Ex Parte Safavi et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 26, 2019

13731899 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/731,899 12/31/2012 87076 7590 02/28/2019 FutureWei Technologies, Inc. IPR Department 5700 Tennyson Parkway Suite 600 Plano, TX 75024 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Saeid Safavi 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 81082928US01 1129 EXAMINER FLEMING-HALL, ERICA L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2647 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2019 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): patents.futurewei@huawei.com uspatent@huawei.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SAEID SAFA VI and DEDI D. HAZIZA Appeal2018-003531 Application 13/731,899 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2018-003531 Application 13/731,899 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to a smart antenna platform for indoor wireless local area networks. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus comprising: a first dipole antenna; a beamforming antenna array (BF AA); a first switch coupled to the dipole antenna; a second switch coupled to the BF AA; and a processor coupled to the first switch and the second switch, wherein the processor is configured to: select between a multi-input, multi-output (MIMO) antenna configuration and a beamforming configuration by setting the states of the first switch and the second switch, wherein when the MIMO antenna configuration is selected, the dipole antenna is turned on, and all antennas of the BF AA are turned on to make the BF AA to work as an omni- directional antenna, and wherein when the beamforming configuration is selected, the dipole antenna is turned off, at least one of the antennas of the BF AA is turned off, and at least one of the antennas of the BF AA is turned on. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Kommrusch us 4,101,901 July 18, 1978 1 Appellants indicated that Futurewei Technologies, Inc. is the real party in interest. (App. Br. 3). 2 Appeal 2018-003531 Application 13/731,899 Gans et al. (hereinafter "Gans") Erceg et al. (hereinafter "Erceg") Mansour us 5,610,617 Mar. 11, 1997 US 2009/0081965 Al Mar. 26, 2009 US 7,574,236 Bl Aug. 11, 2009 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Mansour in view of Gans in view of Erceg. Claims 4--7, 11, 12, and 14--18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Gans, Mansour, and Erceg in further view of Kommrusch. ANALYSIS With respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 13, Appellants present arguments to the claims together. (App. Br. 12). We address independent claim 1 as the illustrative claim for the group and find that independent claims 8 and 13 contain similar limitations. With respect to illustrative claim 1, Appellants contend that the two acknowledged deficiencies of the Mansour reference are not remedied by the Examiner's reliance upon the Gans and Erceg references. (App. Br. 9). Appellants further contend that Gans fails to teach that two types of antenna elements may be utilized together to define the antenna elements 32 and that although Gans teaches a dipole antenna, Gans fails to teach the 3 Appeal 2018-003531 Application 13/731,899 dipole antenna may be combined together with the patch antennas. (App. Br. 10). Appellants further argue that: BF AA and the dipole antenna are included in one apparatus to make the apparatus have the technical effect of working as a MIMO antenna based on a first selection and working as beamforming antenna based on a second selection. Gans, however, fails to teach achieving the foregoing technical effect. Thus, Gans has no suggestion on solving the technical problem of claim 1 (i.e., making an apparatus to be different type of antennas based on different selections). Therefore, even if Gans teaches including the BF AA and the dipole antenna in one apparatus, Gans fails to teach or suggest a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Mansour with Gans to solve the technical problem of claim 1. (App. Br. 10). Appellants acknowledge that Erceg teaches two configured antennas may be used in concert for or to facilitate beamforming and/or for a multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) communication. But according to Appellants, "Erceg fails to teach that the meandering pattern antenna is the BF AA. Therefore, Erceg fails to teach that the BFAA may be used together with a di-pole antenna for beamforming and/or a MIMO communication." (App. Br. 10-11). In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner relies upon the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language and finds [i]n this particular case, the claims call for beamforming antenna array. The [E]xaminer contends that an antenna array (such as the square array of patch antennas taught by Gans - see column 4 lines 19-24) with a beamforming mode (as taught by Mansour- -see column 6 lines 52-59) reads on beamforming antenna array (BFAA). 4 Appeal 2018-003531 Application 13/731,899 (Ans. 9). We disagree with the Examiner and find that Mansour generally teaches switching between MIMO and beamforming modes, but does not teach or suggest any specific implementation. In response to Appellants' arguments contending the combination "fails to teach or render obvious that the BF AA may be used together with a di-pole antenna for beamforming and/or a MIMO communication and fails to teach or render obvious how to configure the BF AA and the di-pole antenna," the Examiner finds that "Mansour discloses the first group of antenna elements may be activated to implement a first antenna mode, and a second group of antenna elements ( different than the first group) may be activated to implement a second antenna mode ( different than the first antenna mode)." (Ans. 9). But the Examiner does not identify how the Mansour reference teaches the specific activation of the combination of antenna elements as recited in the language of independent claim 1. Although we agree with the Examiner that the Mansour reference suggests activating different combinations of elements for the modes, the Mansour reference provides no guidance. Additionally, we agree with Appellants that the Gans and Erceg references do not teach or suggest the specific claimed combination of antenna elements and that the Examiner relies upon conclusory statements. (App. Br. 11 ). As a result, the Examiner relies upon a "matter of design choice" without any substantive or persuasive discussion of the combination of prior-art teachings to support the Examiner's position regarding "design choice." (Final Act. 4, 5, 9, 10; Ans. 3, 5, 9, 10). As a result, we find the Examiner's showing regarding obviousness to be lacking regarding the specific actuations of the combination of antenna elements. Therefore, we 5 Appeal 2018-003531 Application 13/731,899 cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claims 8 and 13, which contain similar limitations, and their corresponding dependent claims 2, 3, 9, and 10. The Examiner does not identify how the Kommrusch reference remedies the deficiencies in the base combination. Therefore, we cannot sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 4--7, 11, 12, and 14-- 18 for the same reasons discussed above. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-18 based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). REVERSED 6