Ex Parte Santhoff et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 17, 2012

10449789 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 17, 2012)

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