Ex Parte Mueller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 12, 2016

13071863 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/071,863 03/25/2011
57299 7590 07114/2016
Kathy Manke
A vago Technologies Limited
4380 Ziegler Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William Carrol MUELLER
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.
201 l-009USORG 4847
EXAMINER
FARAHMAND, ASHIL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2472
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2016 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@broadcom.com
patent.info@broadcom.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM CARROL MUELLER and
RAY PARKHURST
Appeal2014-007178
Application 13/071, 863
Technology Center 2400
Before ADAM J. PYONIN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and AMBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-11, and 13-20. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Claims 3 and 4 have been canceled, claim 21 is allowed, and claims 5 and
12 are objected to but otherwise are identified as having allowable subject
matter. See Advisory Act. 1; Final Act. 15.
Appeal2014-007178
Application 13/071,863
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosure is directed to a multi-band wireless
communication device with multiplexer and method of multiplexing multi-
band wireless signals. Title. Claims 1, 14, and 18 are independent. Claim 1
is reproduced below for reference (with emphases added):
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a first multiplexer configured to allow bi-directional
communication over a first plurality of multiplexed
communication bands that each include a corresponding transmit
band and a corresponding receive band, wherein none of the
transmit bands of the first multiplexer have transmit frequencies
that overlap with any receive frequencies of any of
the receive bands of the first multiplexer;
a second multiplexer configured to allow bi-directional
communication over a second plurality of multiplexed
communication bands that each include a corresponding transmit
band and a corresponding receive band, wherein none of the
transmit hands of the second multiplexer have transmit
frequencies that overlap with any receive frequencies of any of
the receive bands of the second multiplexer; and
an electromechanical band switch configured to
selectively connect the first and second multiplexers to a
common antenna.
THE EXAMINER'S REJECTIONS 2
Claims 1, 2, 6-11, 13, and 18-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park (US 2007/0243832 Al; Oct. 18,
2007), Sanders (US 2006/0018254 Al; Jan. 26, 2006), and Applicant's
Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter, "AAP A"). Final Act. 4.
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112
(pre-AIA), second paragraph. See Advisory Act. 1.
2
Appeal2014-007178
Application 13/071,863
Claims 14--17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mueller (US 2007 /0077898 Al; Apr. 5, 2007) and
Sanders. Final Act. 10.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mueller, Sanders, and AAP A. Final Act. 12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions (see Final
Act. 2-14; Advisory Act. 1-2; Ans. 14--19) as our own, and we add the
following for emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting the independent
claims, because Sanders only teaches a second multiplexer as a backup to a
first multiplexer. See App. Br. 9 (referring to Sanders Fig. 2, depicting
multiplexers 140, 160). Appellants further contend that the other cited
references, particularly Park (regarding independent claims 1 and 18) and
Mueller (regarding independent claim 14), do not make up for the
deficiencies in Sanders. See App. Br. 7, 12, 15. Appellants argue that,
therefore, the cited references do not teach a "second multiplexer configured
to allow bi-directional communication over a second plurality of multiplexed
communication bands" as required by claim 1, but "[ r ]ather, at most, the
redundant multiplexer [of Sanders] would be configured to function in the
same (i.e., first) plurality of multiplexed communication bands as the first
multiplexer it replaces." Id. at 11; see also App. Br. 14, 16.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We agree with the
Examiner that Park teaches or suggests a first multiplexer as recited in
3
Appeal2014-007178
Application 13/071,863
claims 1 and 18, and Mueller teaches or suggests a first multiplexer as
recited in claim 14. See Advisory Act. 2; Ans. 15, 17, 18; Park Fig. 10
(depicting multiplexer 630 connected to transmitters 610 and receivers 620);
Mueller Fig. 3 (depicting multiplexer 16 having connections for
transmission and reception). We also agree with the Examiner that one of
ordinary skill would modify either of the systems of Park or Mueller "to
include a second backup multiplexer as disclosed by Sanders[, which]
broadly reads on Appellant's claimed limitations rendering the claim[ed]
invention unpatentable." Ans. 16-17; see also Ans. 18-19. We find the
Examiner's explanation to constitute articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings sufficient to justify the legal conclusion of obviousness. See
In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir 2006).
Particularly, Appellants do not persuasively show the Examiner erred
in finding the claims encompass the cited combinations' first and second
multiplexers, which allow communication over the same pluralities of
communication bands. Ans. 16 ("Appellant's arguments imply that the
limitation 'a second plurality of multiplexed communication bands' limits
the claimed second bands to communication bands that are different from
the claimed 'first plurality of multiplexer communication bands.' The
Examiner respectfully disagrees."). We agree with the Examiner, and note
that Appellants' Specification describes different multiplexers can use the
same bands. 3 See Figs. 6A---6C (depicting Multiplexers 600-1 and 600-3
both using band B5 and Multiplexers 600-2 and 600-3 both using band Bl);
3 We give pending claims "their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification, and ... claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art."
In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
4
Appeal2014-007178
Application 13/071,863
see also Spec. il 44, 59. Appellants, furthermore, confirm that, "while [the
Appellants] do not necessarily disagree that the second plurality of
multiplexed bands are different than the first plurality of multiplexer
communication bands, this is not explicitly recited in claim 1: there is
plainly no limitation to this end. Moreover, Applicants have not made any
contention in their arguments to that effect." Reply Br. 7 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we find the Examiner has broadly but reasonably construed the
claimed second multiplexer to encompass using a backup multiplexer as
taught by Sanders in combinations with the other cited references. 4 See
Ans. 15, 17, 18.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1, 14, and 18, as well as dependent claims 2, 6-11, 13, 15-17, 19, and
20, which were not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 11,
14, 17, 18.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-11, and 13-20 is affirmed.
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
4 Separately, we note the claims require two multiplexers compared to the
single multiplexer of Park or Mueller, and "mere duplication of parts has no
patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced." In
re Harza, 214 F.2d 669, 774 (CCPA 1960); cf St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis,
193 USPQ 8 (7th Cir. 1977) (holding that adding layers to an object was
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art).
5