Ex Parte Mueller et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 12, 201613071863 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation