Ex Parte BANEYDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 30, 201914828358 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/828,358 08/17/2015 126149 7590 05/02/2019 Keysight Technologies, Inc. C/0 CPA Global 900 Second A venue South Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR DOUGLAS BANEY 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. 20150051-01 6948 EXAMINER OUTTEN, SAMUEL S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2842 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/02/2019 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): keysightdocketing@cpaglobal.com notice.legal@keysight.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte Douglas Baney Appeal2018-001784 Application 14/828,358 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-9, 12-15, and 18-20. (Appeal Br. 3). Claims 1, 2, 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as unpatentable over Mendolia (US 2011/0063042 Al, publ. Mar. 17, 2011). The remaining dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 1 Appellant is the Applicant, Keysight Technologies, Inc. which is also stated to be the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal2018-001784 Application 14/828,358 unpatentable over Mendolia in view of various other references. 2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Independent claim 1 is illustrative ( emphasis added to highlight key disputed limitations): 1. A system for acquiring a desired response to an electromagnetic signal by at least an electrical component, the system comprising: an adaptive network electrically cooperating with the electrical component; a measurement device configured to measure a parameter indicative of a combined response by the electrical component and the adaptive network to an impinging electromagnetic signal; a processor configured to identify, in accordance with the measured parameter, a feedback signal that reduces the difference between the combined response to the electromagnetic signal and a predetermined response; and a feedback generator configured to generate the feedback signal and to convey the generated feedback signal to the adaptive network, which dynamically adjusts an electrical characteristic of the adaptive network in response to the feedback signal to acquire the desired response. Appellant only presents arguments directed to independent claim 1, and states that the same arguments apply to the other independent claims 14 and 20 (Appeal Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 8). Appellant presents no additional 2 See Final Act. 5-14 for the Examiner's complete statement of all the§ 103 rejections (see also Ans. 5-14). Appellant does not substantially argue any of the§ 103 rejections (see Appeal Br. 12-14). 2 Appeal2018-001784 Application 14/828,358 arguments to any of the dependent claims (Appeal Br. 12, 13; Reply Br. 8- 10). Accordingly, all of the dependent claims stand or fall together with their respective independent claim. ANALYSIS After reviewing each of Appellant's arguments for patentability, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding that the claimed subject matter of representative claim 1 is anticipated within the meaning of§ 102 in view of the applied prior art of Mendolia. Accordingly, we will sustain all of the Examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer and Final Action. We add the following primarily for emphasis. The dispute is whether the claim language "a combined response," "electrically cooperating," "to measure a parameter indicative of a combined response," and "a feedback signal that reduces the difference between the combined response to the electromagnetic signal and a predetermined response," as recited in claim 1 ( and corresponding language in claims 14 and 20), encompasses the antenna system as taught by Mendolia (Appeal Br. 8-10; see also Reply Br. 5-8). Appellant argues that the Examiner has not met the standard for anticipation (Appeal Br. 10). These arguments are not persuasive of error in the Examiner's rejection. In determining whether a reference anticipates the subject matter recited in a claim, "it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). Cf In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 315 (CCPA 3 Appeal2018-001784 Application 14/828,358 1978) (In order to anticipate, a reference must identify something falling within the claimed subject matter with sufficient specificity to constitute a description thereof within the purview of§ 102). It is also well established that specific examples of the claimed subject matter are not necessary to establish anticipation. Rather, to anticipate, one skilled in the art must be able to "at once envisage" the claimed subject matter in the prior art disclosure. In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676,681 (CCPA 1962). Specifically, Appellant argues that the prior art does not teach a "combined response" (Appeal Br. 8, 10; Reply Br. 4--5). Appellant asserts that a "combined response" could not be taught by the prior art because the matching element 1 Oa is a component of the matching network 1 O; therefore a single response is produced rather than a "combined response" (Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 4). Appellant further argues that Examiner did not show that Mendolia teaches "an adaptive network electrically cooperating with the electrical component" because the Examiner's interpretation suggests that matching network is electrically cooperating with itself. (Appeal Br. 9) (emphasis omitted). Appellant finally argues that Mendolia's PCLU (power control and logic unit) does not operate as Examiner asserts and does not use the "combined response" and does not use a feedback signal that "reduces the difference between the [']combined response[s'] to the electromagnetic signal and a predetermined response." (Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 7, 8) ( emphasis omitted). "[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification .... Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation." In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 4 Appeal2018-001784 Application 14/828,358 (Fed. Cir. 2007). "[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee." Id. The Examiner finds that the "[m]atching element 10a and the matching network 10 provide a combined response" to the signal 104 (Ans. 15). The Examiner explains that "a combined response" reasonably encompasses the interaction between 1 Oa, 1 Ob, and 1 Oc as the other components 1 Ob and 1 Oc must interact with 1 Oa; therefore, a combined response is met in light of the plain meaning of "combined" (Ans. 16). Appellant does not direct us to any limiting or special definition in the Specification of "combined". The Examiner also relies upon the plain and ordinary meaning of the word "cooperating" and explains that each component 1 Oa, 1 Ob, and 1 Oc are acting together (that is, cooperating) and contributing to the overall final signal, and that these components operate together with additional passive components (Id.). The Examiner also cites to Mendolia paragraph 65, which teaches "additional elements (passive components) of the matching network" (Ans. 15). Appellant does not direct us to any limiting or special definition in the Specification of "cooperating". Appellant admits that the VSWR (voltage standing wave ratio) parameter of Mendolia is the ratio of the transmitted and reflected signal voltages (Appeal Br. 9, 10; Ans. 17). As the Examiner explains, the reflected signal, and thus the VSWR, is a function of an impedance mismatch and the network response may be considered a combined response (Ans. 17). Appellant also does not direct us to any limiting or special definition in the Specification of "combined response". 5 Appeal2018-001784 Application 14/828,358 The Examiner relies on the abstract of Mendolia to teach that the PC LU senses VSWR (e.g., Final Act. 3). The Examiner's position is further supported by Mendolia's explicit statement that "the control and power control & logic unit (PC LU) 116 which converts the input analog signals 104 into digital signals, senses VSWR phase and magnitude." (Mendolia ,r 7 6) ( emphasis omitted). Appellant also contends that the Examiner has not addressed the argument that Mendolia does not teach "a feedback signal that reduces the difference between the combined response to the electromagnetic signal and a predetermined response" (Appeal Br. 1 O; Reply Br. 8). However, as pointed out by the Examiner, "the processor, as a power control and logic unit, includes a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions ( algorithms, para [0068]), executable [by] a processor (PCLU 116) of an adaptive feedback system3 to perform the feedback system as described above." (Ans. 3--4). As stated in Mendolia: The purpose of using variable matching capacitors 313 as matching network elements 1 Oa, 1 Ob and 1 Oc is to compensate the mismatched impedances in the RF circuit by means of dynamically increasing or decreasing the voltage across said BST capacitors. The capacitance may be used to "tune" the RF circuit with an externally applied variable voltage 34. The algorithms in the power control & logic unit (PCLU) 116 may be based on dynamic equations (independent equations) for the purpose of control. Voltage compensation operations applied to the matching network elements 1 Oa, 1 Ob, and 1 Oc, may be employed in a closed loop control system ... may allow for a simple low loss means to dynamically compensate any RF circuit in an autonomous system loop. Mendolia ,r 68 ( emphasis added, bolding omitted). 3 It appears that claim 20 may be missing the word "by" after "executable". 6 Appeal2018-001784 Application 14/828,358 One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that this passage of Mendolia describes a feedback loop (i.e., autonomous system loop) that has a predetermined response of increasing or decreasing the voltages across the capacitors, and thus is encompassed by the claim language. Accordingly, Appellant does not provide any persuasive reasoning or evidence that the Examiner's finding of anticipation is unreasonable. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's position with respect to claim 1, as well as to corresponding independent claims 14 and 20 (Ans. generally). Appellant does not present any additional arguments for any of the dependent claims, even those rejected separately. Accordingly, all of the remaining dependent claims fall together with their respective independent claim. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's anticipation rejection, as well as the obviousness rejections of the dependent claims, which are not separately argued. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136. DECISION AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation