Ex Parte Kock

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 27, 2012

10521905 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte KLAUS KOCK
________________

Appeal 2009-010485
Application 10/521,905
Technology Center 2600
_________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, THOMAS S. HAHN, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant invokes our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 13-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.

Appeal 2009-010485
Application 10/521,905

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant claims a communication system for airport signaling
devices, e.g., lights. System communications are transmitted using a
frequency range that has a number of frequency bands within the range.
(See generally Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ [0004], [0007], and [0030]-[0033].)
Appealed independent claim 13, with key disputed limitations emphasized,
reads:
13. A communications system for signaling apparatuses at an airport,
comprising:
at least one central communications apparatus; and
a plurality of signaling apparatuses, wherein a communication
between the central communications apparatus and the signaling
apparatuses is performed via one or more circuits supplying the signal
apparatuses with power, and wherein the communication between the
central communications apparatus and the signaling apparatuses is
performed in a frequency range using a number of frequency bands
within the frequency range.
Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following evidence:
Karna US 5,291,299 Mar. 1, 1994
Ward US 6,282,417 B1 Aug. 28, 2001
Norman US 2003/0160707 A1 Aug. 28, 2003
The Examiner, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), rejected claims 13, 14, 20,
and 29-32 as being anticipated by Karna (Final Action 2-3).
The Examiner, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), rejected:
1. Claims 15, 16, 21, and 23-25 as being obvious over Karna (Final
Action 4);
Appeal 2009-010485
Application 10/521,905

3
2. Claims 17-19 and 22 as being obvious over Karna and Ward (Final
Action 4-5); and
3. Claims 26-28 as being obvious over Karna and Norman (Final Action
5-6).
Appellant’s Pivotal Contention
Appellant pivotally contends the Examiner erred in rejecting the sole
independent claim 13 because Karna fails to necessarily teach performing
communications “in a frequency range using a number of frequency bands
within the frequency range” as recited in claim 13 (App. Br. 5).
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant’s Specification discloses that airport communications can
be restricted due to interference factors caused by electrical power
supply systems, radars, radio links, and power cables (Spec. ¶ [0004]).
2. To be “robust against . . . pulsed interference of high intensity,”
Appellant’s Specification discloses a communication system
transmitting in a frequency range that has a number of frequency
bands (Spec. ¶ [0007]).
3. Karna discloses “an airport approach light system, for making a
number of lights go on and out as a progressive light front” (col. 1,
lines 9-11). The taught system generates controlling clock pulses
occurring at a frequency proportional to the rate of progression of the
light front (col. 1, lines 34-36).
4. Appellant acknowledges Karna “indicates that, in lieu of
synchronizing a clock pulse signal with a line frequency, ‘it is also
possible to use other clock pulse frequencies.’ Col. 2, lines 55-56”
(App. Br. 8).
Appeal 2009-010485
Application 10/521,905

4
ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection
The anticipation rejection has been reviewed in light of Appellant’s
contention identified supra that the Examiner erred, and Appellant’s
associated arguments are found persuasive.
The Examiner finds Karna teaches the claim 13 recited
“‘communication between the central communication apparatus and the
signaling apparatuses is performed in a frequency range using a number of
frequency bands within the frequency range’” (Ans. 8). The Examiner in
particular finds and identifies “Karna discloses a number of frequency bands
in column 2 lines 55-56, where Karna specifically state[s] that ‘it is also
possible to use other clock pulse frequencies.’ Clearly this portion
suggest[s] the use of multiple frequencies” (Ans. 7-8).
In response, Appellant acknowledges Karna discloses “generat[ing]
clock pulses at a single frequency synchronized with the line frequency; and
then suggests other embodiments . . . which use a clock pulse frequency
different from the line frequency . . .” (Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted);
accord FF 3, 4). Despite this agreement, Appellant disputes the Examiner’s
finding that Karna teaches the disputed claim 13 limitation. Appellant
argues “Karna never suggests any single embodiment which uses multiple
frequencies” (Reply Br. 2), but only teaches embodiments using a single
frequency to synchronize clock pulses.
Reviewing the record, Karna is found to teach synchronizing a clock
pulse signal with a line frequency or alternatively another frequency (FF 4),
but is not found to necessarily teach simultaneously synchronizing clock
pulses with multiple frequencies.
Appeal 2009-010485
Application 10/521,905

5
Our reviewing court has held that to properly construe claim terms
requires “giving [them] their broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art’”
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005 (citation
omitted)). Applying plain meanings to the recited “communication . . . in a
frequency range using a number of frequency bands within the frequency
range” while construing these terms with their broadest reasonable
construction that is consistent with the Specification substantively results in
the interpretation posited by Appellant, namely the claimed communication
is made using multiple frequency bands within a frequency range (App. Br.
9; Reply Br. 2; accord FF 1, 2). Accordingly, the Karna teachings for
communicating by using a single synchronizing frequency are not read on by
the claim 13 limitations for communicating by using multiple frequency
bands within a frequency range.
Since all properly construed claim 13 limitations do not read on
Karna, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 13, and therefore Appellant’s
other arguments need not be addressed. Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of
California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“A claim is anticipated only
if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly
or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”). For the foregoing
reason, we also do not sustain the anticipation rejection of dependent claims
14, 20, and 29-32 that all incorporate the disputed limitation.

Appeal 2009-010485
Application 10/521,905

6
Obviousness Rejections
All of the obviousness rejected claims depend from independent base
claim 13 and therefore incorporate its limitations. These obviousness
rejections are all premised from Karna, as identified supra (Final Action 4-
5).
Reviewing the record has not identified any stated reasoning with
underpinning rationale as to how Karna alone or in combination with the
other cited prior art renders claim 13 limitations obvious. The record
exclusively identifies the above addressed anticipation rejection findings
from Karna for the claim 13 disputed limitation (Ans. 3, 6-8). The reviewed
record also is silent concerning the other cited prior art overcoming the
Karna above discussed deficiencies. Appellant, consequently, contends
persuasively that “based on deficiencies in the [anticipation] rejection of the
independent claim demonstrates patentability of all dependent claims” (App.
Br. 6).
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejections of claims 15-19 and 21-28.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13, 14, 20, and 29-32 under
§ 102(b). The Examiner also erred in rejecting claims 15-19 and 21-28
under § 103(a).

Appeal 2009-010485
Application 10/521,905

7
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13-32 is reversed.

REVERSED

rwk