Ex Parte Chang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 6, 201714316194 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/316,194 06/26/2014 Glenn Chang 24998US03 1797 23446 7590 11/08/2017 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD 500 WEST MADISON STREET SUITE 3400 CHICAGO, IL 60661 EXAMINER SHEPARD, JUSTIN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2424 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/08/2017 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): mhmpto @ mcandrews-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GLENN CHANG, BRIAN SPRAGUE, and MADHUKAR REDDY Appeal 2017-007290 Application 14/316,1941 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 21—40, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 1—20 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Maxlinear Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-007290 Application 14/316,194 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention relates generally to “a system [and] method ... for integrated stacking.” Spec. 1 5.2 Claims 21 and 29 are representative and read as follows (with the disputed limitation emphasized)'. 21. A system, comprising: a signal reception assembly that is configured to receive a plurality of satellite signals that are captured using a satellite signal reflector, wherein each of the plurality of satellite signals is different from remaining ones of the plurality satellite signals; and a processing circuitry that is configured to: process at least two signals from the plurality of satellite signals; and generate an output signal based on the processing of the at least two signals; wherein: the output signal comprises only one or more portions from each of the at least two signals, the one or more portions from the at least two signals are stacked within the output signal, and the stacking of the one or more portions from the at least two signals comprises applying channel equalization, the channel equalization comprising equalizing power of a plurality of sub-components of a 2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action (mailed Mar. 29, 2016, “Final Act.”), Appellants’ Appeal Brief (filed Sept. 29, 2016, “App. Br.”) and Reply Brief (filed Apr. 6, 2017, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Feb. 6, 2017, “Ans.”), and the original Specification (filed June 26, 2014, “Spec.”). 2 Appeal 2017-007290 Application 14/316,194 frequency band corresponding to said one or more portions. 29. The system of claim 28, wherein the processing circuitry is operable to combine the one or more portions from each of the at least two received satellite signals based on configuration of the single link. Appeal Br. 24—25 (Claims App’x). Rejections on Appeal Claims 21—24, 31—34, 36, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over James et al. (US 2006/0225098 Al; published Oct. 5, 2006) (“James”), in view of Ikeda (US 2005/0198672 Al; published Sept. 8, 2005), and further in view of Ling et al. (US 2013/0003817 Al; published Jan. 3, 2013) (“Ling”). Claims 25 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over James, in view of Ikeda, in view of Ling, and further in view of Nakashima et al. (US 2012/0002580 Al; published Jan. 5, 2012) (“Nakashima”). Claims 26—30 and 37—39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over James, in view of Ikeda, in view of Ling, and further in view of Davis et al. (US 2002/0154055 Al; published Oct. 24, 2002) (“Davis”). 3 Appeal 2017-007290 Application 14/316,194 ANALYSIS3 Rejection of Independent Claims 21, 31, and 40 under § 103(a) Appellants argue the combination of cited references fails to teach or suggest, “the stacking of the one or more portions from the at least two signals comprises applying channel equalization, the channel equalization comprising equalizing power of a plurality of sub-components of a frequency band corresponding to said one or more portions,” as recited in independent claim 21, and similarly recited in independent claims 31 and 40. See App. Br. 9. More specifically, Appellants argue, even assuming arguendo Ling teaches channel equalization, Ling does not teach or suggest any application of channel equalization that equalizes power of a plurality of sub-components of a frequency band corresponding to one or more portions. See App. Br. 10—11; see also Reply Br. 10—11. This argument is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that paragraph 76 of Ling teaches a frequency domain equalizer that is applied to a received signal. See Ans. 11 (citing Ling 176; Fig. 6B); see also Final Act. 3. Fing further describes that the equalizer recovers portions of the received signal lost to distortion by performing an aliasing operation and flattens a curved power spectrum of the equalized signal in order to produce a rectangular power spectrum. See Fing || 47-48, 67—68, 75—76; Figs. 6B, 7, 8, 9. As Fing explicitly describes an equalizer that flattens a curved 3 Appellants argue that the Final Office Action was improperly made final. See App. Br. 6—7. However, any question as to the propriety of a final rejection is only reviewable by petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181, and cannot be advanced as a ground for appeal, or otherwise made the basis of complaint before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 706.07(c). Thus, this argument is not before this panel. 4 Appeal 2017-007290 Application 14/316,194 power spectrum of an equalized signal, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Ling teaches equalizing power of a plurality of sub-components of a frequency band corresponding to one or more portions. Although Appellants argue the claimed equalizing power of a plurality of sub-components of a frequency band is different from Ling’s frequency domain equalizer, Appellants fail to persuasively show how the claimed equalizing is patentably distinct from Ling’s frequency domain equalizer. See App. Br. 10-11; see also Reply Br. 10-11. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Appellants further argue Ling is not analogous art because Ling fails to disclose or suggest stacking portions of multiple signals. See App. Br. 10. Appellants further argue Ling is merely directed to signal processing, which is insufficient to render Ling analogous to the claimed invention. See id.', see also Reply Br. 11—12. This argument is not persuasive either. A prior art reference is analogous to an application if: (1) it is from the same field of endeavor as the application, regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, it is nonetheless reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381 L.3d 1320, 1325 (Led. Cir. 2004). As indicated, these tests are in the alternative, i.e., a finding of either is sufficient. See In re Oetiker, 977 L.2d 1443, 1447 (Led. Cir. 1992). We agree with the Examiner that both Ling and the claimed invention are in the same field of endeavor, as both Ling and the claimed invention are related to signal processing. See Ans. 12. Thus, we conclude that Ling is analogous art. 5 Appeal 2017-007290 Application 14/316,194 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21,31, and 40 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Rejection of Claims 22—24 and 32—34 under § 103(a) Appellants argue the combination of cited references fails to teach or suggest, “applying] the channel equalization separately to each of one or more equalization inputs, with each equalization input corresponding to one of the at least two signals,” as recited in claim 22, and similarly recited in claim 32. See App. Br. 13. As argued by Appellants, even assuming arguendo that James and Ikeda teach equalization, nothing in James or Ikeda specifically teaches or suggests applying channel equalization separately to each of one or more equalization inputs, with each equalization input corresponding to one of at least two signals. See App. Br. 13—14; see also Reply Br. 14—15. We are not persuaded of reversible error. We agree with the Examiner that the combination of cited references teaches or suggests applying channel equalization separately to each of one or more equalization inputs, as James teaches two separate inputs, and Ikeda teaches applying channel equalization to a single input. See Ans. 13—14; see also James 1 59- 62; Fig. 4; see also Ikeda 1 57; Fig. 8. Again, Appellants allege the claimed limitation is patentably distinct from the combination of cited references, but fail to persuasively show how the claimed limitation is patentably distinct. See App. Br. 13—14; see also Reply Br. 14—15. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 32 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 6 Appeal 2017-007290 Application 14/316,194 Appellants further argue the combination of cited references fails to teach or suggest, “generat[ing] each equalization input based on processing of a corresponding one of the at least two signals,” as recited in claim 23, and similarly recited in claim 33. See App. Br. 14. As argued by Appellants, even assuming arguendo that James and Ikeda teach equalization, nothing in James or Ikeda specifically teaches or suggests, when using equalization, generating each equalization input based on processing a corresponding signal. See App. Br. 14—15; see also Reply Br. 16. This argument is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that the combination of cited references teaches or suggests generating equalization input based on processing a corresponding one of at least two signals, as James teaches two separate signals, and Ikeda teaches processing a signal to generate equalization input for an equalizer. See Final Act. 5; see also James 1 59-62; Fig. 4; see also Ikeda 157; Fig. 8. Similar to claims 22 and 32, Appellants allege the claimed limitation is patentably distinct from the combination of cited references, but fail to persuasively show how the claimed limitation is patentably distinct. See App. Br. 14—15; see also Reply Br. 16. Thus, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23 and 33 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellants also argue the combination of cited references fails to teach or suggest, “apply [ing], when processing the corresponding one of the at least two signals, one or more of: amplification, mixing, filtering, and analog-to-digital conversion,” as recited in claim 24, and similarly recited in claim 34. See App. Br. 15. As argued by Appellants, even assuming arguendo that James and Ikeda teach equalization, nothing in James or Ikeda 7 Appeal 2017-007290 Application 14/316,194 specifically teaches or suggests the operations of amplification, mixing, filtering, and analog-to-digital conversion, let alone using any of these operations particularly in conjunction with an equalization function. See App. Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 17—18. We are not persuaded of reversible error. We agree with the Examiner that the claim only requires one of the recited functions (e.g., “filtering”). See Ans. 15. Support for the Examiner’s claim interpretation is found in Appellants’ Specification. See Spec. 1 56 (“[t]he processing in each input path may comprise applying low-noise amplification, mixing . . . filtering, and/or analog-to-digital conversion,” emphasis added). We further agree with the Examiner that the combination of cited references teaches or suggests filtering one of at least two signals when processing the corresponding signal, as James teaches filtering a signal. See Final Act. 5 (citing 120). Thus, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24 and 34 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Rejection of Claims 25—27, 30, and 35—37 under § 103(a) Although Appellants’ Appeal Brief includes separate headers for claims 25—27, 30, and 35—37, Appellants provide no additional substantive arguments for the aforementioned claims, and instead, reference their arguments regarding claims 21,31, and 40. See App. Br. 16—18, 22; see also Reply Br. 18—20, 25. Such arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguish them from the cited prior art. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii) (noting that an argument that merely points out what a claim recites is unpersuasive); see also In re Lovin, 8 Appeal 2017-007290 Application 14/316,194 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25—27, 30, and 35—37 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Rejection of Claims 28 and 38 under § 103(a) Appellants argue the combination of cited references fails to teach or suggest, “communicate the output signal to the gateway device over a single link that is configured based on one or more of: a coaxial cable connection, a twisted-pair connection, a Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) connection, an Ethernet connection, or a Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) based connection,” as recited in claim 28, and similarly recited in claim 38. See App. Br. 18. As argued by Appellants, James merely describes a two- way communication over a cable, and fails to teach or suggest any communication over any configuration of links based on any of the types of connections recited in claims 28 and 38. See App. Br. 18—19; see also Reply Br. 21. This argument is not persuasive. James teaches a coaxial cable connection. See James 120. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that James teaches a single link that is configured based on a coaxial cable connection. See Final Act. 8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 28 and 38 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 9 Appeal 2017-007290 Application 14/316,194 Rejection of Claims 29 and 39 under § 103(a) Appellants argue the combination of cited references fails to teach or suggest, “combine the one or more portions from each of the at least two received satellite signals based on configuration of the single link,” as recited in claim 29, and similarly recited in claim 39. See App. Br. 20. More specifically, Appellants argue none of the cited references teaches combining portions of at least two received satellite signals, where the combining is based on a configuration of a single link between a satellite assembly and a target gateway device. See Apply Br. 20—21; see also Reply Br. 22-24. This argument is persuasive. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has persuasively shown where the cited portions of the references teach or suggest combining portions of input signals based on a configuration of a single link between satellite assembly and target gateway device. Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 29 and 39 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21—28, 30—38, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 29 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation