Ex Parte Buccafusca et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 21, 201612261902 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/261,902 10/30/2008 57299 7590 01/25/2016 Kathy Manke A vago Technologies Limited 4380 Ziegler Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Osvaldo Buccafusca 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. 2008-062USORG 5220 EXAMINER CHENG, DIANA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2842 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01125/2016 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): kathy.manke@avagotech.com patent. info@avagotech.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte OSVALDO BUCCAFUSCA, STEVEN MARTIN, and ATUL GOEL Appeal2014-001506 Application 12/261,902 Technology Center 2800 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-5 and 10-15. Claims 6-9 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Avago Technologies Wireless IP (Singapore) PTE., LTD, Inc., as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.) Appeal2014-001506 Application 12/261,902 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention is directed to an electronic receiver comprised of acoustic transducers, each of which resonates at a given frequency. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An electronic receiver, comprising: a plurality of acoustic transducers, each acoustic transducers [sic] being configured to resonate substantially at one frequency and to provide an output at the one frequency, wherein the frequency of each of the plurality of acoustic transducers differs from the frequency of all other acoustic transducers of the plurality of acoustic transducers; and a signal processor configured to multiply each output by a respective coefficient and to add the outputs to reproduce the frequency content of a signal. REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 and 10-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Love et al. (US 7,382,684 B2, issued June 3, 2008) and von der Embse (US 7,391,819 Bl, issued June 24, 2008). (Final Act. 2--4.) ISSUE ON APPEAL Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following dispositive issue: 2 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 25, 2013); the Reply Brief (filed Nov. 13, 2013); the Final Office Action (mailed Feb. 25, 2013); and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Sep. 13, 2013) for the respective details. 2 Appeal2014-001506 Application 12/261,902 Whether the combination of Love and von der Embse teaches or suggests the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 11. (App. Br. 5- 14.) ANALYSIS For the independent claim limitations, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Love of the use of receivers, such as accelerometers, that sense reflected seismic waves, which are part of an apparatus used to detect the fundamental and harmonic frequencies of subsurface formations, and the disclosure in von der Embse of a quadrature parallel-layered modulation technique using inverse fast Fourier transforms of input data symbols, and which involves multiplication and addition operations on the transformed signals. (Final Act. 2-3; Love col. 1, 11. 25-32, col. 8, 11. 40-43, col. 9, 11. 26-41; von der Embse Fig. lOA, col. 10, 11. 34--48.) The Examiner finds: Love et al. discloses an acoustic receiver ... that both determines the fundamental frequency and the corresponding harmonics ... in order to "generate enough energy to result in accurate surveys" ... but do not disclose the details of the receiver. von der Embse teaches in Fig. 1 OA, an electronic receiver, compnsmg: a plurality of transducers, each transducer being configured to resonate substantially at one frequency and to provide an output at the one frequency (50), wherein the frequency of each of the plurality of transducers differs from the frequency of all other transducers of the plurality of transducers ... and a signal processor configured to multiply each output by a respective coefficient and to add the outputs to reproduce the frequency content of a signal ( 51 ). 3 Appeal2014-001506 Application 12/261,902 (Id.) Appellants argue that Love's disclosure of accelerometers does not teach or suggest a receiver comprising a plurality of acoustic transducers, as required by the claims. (App. Br. 6.) However, we agree with the Examiner's reasonable interpretation of "acoustic transducer" - "any element which converts energy" - and accordingly agree that the accelerometers of Love satisfy that limitation. (Ans. 6-7.) In particular, the Examiner correctly relies on the disclosure in Love, "'receiver' is an acoustic-to-electric converter that receives acoustic energy." (Ans. 6; Love col. 5, 11. 30-31.) Appellants further argue that the cited references do not disclose "an acoustic transducer being configured to resonate substantially at one frequency and to provide an output at the one frequency [or] that each of the plurality of acoustic transducers differs from the frequency of all other acoustic transducers of the plurality of acoustic transducers." (App. Br. 10- 11.) The Examiner responds, citing the disclosure in Love, "[ o ]nee the fundamental frequency of a given target of interest has been determined by adjusting the frequency of the source, other harmonics will occur at a period that is the inverse of the thickness of the target of interest." (Ans. 6-7; Love col. 9, 11. 26-29.) The Examiner further responds that von der Embse discloses acoustic transducers and again cites the inverse fast Fourier transform circuit of Figure lOA as teaching the details of the claim. However, we are persuaded that the Examiner errs in finding the specific limitations of the independent claims taught or suggested by the combination of Love and von der Embse. The disclosure in Love on which the Examiner relies refers to determining resonate frequencies of subsurface 4 Appeal2014-001506 Application 12/261,902 formations, but discloses nothing indicating that transducers are "configured to resonate." In addition, the Examiner's reliance on the statement in von der Embse of applications of the invention to "sound" is not relevant to the claims. (Ans. 8.) Nor does Figure lOA of von der Embse, which depicts a network of multipliers and an adder, provide any teaching or suggestion of acoustic transducers resonating at different frequencies and providing corresponding outputs. Thus, we agree with Appellant, "von der Embse fails to disclose a plurality of acoustic transducers as specifically recited in claims 1 and 11." (App. Br. 9.) In sum, the Examiner has not pointed to any portion of the cited references that teach or suggest the specific limitations of the independent claims. (App. Br. 5-14.) Therefore, on the record before us, we are constrained to find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 11. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-5 and 11-15, which depend from claims 1 or 11. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5 and 10-15 is reversed. REVERSED Jagr 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation