccessible and thus stowed. See Duong figs. 5 and 6. Thus, Duong depicts an extended keyboard (i.e., when the flip portion of the flip phone is open the keypad is deployed). See Duong fig. 5. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Duong discloses “identifying a usage mode corresponding to a device configuration with an extended keyboard,” as recited in claim 5. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 5, and of claims 10 and 16, which are not argued separately with sufficient specificity. See Reply Br. 3. Claims 11 – 13 — § 103(a) Claim 11 recites “the plurality of antennas comprises an antenna near each corner of the substantially rectangular surface.” The Examiner finds that Duong does not teach or suggest this recitation, but instead relies on Masaki to teach or suggest an antenna near each corner of a substantially rectangular surface. See Ans. 11. Appellants correctly note that Masaki “shows four antennas (two antennas in each of two corners).” App. Br. 15 (emphasis added). Specifically, Masaki teaches that “[o]f four corners of the display unit 12, two corners (upper right and upper left portions) located above when the display unit 12 is open include their respective antenna.” Masaki ¶ [0024] (emphasis added); see also Masaki fig. 1. Masaki emphasizes that “[r]adiation characteristics are particularly good at the above two corners.” Masaki ¶ [0024]. The Examiner does not provide findings or reasoning showing that Masaki, by teaching placement of antennas in the upper two corners of a Appeal 2010-006497 Application 11/144,467 11 display, teaches or suggests also placing an antenna near each of the lower two corners of the display. Therefore, the Examiner has not shown that the combination of Duong and Masaki teaches or suggests “the plurality of antennas comprises an antenna near each corner of the substantially rectangular surface,” as recited in claim 11. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 11, or claims 12 and 13 which depend thereon. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 – 10 and 14 – 20 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11 – 13 is reversed. 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). In the event of further prosecution, we direct the Examiner’s attention to potential 35 U.S.C. § 101 issues presented by claims 14 – 18, which are directed to a “computer-readable medium for providing software to a portable computing device.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of such claims typically covers forms of transitory propagating signals per se which are non-statutory subject matter. See 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010); Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media. See also In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356 – 57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2, available at http://www.uspto.gov/ web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/2009-08-25_interim_101_instructions.pdf. This Appeal 2010-006497 Application 11/144,467 12 guidance may be particularly appurtenant to claim 14 because the Specification provides examples of “information carrier media” that include “wireless links.” See Spec. ¶ [0031]. AFFIRMED-IN-PART tj