Ex Parte Santhoff et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 17, 201210449789 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 17, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/449,789 05/30/2003 John Santhoff 30287-71 6733 44279 7590 02/17/2012 Pulse-Link, Inc. 2270 Camino Vida Robie Suite E Carlsbad, CA 92008 EXAMINER ODOM, CURTIS B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2611 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/17/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte JOHN SANTHOFF and STEVEN A. MOORE ________________ Appeal 2009-010213 Application 10/449,789 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-010213 Application 10/449,789 2 Appellants invoke our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-6 and 23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Appealed representative claim 1 is exemplary and reads: 1. A method of selecting at least one communication parameter in an ultra-wideband communication system, the method comprising the steps of: providing a first ultra-wideband device; transmitting a time request message from the first ultra- wideband device to a second ultra-wideband device; receiving a response message from the second ultra-wideband device, the response message including a transmission time; determining a time difference between a receipt time of the response message and the transmission time; and selecting at least one communication parameter based on the time difference. 1 Appellants argue that all of “[c]laims 1-6 and 23 stand or fall together as a single group of claims” (App. Br. 6), and Appellants do not separately argue any claim from the group. Independent claim 1 is selected as representative pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2009-010213 Application 10/449,789 3 Rejection2 The Examiner, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), rejected claims 1-6 and 23 as being obvious over Freeburg (US 6,108,315; Aug. 22, 2000) and Hannah (US 6,711,216 B2; Mar. 23, 2004) (Final Action 3-7; Ans. 4-8). Appellants’ Contentions Appellants contend the Examiner erred by improperly combining Freeburg and Hannah (App. Br. 8-10). Appellants argue (App. Br. 10-11) that no reasonable expectation of success results from the Examiner’s modifying Freeburg’s radio network based on Hannah’s disclosures that ultra-wideband systems are usable for implementing wireless-LANs. Further, Appellants argue that the Examiner identified improper motivation for the combination (Reply Br. 6) so that the resulting “modification renders [Freeburg] unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and also changes the principal of operation of [Freeburg]” (id.). Issue Has the Examiner erred, under § 103, by finding Freeburg and Hannah collectively teach or suggest operating an ultra-wideband communication system? ANALYSIS We reviewed the Examiner’s obviousness rejection in light of Appellants’ contentions, and we disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. 2 References are made throughout this opinion to the (1) Final Action mailed Oct. 4, 2005; (2) Appeal Brief filed Jan. 14, 2008; (2) Examiner’s Answer mailed July 1, 2008; and (3) Reply Brief filed June 19, 2008. Appeal 2009-010213 Application 10/449,789 4 The Examiner’s identified reasons for rejecting claim 1 as obvious includes: Freeburg et al. does not disclose the communication system is an ultra wideband communication system or the devices are ultra wideband devices. . . . Hannah discloses an ultra wideband communication system [sic: that] uses ultra-wideband signals for communication. Freeburg et al. discloses that the round trip delay measurement of his invention can be performed in any communication system which uses radio resources for communication (column 2, lines 25-32). . . . Implementing the method/device of Freeburg et al. into an ultra wideband system would not change the functionality of the disclosed invention [, but] . . . would allow the device to take advantage[] of communications using ultra wideband transmissions. Hannah states that ultra wideband signals have exten[t] across a wide range of frequencies and have high bandwidth and frequency diversity and are suited for high-speed communications i[n] multi-path fading environments (column 1, lines 35-43). (Final Action 4; Ans. 5.) The Examiner further identifies in the Response to Argument section of the Answer that: Freeburg et al. discloses a radio network, which can be a wireless LAN (Fig. 1, column 1, lines 6-10 and 24-30, and column 2, lines 25- 32),which measures a round trip propagation delay in the network (column 3, lines 8-22). Hannah discloses ultra-wideband radio systems are generally well-suited for implementing a wireless-LAN (column 1, lines 41-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the wireless LAN network as described by Freeburg et al. using an ultra[]wideband system for implementing a wireless LAN as taught by Hannah to allow the wireless LAN to communicate using ultra[]wideband signals since Hannah states that ultra wideband signals extend across a wide range of frequencies and have high bandwidth and frequency diversity and are suited for high-speed communications i[n] multi-path fading environments (column 1, lines 35-43). Thus, it is the understanding of the examiner that the motivation to combine the reference teachings as taught by Hannah is to allow communication of ultra wideband signals (in a wireless LAN device) which extend across a wide range of frequencies and have high bandwidth and Appeal 2009-010213 Application 10/449,789 5 frequency diversity and are suited for high-speed communications i[n] multi-path fading environments (see Hannah, column 1, lines 35-43). The required motivation comes from the fact that the references are of similar technology in that Freeburg et al. discloses a wireless LAN network and Hannah discloses ultra- wideband systems for implementing a wireless LAN network. (Ans. 9-10.) Based on reviewing the record, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s above reproduced statements of findings, reasoning, and underpinning rationale. Appellants’ contention that the Examiners’ combination of references lacks reasonable expectation of success (App. Br. 10-11) seems to be premised from the attorney argument that “Hanna[h]’s UWB [ultra- wideband] pulses occupy large swaths of radio frequency spectrum and are of such low power that a carrier wave receiver (like Freeburg), designed to receive a much narrower radio frequency band, would not even detect Hannah’s UWB pulses” (App. Br. 11). Appellants have not explained why the Examiner’s modification of Freeburg to an UWB communication system would include a “carrier wave receiver” as opposed to an UWB receiver. Reviewing the record does not identify any suggestion from the Examiner for such a selectively partial modification to an UWB communication system or what would be the purpose for excluding an UWB receiver. Consequently, this argument is found unavailing. Appellants also contend that the Examiner’s “modification renders . . . [Freeburg] unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and also changes the principal of operation of [Freeburg]” (Reply Br. 6 (underlining omitted)). As to the Examiner’s modification rendering Freeburg unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, Appellants argue the “[i]f Freeburg’s cellular network was Appeal 2009-010213 Application 10/449,789 6 converted to ultra-wideband, the range of each cell phone would drop to about 100 feet (at most), making the Freeburg cellular radio network totally unsatisfactory for its intended purpose” (Reply Br. 7). The Examiner’s identified modification of Freeburg is directed to the taught wireless LAN (Ans. 9-10) not a cellular phone network. Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is inapposite and unavailing. Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s modification renders Freeburg unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because the “design, or ‘architecture’ (i.e., the principal of operation) of these two communication technologies is vastly different” (Reply Br. 7). Appellants acknowledge that “Freeburg solves the problem [of establishing location information in a radio network] by calculating time delay of messages, determining distances and then determining location (col. 4, lines 52-58)” (Reply Br. 5). Appellants, though, do not address with particularity why changing implementing communications technologies to ultra-wideband in anyway renders Freeburg unsatisfactory for calculating message time delay and determining distance, which is the problem Freeburg addresses. Accordingly, it is not found that the Examiner’s identified modification of Freeburg changes the principal of Freeburg’s operation so as to preclude the intended purpose of determining distances using message time delay determinations. In fact, Hannah teaches that “UWB radio systems are generally well-suited for implementing a wireless-LAN” (Hannah, col. 1, lines 41-43), and Freeburg teaches that the taught “invention relates to a radio network, such as a cellular radio network, wireless local area network (LAN) . . . or the like” (Freeburg, col. 1, lines 7- 10). Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is unavailing. For the foregoing reasons the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-6 and 23 is sustained. Appeal 2009-010213 Application 10/449,789 7 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6 and 23 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)(1)(v). AFFIRMED gvw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation