Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 3, 2022

2020006626 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 2022)

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. 16/035,811 07/16/2018 Jun-ho Lee 2557-002827-US 7998 30593 7590 01/03/2022 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. P.O. BOX 8910 RESTON, VA 20195 EXAMINER WEIDNER, TIMOTHY J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2476 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/03/2022 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): dcmailroom@hdp.com jcastellano@hdp.com jhill@hdp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JUN-HO LEE, SANG WON SON, HYUN-SEOK YU, YOUNG-SEOK JUNG, SUWON-SI, and HUI-WON JE ____________________ Appeal 2020 -006626 Application No. 16/035,8111 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, MARC S. HOFF, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1-6, 10-14, 16-18, 21, and 24.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant states that the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 4. 2 Claims 19, 20, and 25-32 have been cancelled. Claims 7-9 and 15 stand objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be considered allowable if rewritten in independent form. Final Act. 16. Appeal 2020-006626 Application No. 16/035,811 2 Appellant’s invention is a wireless communication method using a plurality of antennas. The method includes obtaining a target transmission power level and beam forming information, determining at least one inactive antenna from among the plurality of antennas based on the target transmission power level and beam forming information, and controlling transmission signals provided to the plurality of antennas such that transmission via the at least one inactive antenna does not occur. Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A wireless communication method using a plurality of antennas performed by a controller, the wireless communication method comprising: obtaining a target transmission power level and beam forming information; determining at least one inactive antenna from among the plurality of antennas, based on the target transmission power level and the beam forming information; and controlling transmission signals provided to the plurality of antennas such that transmission via the at least one inactive antenna does not occur. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims Appendix). The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Aparin US 2016/0233580 A1 Aug. 11, 2016 Kovacic US 2018/0198204 A1 July 12, 2018 Claims 1-6, 10-14, 16-18, 21, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Aparin and Kovacic. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed June 1, 2020), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Appeal 2020-006626 Application No. 16/035,811 3 September 22, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 22, 2020) for their respective details. ISSUE 1. Does the combination of Aparin and Kovacic teach or suggest determining at least one inactive antenna from among the plurality of antennas based on the target transmission power level and the beam forming information? 2. Does the combination of Aparin and Kovacic teach or suggest selectively inactivating one or more antennas of the plurality of antennas based on a target transmission level and the respective phases? ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “determining at least one inactive antenna from among the plurality of antennas, based on the target transmission power level and the beam forming information.” Independent claim 24 recites an analogous limitation. Independent claim 17 recites, in pertinent part, a power controller configured to selectively inactivate one or more antennas of the plurality of antennas based on a target transmission power level and the respective phases. Claim 17 Appellant argues that the Examiner equates the removal of power from transceiver blocks associated with blocked antenna elements, as taught by Aparin, to the claimed “selectively inactivat[ing] one or more antennas of the plurality of antennas.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant contends that Aparin is Appeal 2020-006626 Application No. 16/035,811 4 silent concerning removing power from transceiver blocks “based on . . . the respective phases [of a plurality of transmission signals output via the plurality of antennas.” Appeal Br. 12-13. The Examiner finds that Aparin teaches “a plurality of antenna elements that use the phase and magnitude of transmitted energy to ‘steer’ transmitted radiation, creating multiple beams or transmission ‘lobes.’” Ans. 4; Aparin ¶ 18. The Examiner further finds that Aparin teaches a phased array system including a plurality of transceivers 250 that include transmission (Tx) phase shifters 212 and reception (Rx) phase shifters 232. Ans. 5. Further, the Examiner finds that Aparin teaches selectively disabling certain transceivers 250 in combination with Tx phase shifters 212a and Rx phase shifters 232a. The Examiner reasons that Aparin thus teaches removing power from an associated transceiver block 250 “based on the respective phases.” Ans. 5. We do not agree with the Examiner. While Aparin does teach a phased array system, which uses the phase and magnitude of transmitted energy to steer transmitted radiation, we find that Aparin further teaches gain controller 240, which receives power information regarding power levels from power detectors 242. Aparin ¶ 38. In response, the gain controller may disable certain antenna elements 202 corresponding to blocked antennas. Id. Aparin thus teaches “selectively inactivating one or more antennas . . . based on a target transmission power level,” as claim 17 recites, but the Examiner has not shown on this record how Aparin teaches or suggests such selective inactivation is also based on “the respective phases” of a plurality of transmission signals. Because the Examiner has not shown that the secondary Kovacic reference overcomes the aforementioned Appeal 2020-006626 Application No. 16/035,811 5 deficiency of Aparin, we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports Appellant’s contention that the combination of Aparin and Kovacic does not teach or suggest all the limitations of independent claim 17. Claim 1 Appellant argues, with respect to claim 1, that Aparin determines blocked antenna elements according to power levels of energy reflected back to each antenna element when a signal is transmitted. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant contends that Aparin is silent regarding determining a blocked antenna element based on a phase (i.e. the claimed “beam forming information”). Id. The Examiner finds, as with claim 17, that Aparin teaches a phased array system that selectively removes power from certain transceiver blocks 250, and thus from certain antenna elements 202. Ans. 6. While we agree with the Examiner that Aparin teaches a system that uses phase and magnitude of transmitted energy to steer transmitted radiation, we find that Aparin “determines at least one inactive antenna” through signals from power detectors 242 to gain controller 240, which then removes power from certain transceiver blocks 250. Aparin Fig. 2, ¶ 38. We find that Aparin thus teaches “determining at least one inactive antenna . . . based on the target transmission power level” (claim 1), but the Examiner has not shown on this record that such determination in Aparin is also based on “beam forming information,” as required by the language of claim 1. Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons argued by Appellant, we find that the combination of Aparin and Kovacic does not teach all the limitations of independent claim 1. We reach the same conclusion regarding independent claim 24, which recites similar limitations having commensurate scope. Appeal 2020-006626 Application No. 16/035,811 6 For essentially the same reasons argued by Appellant in the Briefs, as discussed above, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 17, and 24 over Aparin and Kovacic. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1-6, 10-14, 16-18, 21, and 24. CONCLUSIONS The combination of Aparin and Kovacic does not teach or suggest determining at least one inactive antenna from among the plurality of antennas based on the target transmission power level and the beam forming information. The combination of Aparin and Kovacic does not teach or suggest selectively inactivating one or more antennas of the plurality of antennas based on a target transmission level and the respective phases. Appeal 2020-006626 Application No. 16/035,811 7 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-6, 10-14, 16-18, 21, 24 103 Aparin, Kovacic 1-6, 10-14, 16-18, 21, 24 ORDER The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-6, 10-14, 16-18, 21, and 24 is reversed. REVERSED