Ex Parte Morgan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 4, 2012

11329375 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DENNIS RAYMOND MORGAN
____________

Appeal 2010-005453
Application 11/329,375
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JOHN A. EVANS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-005453
Application 11/329,375

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-23, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
1. A method of using a plurality of antennas for a wireless
communication, the method comprising:

determining a plurality of complex weights using a composite channel
response associated with the plurality of antennas, wherein the complex
weights are determined to equalize the composite channel response over a
selected bandwidth;

applying each complex weight to a signal to be transmitted by a
corresponding one of the antennas to form a plurality of weighted signals;
and

transmitting each of the plurality of weighted signals from the
corresponding one of the plurality of antennas.

Prior Art
Sugar US 6,687,492 B1 Feb. 3, 2004
NEWTON’S TELECOM DICTIONARY 282 (1998).
Andreas F. Molisch et al., Space-Time-Frequency (STF) Coding for
MIMO-OFDM Systems, 6 IEEE COMM. LETTERS 370 (Sept. 2002).
Ying-Chang Liang & John M. Cioffi, Combining Transmit
Beamforming, Space-Time Block Coding and Delay Spread Reduction, 14TH
IEEE 2003 INT’L SYMP. ON PERS., INDOOR & MOBILE RADIO COMM. PROC.
105 (2003).
J. Zhang et al., Effective Optimisation Method for Channel Shortening
in OFDM Systems, 150 IEE PROC. COMM. 85 (Apr. 2003).
Appeal 2010-005453
Application 11/329,375

3

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-5, 7, 10-19, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Sugar.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sugar.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sugar and Zhang.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sugar and Liang.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sugar and Molisch.

ANALYSIS
Section 102 rejection of claims 1, 7, 15, 1618, 19, and 21-23
Appellant contends that Sugar does not describe determining and
applying complex weights to a signal to equalize the composite channel
response over a selected bandwidth. Br. 6. The Examiner finds that column
7, lines 10-56, teaches complex weights are determined to equalize the
composite channel response over a selected bandwidth. Ans. 4. The cited
section of Sugar describes determining optimum weights for a linear
equalizer and for a decision feedback equalizer (DFE). Appellant has not
provided persuasive evidence or argument to distinguish “determining a
plurality of complex weights . . . to equalize the composite channel
response” from the weights determined for the equalizer described by Sugar.
Appeal 2010-005453
Application 11/329,375

4
Appellant contends that the optimal weights determined by Sugar
maximize SINR or minimize MSE. According to Appellant, the weights
determined by Sugar are frequency dependent and will not equalize the
composite channel response. Br. 6-7. However, Appellant has not provided
persuasive evidence to support this argument. Attorney argument is not
evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Nor can it
take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549
F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977). Lawyer’s arguments and conclusory
statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little
probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Appellant
has not provided arguments for separate patentability of claims 7, 15, 16, 18,
19, and 21-23, which fall with claim 1.

Section 102 rejection of claim 2-5, 10-14, and 17
Claim 2 recites “determining the plurality of complex weights such
that an overall transfer function for the plurality of antennas remains
substantially flat over said given bandwidth.” Appellant contends that Sugar
is completely silent with regard to any particular shape of the transfer
function. Br. 8. The Examiner finds that Sugar describes a frequency
shaping constraint for the sum of power of the signals is a constant value.
The Examiner also finds that Sugar describes an equalization process for
determining weights, which produces a flat frequency response. The
Examiner concludes that Sugar describes “an overall transfer function for
the plurality of antennas remains substantially flat over said given
bandwidth” as recited in claim 2. Ans. 14-15. Appellant has not provided
Appeal 2010-005453
Application 11/329,375

5
persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s findings. We
sustain the rejection of claims 2-5, 10-14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Section 103 rejection of claim 6
Appellant presents arguments for the patentability of claim 6 (Br. 11)
similar to those presented for claim 1 which we find unpersuasive. We
sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claim 8
Appellant contends that Zheng teaches away from equalization of the
channel response because Zheng, like Sugar, teaches that the signal to
interference plus noise ratio (SINR) should be used as the optimization
criterion, but equalization of the channel response tends to increase SINR.
Br. 12. However, Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence to show
that equalization of the channel response increases SINR.
We sustain the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claim 9
The Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill would have been
motivated to combine the teachings of Sugar and Liang to reduce large delay
spread and inter-symbol interference. Ans. 10. Appellant contends that
Sugar does not teach that large delay spreads are a problem. Appellant also
contends that the Examiner has not demonstrated that the techniques
described in Liang are compatible with the techniques described in Sugar.
Br. 13. The Examiner finds that Sugar describes a large delay spread, and
Liang teaches that a large delay spread is undesirable. The Examiner further
Appeal 2010-005453
Application 11/329,375

6
finds that Liang teaches reducing delay spread for an array of antennas, such
as the antennas taught by Sugar. Ans. 15-16.
Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut
the Examiner’s findings. We sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claim 20
Appellant contends that computing weights from eigenvalues as
taught by Sugar teaches away from simulating a frequency-selective fading
model as taught by Molisch. Br. 14. The Examiner finds that Sugar teaches
simulating weights and simulations for antenna selection diversity. Ans. 16.
Appellant has not pointed to anything in Sugar that disparages or
discourages simulating a frequency-selective fading model.
We sustain the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 10-19, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Sugar is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sugar is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sugar and Zhang is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sugar and Liang is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sugar and Molisch is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-005453
Application 11/329,375

7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

babc