INTERDIGITAL PATENT HOLDINGS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 18, 2021

2020005624 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2021)

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.
14/441,237 05/07/2015 Hanqing LOU IDC-2012P00617WOUS 1932
24374 7590 03/18/2021
VOLPE KOENIG
DEPT. ICC
30 SOUTH 17TH STREET -18TH FLOOR
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CHUONG M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2411
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2021 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):
eoffice@volpe-koenig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HANQING LOU, PENGFEI XIA,
MONISHA GHOSH, OGHENEKOME OTERI, and
ROBERT L. OLESEN
___________

Appeal 2020-005624
Application 14/441,237
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC B. CHEN and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 21−40 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 11. Claims 21, 27, 31 and 37 are

1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s
determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 6, 2020), the Reply
Brief (filed July 27, 2020), the Final Action (mailed November 4, 2019) and
the Answer (mailed May 26, 2020), for the respective details.

2 We use the term Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Brief 3.

Appeal 2020-005624
Application 14/441,237
2

independent. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing
was held on March 4, 2021.
We reverse.
Introduction
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter is:
A first communication device for beamforming may
include a plurality of antennas and a processor. The processor
may be configured to partition the antenna into at least a first
group of antennas and a second group of antennas. The processor
may be further configured to send a plurality of beamforming
training frames to a second communication device using the first
group of antennas and the second group of antennas. The
processor and/or a receiver may be configured to receive, from
the second communication device, a first beamforming weight
vector for sending signals on the first group of antennas and to
receive a second beamforming weight vector for sending signals
on the second group of antennas.

See Specification ¶ 34.

Representative Claim3 (disputed limitations italicized)
21. A first communication device comprising:
a plurality of antennas;
a processor configured to:
determine a first path strength for a first path between the first
communication device and a second communication device,

3 “Applicant respectfully submits that the arguments presented regarding
independent claim 21 apply mutatis mutandis to independent claims 27, 31,
and 37, and that claims 27, 31 and 37 are allowable for at least the same
reasons.” Appeal Brief 10. Accordingly, we select independent claim 21 as
the representative claim focusing on subject matter common to independent
claims 21, 27, 31 and 37. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-005624
Application 14/441,237
3

determine a second path strength for a second path between the
first communication device and the second communication device,
determine that the first path strength is greater than the second
path strength,
partition the plurality of antennas into at least a first group of
antennas and a second group of antennas,
assign the first group of antennas to the first path, and assign
the second group of antennas to the second path,
wherein the first group of antennas is associated with a first
beam to the second communication device, and
wherein the second group of antennas is associated with a
second beam to the second communication device;
a transmitter configured to transmit, to the second
communication device, a plurality of beamforming training frames using the
first group of antennas and the second group of antennas; and
a receiver configured to:
receive, from the second communication device, a first
beamforming weight vector for sending signals on the first group of
antennas, and
receive, from the second communication device, a second
beamforming weight vector for sending signals on the second group
of antennas.

Appeal 2020-005624
Application 14/441,237
4

References
Name4 Reference Date
Blount US 6,895,230 B1 May 17, 2005
Na US 2009/0080560 A1 March 26, 2009
Guo US 2009/0098838 A1 April 16, 2009
Wang US 2009/0116444 A1 May 7, 2009
Won US 2016/0105870 A1 April 14, 2016

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 21–35 and 37–40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Na, Wang, Guo and Blount. Final Action 6–22.
Claim 36 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Na, Wang, Guo, Blount and Won. Final Action 22–24.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner acknowledges, “Na, Wang, and Guo do not specifically
teach that the plurality of antennas is partitioned into at least a first group of
antennas and a second group of antennas; assign the first group of antennas
to the first path and assign the second group of antennas to the second path.”
Final Action 9 (emphasis added). The Examiner relies upon Blount to
address the Na, Wang and Guo’s deficiency:
In an analogous art, Blount discloses a processor (i.e.
“beam forming matrix”), wherein the processor is configured to
partition the plurality of antennas (“In a phased array antenna
system, a beam forming matrix, such as a Butler matrix,
providing antenna beam interfaces for coupling with base station
transceiver equipment through multiple paths and antenna
element interfaces for providing RF beam component signals to
the antenna array. Accordingly, the beam forming matrix

4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.

Appeal 2020-005624
Application 14/441,237
5

includes circuitry for controlling the phase and/or amplitude of
generated RF beam component signals.” Col. 1, lines 32-46;
Figs. 1- 2) into at least a first group of antennas (i.e. “first
multiple beam antenna structure”) and a second group of
antennas (i.e. “second multiple beam antenna structure”), assign
the first group of antennas to the first path (“The method of claim
13, wherein said first group of antenna beam signal paths are
associated with a same multiple beam antenna structure.” [Claim
14 text]), and assign the second group of antennas to the second
path (“The method of claim 14, wherein said plurality of antenna
beam signal paths include a second group of antenna beam signal
paths associated with a second multiple beam antenna structure.”
[Claim 15 text]).

Final Action 10 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant contends, “Blount does not teach or suggest a
communication device partitioning antennas into groups or assigning the
groups of antennas to paths, as in claim 21.” Appeal Brief 8. Appellant
further contends, “[t]he one-to-one antenna panel to signal path
correspondence as disclosed in Blount is very limited compared to claim 21,
and does not permit different antenna sub-group partitioning (e.g., according
to system requirements as explained in Application ¶[0l0l], or enabling
uniform and non-uniform antenna grouping as explained in Application
¶[¶][0118]-[0119]).” Appeal Brief 8–9.
The Examiner finds:
Blount further discloses the use of multipaths in the antenna array
(“In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, each
antenna panel of a multiple antenna beam system provides
four antenna beams and, thus, includes four separate paths.”
Col. 6, lines 34-36) that requires the assignment of different
group of antennas to different paths (“In turn, while only one
delay equalization circuit is shown in FIG. 1, in this
embodiment there might be a separate circuit for each such
antenna beam signal path.” Col. 6, lines 36-39).
Appeal 2020-005624
Application 14/441,237
6

Answer 22.

Appellant further contends:
Moreover, as argued in the Appeal Brief Pages 8-9, Blount
fails to teach or suggest a communication device configured to
“partition the plurality of antennas into at least a first group of
antennas and a second group of antennas”, as per claim 21. The
“antenna panels” of Blount are preconfigured pieces of hardware
with a predetermined number of antennas such that the antenna
panels are “selected” (See Blount col. 10, lines 6-13).

Reply Brief 6.
Blount discloses:
At step 302, a particular antenna array is selected, such as a
particular antenna array panel of a multiple panel system. At step
305, the routine confirms that it has not calibrated all of the
antenna arrays. If it has calibrated all of the arrays, it is completed
at step 306. Otherwise, it proceeds to step 307 and selects a
transmission path, such as a particular antenna beam path of a
selected multiple beam antenna panel.

Blount Column 10, lines 6–13.

Appellant concludes that:
‘Selecting’ antenna panels, as in Blount, is not equivalent to
‘partitioning’ antennas into different groups of antennas, as in the
present claims, and the device structure of Blount does not enable
partitioning antennas for path assignment because the antenna
panels are fixed. Thus, it stands that Na, Wang, Guo and Blount
don’t even teach all the elements of the claims, even when
combined.

Reply Brief 6–7.

We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of Examiner error. Blount
is silent in regard to wherein a processor is configured to partition a plurality
Appeal 2020-005624
Application 14/441,237
7

of antennas as required in independent claim 21. Blount does disclose a
“phased antenna system, a beam forming matrix, such as a Butler matrix” in
the Background; however, the Examiner does not expound upon the
characteristics of the noted Butler matrix. Blount, column 1, lines 32, 33;
see Final Action 10. We further find that Na, Wang and Guo fail to address
Blount’s noted deficiency. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record,
and we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims
21, 27, 31 and 37, commensurate in scope. We also reverse the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of dependent claims 22–26, 28–30, 32–36 and 38–40
for the same reasons stated above.

CONCLUSION

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21–35, 37–
40
103 Na, Wang, Guo,
Blount
21–35,
37–40
36 103 Na, Wang, Guo,
Blount, Won
36
Overall
Outcome
21–40

REVERSED