MaxLinear, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 22, 2020

2019005250 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
14/602,786 01/22/2015 Curtis Ling M3921.10009US02 9585
164869 7590 12/22/2020
MB - MAXLINEAR, INC.
1389 Center Drive, Suite 300
Park City, UT 84098
EXAMINER
NGO, NGUYEN HOANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2020 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):
d@mabr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CURTIS LING

Appeal 2019-005250
Application 14/602,786
Technology Center 2400

Before, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–8, 13, and 15–20, all of the claims
pending.2 Appeal Br. 1. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App). Claims 2 and 14
have been canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We refer to the Specification filed Jan. 22, 2015 (“Spec.”); the Final
Office Action, mailed Nov. 5, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed
Mar. 19, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed June 12,
2019 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed June 27, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies MaxLinear, Inc., as the real party-in-interest. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005250
Application 14/602,786

2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to auto-
configured small cell backhaul transceiver (100j) performing beamforming
to discover a network. Spec. ¶¶ 4, 18–20, Fig. 2.
Figure 2, reproduced and discussed below, is useful for
understanding the claimed subject matter:

Figure 2 above illustrates auto-configured small cell backhaul transceiver
(100j) including antenna arrays (110) for each antenna element (112),
positioning circuitry (218), sensor (214), and signal processing
circuitry (208). Spec. ¶¶ 2, 18–20.

Appeal 2019-005250
Application 14/602,786

3
In particular, upon determining via positioning circuitry (218) the
location of another transceiver, and via sensor (214) the orientation of the
transceiver, signal processing circuitry (208) uses a spreading code
algorithmically generated from a unique identifier of the location (including
global positioning system coordinates and/or a street address) to produce a
beacon signal, which it transmits to another device via antenna arrays (110)
by radiating in multiple directions. Id. ¶¶ 18–25.
Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with
disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
in a microwave backhaul transceiver comprising a
plurality of antenna arrays, positioning circuitry, a sensor and
signal processing circuitry:
determining, via said positioning circuitry, a location of
said microwave backhaul transceiver;
determining, via said sensor, an orientation of said
microwave backhaul transceiver, wherein said microwave
backhaul transceiver is operable to adjust said orientation based
on a wind load;
generating, via said signal processing circuitry, a beacon
signal that uniquely indicates said location, wherein said beacon
signal uses a spreading code algorithmically generated from a
unique identifier of said location,
wherein said signal processing circuitry comprises a
digital to analog converter (DAC) operable to convert a
microwave band comprising said beacon signal from a digital
signal to an analog signal; and
transmitting said analog microwave band via at least one
of said antenna arrays,
wherein said beacon signal within said analog microwave
band is controlled dynamically according to said orientation.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-005250
Application 14/602,786

4
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Reference Date
Lee US 5,894,291 Apr. 13, 1999
Sasich US 6,661,904 B1 Dec. 9, 2003
Davidson US 2007/0063911 A1 Mar. 22, 2007
Doppler US 2011/0267977 A1 Nov. 3, 2011
Roh US 2013/0185617 A1 Jul. 18, 2013
Kangas US 2014/0133542 A1 May 15, 2014
Huang US 2014/0269532 A1 Sep. 18, 2014
Sahin US 2015/0109943 A1 Apr. 23, 2015
IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–13, and 15–20 as follows:
Claims 1, 5–7, 13, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Huang, Sahin, Davidson,
Lee, Sasich, and Roh. Final Act. 3–9.
Claims 3, 4, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Huang, Sahin, Davidson, Lee,
Sasich, Roh, and Doppler. Id. at 9–10.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Huang, Sahin, Davidson, Lee, Sasich, Roh,
and Kangas. Id. 10–11.

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-005250
Application 14/602,786

5
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 3–13 and the Reply Brief, pages 2–8.4 We are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated
herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief. Final Act. 2–17; Ans. 3–17. However, we highlight and address
specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Huang, Sahin, Davidson, Lee, Sasich, and Roh teaches or
suggests algorithmically generating a beacon signal using a spreading code
from a unique location identifier, as recited in independent claims 1, and 13.
Appeal Br. 4–8. In particular, Appellant argues that Sasich’s disclosure of
decoding spreading codes to identify a data location does not teach or
suggest the claimed spreading codes are generated from a data location, and,
thereby, does not cure the admitted deficiencies of Huang, Sahin, Davidson,
Lee, and Roh. Id. at 5–7 (citing Sasich 5:30–45). According to Appellant,
although Sasich discloses spreading codes are decoded to identify a
transformation coefficient (TC) containing user data, and, thereby, teaches
spreading code is related to a particular user data location, Sasich does not
teach that the spreading code is generated from the data location. Id. at 6.
Appellant emphasizes that because Sasich’s disclosure is silent as to how the
spreading codes are particularly generated, and the disclosed user location is

4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2014).
Appeal 2019-005250
Application 14/602,786

6
not necessarily associated with one unique spreading code, Sasich does not
teach the disputed limitations. Id. at 7–8.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner error
because they are tantamount to an individual attack against Sasich, as
opposed to the combined teachings of Huang, Sahin, Davidson, Lee, Sasich,
and Roh, as relied upon by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 1.5 One
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references or the
embodiments thereof individually where the rejections are based on
combined teachings of the references and/or embodiments. In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In particular, the Examiner relies upon Huang to
teach a transmitter transmitting to a user equipment (UE) a beacon generated
with different spreading codes from different geographic locations. Final
Act. 7, Ans. 13 (citing Huang ¶¶ 105, 106, 114). The Examiner further
relies upon Sasich to teach algorithmically generating a spreading code from
geographic location. Id. (citing Sasich 5:30–45).6 We find the Examiner’s

5 Appellant seeks to raise for the first time in the Reply Brief arguments
regarding Huang. Reply Br. 2–8. Appellant forfeits those belated
arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); see also Ex parte Borden, 93
USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not]
an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the
principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not.”).
6 “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference …. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “The obviousness analysis cannot
be confined by the formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion,
and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of … the explicit
Appeal 2019-005250
Application 14/602,786

7
proposed combination of the cited teachings of Huang, Sahin, Davidson,
Lee, Sasich, and Roh is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements
with each performing the same function it had been known to perform,
yielding no more than what one would expect from such an arrangement.
See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Therefore, the
ordinarily skilled artisan, being “a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton,” would have been able to fit the teachings of the cited references
together like pieces of a puzzle to predictably result in a transmitter
transmitting to UEs a beacon with a spreading code algorithmically
generated from different geographic locations. Id. at 420–21.
Because Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s
proffered combination would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult
for one of ordinary skill in the art,” we agree with the Examiner that the
proposed modification would have been within the purview of the ordinarily
skilled artisan. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d
1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Consequently,
we are satisfied that, on this record, the Examiner has established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Huang, Sahin,
Davidson, Lee, Sasich, and Roh teaches or suggests the disputed claim
limitations. Because we are not persuaded of Examiner error, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 13 as unpatentable over the
combination of Huang, Sahin, Davidson, Lee, Sasich, and Roh.
Regarding the rejections of claims 3–8 and 15–20, Appellant does not
present separate patentability arguments or reiterates substantially the same

content of issued patents.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 402
(2007).
Appeal 2019-005250
Application 14/602,786

8
arguments as those previously discussed for the patentability of claims 1 and
13 above. As such, claims 3–8 and 15–20 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
VI. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1, 3–8, 13, and 15–20.
VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–7, 13,
17, 18, 19
103 Huang, Sahin,
Davidson, Lee,
Sasich, Roh
1, 5–7, 13,
17, 18, 19

3, 4, 15, 16 103 Huang, Sahin,
Davidson, Lee,
Sasich, Roh,
Doppler
3, 4, 15, 16
8, 20 103 Huang, Sahin,
Davidson, Lee,
Sasich, Roh,
Kangas
8, 20
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–8, 13,
15–20

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED