Realtek Semiconductor Corp.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 26, 2020

14580227 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2020)

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.
14/580,227 12/23/2014 Chien-Wei Hsin REAP0818USA 7414
27765 7590 03/26/2020
NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION
5F., NO.389, FUHE RD., YONGHE DIST.
NEW TAIPEI CITY,
TAIWAN
EXAMINER
OVEISSI, MANSOUR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2415
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2020 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):
Patent.admin.uspto.Rcv@naipo.com
mis.ap.uspto@naipo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHIEN-WEI HSIN and CHUNG-YAO CHANG
Appeal 2019-001078
Application 14/580,227
Technology Center 2400
BEFORE JAMESON LEE, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and JUSTIN T. ARBES,
Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Realtek
Semiconductor Corp. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001078
Application 14/580,227
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a wireless communication method and a
beamformer capable of selecting stations for beamforming. Spec. ¶ 1. The
Specification describes the following with respect to “beamforming”:
“Beamforming is a technique applied to wireless communications. The
beamforming technique calculates the influence of the channel on the
receiver, and then compensates this influence at the transmitter in advance,
thereby lowering the software and hardware requirements of the receiver to
improve the transmission efficiency.” Id. ¶ 3. The independent claims are
claims 1 and 17, of which claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A wireless communication method applied to a
beamformer, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of reference information from each of
a plurality of stations;
calculating an evaluation value indicating a
communication quality of said each of the plurality of stations
according to at least one reference information of the plurality of
reference information; and
comparing multiple evaluation values respectively
corresponding to the plurality of stations, to select specific
stations from the plurality of stations for performing
beamforming;
wherein evaluation values of the specific stations
correspond to lowest communication qualities among the
communication qualities of the plurality of stations.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Appeal 2019-001078
Application 14/580,227
3
Name Reference Date
Park US 2011/0034193 A1 Feb. 10, 2011
Shirani-Mehr US 2013/0005376 A1 Jan. 3, 2013
Jung US 2013/0102345 A1 Apr. 25, 2013
Namgoon US 2015/0163683 A1 July 11, 2015
(filed Dec. 10, 2013)
Sajadieh US2015/0200718 A1 July 16, 2015
(filed Dec. 22, 2013)

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9–20 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Sajadieh and Park. Final Act. 5–12.
Claim 3 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sajadieh, Park,2 and Shirani-Mehr. Id. at 12–13.
Claims 6 and 8 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sajadieh, Park,3 Jung, and Namgoong. Id. at 13–15.
ISSUES
1. Whether Sajadieh discloses the limitation of claim 1 “wherein
evaluation values of the specific stations correspond to lowest
communication qualities among the communication qualities of the plurality
of stations” (emphasis added).
2. Whether, in light of the disclosure of Park, one with ordinary
skill in the art would have had reason to modify the teachings of Sajadieh in

2 Although the Examiner lists only Sajadieh and Shirani-Mehr in the
rejection (Final Act. 12), claim 3 depends from claim 1. Thus, we
understand the rejection to be based on Sajadieh, Park, and Shirani-Mehr.
3 Although the Examiner lists only Sajadieh, Jung, and Namgoong in the
rejection (Final Act. 13), claims 6 and 8 depend from claim 1. Thus, we
understand the rejection to be based on Sajadieh, Park, Jung, and
Namgoong.
Appeal 2019-001078
Application 14/580,227
4
a manner that satisfies the limitation “wherein evaluation values of the
specific stations correspond to lowest communication qualities among the
communication qualities of the plurality of stations” (emphasis added).
OPINION
A. The Obviousness Rejection of
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9–20 over Sajadieh and Park
As noted above, the last clause recited in claim 1 is “wherein
evaluation values of the specific stations correspond to lowest
communication qualities among the communication qualities of the plurality
of stations.” According to the Examiner, Sajadieh teaches this limitation.
Final Act. 6. Specifically, the Examiner states:
(see FIG. 5 ‘wherein the evaluation values correspond to
communication qualities (channel gain) of the stations
respectively and evaluation values of the specific stations
correspond to lower communication qualities (ranked from
strongest to weaker (lower) channel gain)-that is evaluation
values correspond to both strongest and weaker communication
qualities”, Fig. 7 “714”, paragraphs 49, 59 “wherein evaluation
values of the specific stations correspond to lowest
communication qualities among the communication qualities of
the plurality of stations”, and the paragraphs 50, 60, 114 “beam
selection rejects strongest channel gain (communication
qualities)”, paragraphs 114–115, 120, and 128–129 “lower
channel quality for specific station [user equipment (UE)]
chosen by rejecting strongest channel quality”).
Id. Further according to the Examiner, the limitation is met, alternatively
and from the perspective of one with ordinary skill in the art, by the
combined teachings of Sajadieh and Park. Id. at 6–7. The Examiner states
the following:
Moreover, Park teaches that wireless devices are divided
into first group and second group wherein the first group is
associated with a maximum indicator of signal quality and
Appeal 2019-001078
Application 14/580,227
5
second group is associated with minimum indicator of signal
quality (see paragraphs 4–5, 34, 45, 52, 54, 61, claims 8, 14, and
20).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date of claim invention
to use lowest signal quality grouping of Park in the beamformer
of Sajadieh to implement beams for UEs with lowest
communication qualities.
The motivation for this combination is UEs with low
channel quality not to be discriminated by a base station for
bandwidth allocation.
Id. at 6–7.
Appellant argues first that the Examiner did not accord weight to the
word “lowest” in the term “lowest communication qualities,” by accounting
in the articulated explanations only for “lower communication qualities.”
Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis omitted). Next, Appellant argues that Figure 5 of
Sajadieh and the paragraphs of Sajadieh cited by the Examiner “mainly
teach ‘selecting a channel having a better connection quality for each UE’,
which teaches away [from the] feature ‘evaluation values of the specific
stations correspond to lowest communication qualities’ recited in claim 1.”
Id.
The Examiner, in the Examiner Answer, provides several responses to
the above-identified arguments of Appellant. Ans. 4–5. None of the
Examiner’s explanations is persuasive on the question whether Sajadieh
describes “wherein evaluation values of the specific stations correspond to
lowest communication qualities among the communication qualities of the
plurality of stations” (emphasis added).
The Examiner asserts “the ‘lowest’ qualifier in the limitation ‘wherein
evaluation values of the specific stations correspond to lowest
communication qualities among the communication qualities of the plurality
Appeal 2019-001078
Application 14/580,227
6
of stations’ is not disclosed in the specification.” Id. (emphases omitted).
The statement is misplaced, because a claim limitation still must be met in
an obviousness rejection even if the Examiner believes it lacks support in the
Specification. The alleged lack of support in the Specification is not a
proper basis to rewrite the term “lowest,” which is a superlative term, as
“lower,” which is just a relative term.
The Examiner further responds as follows:
In this case, Examiner refers to paragraph [0052] of
Applicant’s specification which recites the following:
[0052] In this embodiment, stations with lower evaluation
values are more likely to undergo beamforming operations, but
the present invention is not limited thereto. Modifications of
this embodiment may reverse the design of the system. or
example, when a station is idle, this station is given a lower
weighting; when a station has better encoding/decoding ability,
this station is given a lower weighting; and when a station has
better diversity ability, this station is given a lower weighting.
Stations with lower weighting may be viewed as stations
with better communication ability/quality, and therefore do not
require beamforming operations for raising the
communication ability/quality thereof.
If the calculated evaluation value of a station is higher,
this station is more likely to need beamforming operations to
raise the communication ability/quality thereof.
That is the method can be modified such that stations with
higher evaluation value be selected for beamforming.
Id. at 3–4. The above-quoted response is misplaced, because paragraph 52
of the Specification indicates only that the selection criteria for the
calculated weight value can be chosen as either high or low, so long as the
selection corresponds to worse communication quality, not that the criteria
for selecting stations for beamforming can be either stations with higher
ability/quality of communications or lower ability/quality of
Appeal 2019-001078
Application 14/580,227
7
communications. Further, even assuming the Specification discloses that the
criteria for selecting stations for beamforming can be either stations with
higher ability/quality of communications or lower ability/quality of
communications, claim 1 limits the selection of stations to those of the
“lowest” communication qualities.
The Examiner additionally responds by noting that Sajadieh describes
“rejecting a beam having a strongest channel gain and selecting a beam
with next strongest (weaker) channel gain.” Id. at 4 (citing Sajadieh
¶¶ 36, 39, 50, 60, 114–115, 120, 128–129, claim 12, Fig. 5) (emphases
omitted). But rejecting the beam with the strongest channel gain (better
communication) is not the same as selecting the beams or corresponding
stations having the lowest communication qualities. The Examiner has not
identified any embodiment in Sajadieh which selects a group of stations for
beamforming, which selection excludes the station having the highest
communication qualities “and” also includes the station having the “lowest”
communication qualities. Indeed, in the embodiment of Sajadieh’s Figure 5,
either the first or the second strongest beam is selected, and never the
weakest, for each station, as shown in Figure 5 reproduced below:

Appeal 2019-001078
Application 14/580,227
8
Figure 5 is a table showing an example of beam selection in Sajadieh.
Sajadieh ¶ 8.
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner incorrectly determined that
Sajadieh describes “wherein evaluation values of the specific stations
correspond to lowest communication qualities among the communication
qualities of the plurality of stations.”
However, the rejection is based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, and the Examiner, as discussed above, provides an alternate rationale
based on the combined teachings of Sajadieh and Park, for meeting the
limitation “wherein evaluation values of the specific stations correspond to
lowest communication qualities among the communication qualities of the
plurality of stations.” Appellant in its Appeal Brief does not expressly say
anything about the Examiner’s proposed combination of Sajadieh and Park,
except in the conclusion sentence, which states: “In light of above, the
applicant believes that claim 1 should be found allowable over the combined
teachings of the cited references.” Appeal Br. 6.
Although Appellant provides extensive arguments in the Reply Brief
regarding the Examiner’s proposed combination of Sajadieh and Park, new
arguments presented in the Reply Brief are not considered in the absence of
a showing of good cause. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (“Any argument raised in
the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive
to an argument raised in the examiner’s answer, including any designated
new ground of rejection, will not be considered by the Board for purposes of
the present appeal, unless good cause is shown”). Appellant made no
attempt to show “good cause.” Thus, we look to the Appeal Brief to find
overlapping argument, if any, with what Appellant asserts in the Reply
Brief, and consider that. There is one such argument, as discussed below.
Appeal 2019-001078
Application 14/580,227
9
One argument made by Appellant in the Appeal Brief reasonably
constitutes an argument challenging the Examiner’s proposed combination
of Sajadieh and Park. Specifically, on page 5 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant
argues that Figure 5 of Sajadieh and the paragraphs of Sajadieh cited by the
Examiner “mainly teach ‘selecting a channel having a better connection
quality for each UE’, which teaches away [from the] feature ‘evaluation
values of the specific stations correspond to lowest communication qualities’
recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 5. We do not find in Sajadieh the quoted
text “selecting a channel having a better connection quality for each UE,”
but we understand the assertion to be that Sajadieh expressly teaches not to
select the channel with the lowest connection quality for each UE, but rather
a channel having a better connection quality. If Sajadieh teaches not to
select the channel with the lowest connection quality for each UE, then
Park’s dividing stations into two groups by signal strength would not have
led one with ordinary skill to dividing Sajadieh’s stations into two groups
and then selecting the group with the lower communication quality.
We agree with Appellant that Sajadieh teaches not to select a beam
with the lowest connection quality and that Sajadieh describes the reason
why it does so (i.e., to avoid interference with other UEs). See, e.g.,
Sajadieh ¶ 36, Fig. 5; Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 3–4. The Examiner does not
point to any embodiment of Sajadieh, where the station corresponding to the
lowest communication quality is selected for beamforming. We need not
determine whether that constitutes a “teaching away,” as Appellant has
characterized. It is sufficient that such a teaching does not support the
Examiner’s stated reasons for combining the teachings of Sajadieh and Park.
According to the Examiner, Park discloses dividing up the stations into two
groupings by signal strength. Final Act. 6–7. Assuming that as true, and
Appeal 2019-001078
Application 14/580,227
10
further assuming Sajadieh’s stations are so divided, Sajadieh’s teaching of
not selecting the beam with the lowest connection quality would not have
led one with ordinary skill in the art to select the group of stations with the
lower signal strength.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable
over Sajadieh and Park cannot be sustained.
Claim 17 recites “wherein evaluation values of the specific stations
correspond to lowest communication qualities of the plurality of stations.” It
is essentially the same as claim 1’s limitation “wherein evaluation values of
the specific stations correspond to lowest communication qualities among
the communication qualities of the plurality of stations.” Neither the
Examiner nor the Appellant separately discusses claim 17. Our analysis
above of claim 1’s limitation equally applies to claim 17. Thus, the rejection
of claim 7 as unpatentable over Sajadieh and Park also cannot be sustained.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9–16, and 18–20 each depend, directly or indirectly
from claim 1 or claim 17. Our analysis above in the context of claim 1
equally applies to these claims. Thus, the rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9–16
and 18–20 as unpatentable over Sajadieh and Park cannot be sustained.
B. The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 3
over Sajadieh, Park, and Shirani-Mehr
Claim 3 depends from claim 1. Our analysis above in the context of
claim 1 equally applies to claim 3. Thus, the rejection of claim 3 as
unpatentable over Sajadieh, Park, and Shirani-Mehr cannot be sustained.
C. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 6 and 8
over Sajadieh, Park, Jung, and Namgoong
Claims 6 and 8 each depend indirectly from claim 1. Our analysis
above in the context of claim 1 equally applies to claims 6 and 8. Thus, the
Appeal 2019-001078
Application 14/580,227
11
rejection of claims 6 and 8 as unpatentable over Sajadieh, Park, Jung, and
Namgoong cannot be sustained.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5, 7,
9–20
103 Sajadieh, Park 1, 2, 4, 5, 7,
9–20
3 103 Sajadieh, Park,
Shirani-Mehr
3
6, 8 103 Sajadieh, Park,
Jung, Namgoong
6, 8
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED