2019003562 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2020)

CommScope Technologies LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 29, 2020

2019003562 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 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. 15/256,216 09/02/2016 Dean Zavadsky 100.1250US02 1089 135878 7590 10/29/2020 Fogg & Powers LLC/Commscope 4600 W 77th St Suite 305 Minneapolis, MN 55435 EXAMINER NGUYEN, STEVEN H D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2414 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/29/2020 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): docketing@fogglaw.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DEAN ZAVADSKY, JODY FORLAND, LARRY G. FISCHER, and PHILIP M. WALA ____________________ Appeal 2019-003562 Application 15/256,216 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–60. Appeal Br. 10, 24, 40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest is CommScope Technologies LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-003562 Application 15/256,216 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added): 1. A summing unit within a telecommunication system, the summing unit comprising: [A.] at least one port configured to receive multiplexed digital data from a multiplexing unit, the multiplexed digital data including first digital data from a first device multiplexed with second digital data; and [B.] at least one summer function configured to sum the first digital data with other digital data to generate summed digital data for conversion to radio frequency signals and transmission at an antenna. REFERENCES2 The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Zalewski US 2009/0288116 A1 Nov. 19, 2009 Uyehara US 2012/0177026 A1 Jul. 12, 2012 This Panel cites the following additional references: Name Reference Date Rakib US 2005/0009477 A1 Jan. 13, 2005 Nomura US 7,027,482 B1 Apr. 11, 2006 Dajer US 7,161,912 B1 Jan. 9, 2007 2 All citations herein to patent and pre-grant publication references are by reference to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2019-003562 Application 15/256,216 3 REJECTIONS A. § 102 - Zalewski The Examiner rejects claims 1–5, 7–25, 27–33, 35–38, 46–50, and 55–60 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Zalewski. Final Act. 2–7. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. To the extent that Appellant discusses claims 2–5, 7–25, 27–33, 35–38, 46–50, and 55–60, Appellant merely repeats the arguments directed to claim 1. Appeal Br. 13–24. Such a repeated argument (or referenced argument) is not a particularized argument for “separate patentability.” Thus, the rejection of these claims turns on our decision as to claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of this § 102 rejection of claims 2–5, 7–25, 27–33, 35–38, 46–50 further herein. B. § 102 - Uyehara The Examiner rejects claims 1–42, 44–51, and 53–60 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Uyehara. Final Act. 7–12. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. To the extent that Appellant discusses claims 2–42, 44–51, and 53–60, Appellant merely repeats the arguments directed to claim 1. Appeal Br. 26–38. Such a repeated argument (or referenced argument) is not a particularized argument for “separate patentability.” Thus, the rejection of these claims turns on our decision as to claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of this § 102 rejection of claims 2–42, 44–51, and 53–60 further herein. Appeal 2019-003562 Application 15/256,216 4 C. § 103 The Examiner rejects claims 6, 26, 34, 39–45, and 51–54, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zalewski and Uyehara. Final Act. 12–14. The Examiner rejects claims 43 and 52, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zalewski, Uyehara, and Official Notice. Final Act. 14–15.3 To the extent that Appellant discusses claims 6, 26, 34, 39–45, and 51–54, Appellant merely refers to the arguments directed to claim 1. Appeal Br. 40–43. Such a referenced argument (or repeated argument) is not a particularized argument for “separate patentability.” Thus, the rejection of these claims turns on our decision as to claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103 rejections of claims 6, 26, 34, 39–45, and 51–54 further herein. OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s Appeal Brief and Reply Brief arguments. A. Zalewski Appellant raises the following argument in contending that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Zalewski. The Examiner appears to argue that a MUX / multiplexer means the same as a summer and thusly teaches a summer. This 3 Although the Examiner only lists Uyehara in the heading for this rejection, the body of the rejection discusses Zalewski, Uyehara, and Official Notice. Appeal 2019-003562 Application 15/256,216 5 is not consistent with the definition of a multiplexer that would be used by one having skill in the art of telecommunications. One having ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications understands the distinction between a summer (and summation) and a multiplexer (and multiplexing). [O]ne having ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications understands that a summer sums a plurality of signals together arithmetically into a summation signal that is the sum of the signals. Appeal Br. 12. First, we note that Appellant discloses: In exemplary embodiments, a selector/summer 408 is configured to receive downlink serialized data streams from a plurality of serial ports 402 and to map timeslots from the plurality of aggregate downlink data streams into different timeslots on a downlink aggregate serialized data stream communicated to an associated serial port 406. Spec. ¶ 67 (emphasis added). Therefore, the claimed “summer function” is broadly described as mapping to an aggregate serialized data stream. We are unable to find a disclosure corresponding to Appellant’s argued “sums a plurality of signals together arithmetically into a summation signal that is the sum of the signals.” Appeal Br. 12. Thus, we determine the claimed “summer function” encompasses mapping as described in Appellant’s Specification, and Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of Appellant’s claim. Second, contrary to Appellant’s argument that “one having ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications understands that a summer sums a plurality of signals together arithmetically into a summation signal that is the sum of the signals,” we find multiple examples in the art where a summer multiplexes data or a multiplexer acts as a summer. For example, Rakib (US Appeal 2019-003562 Application 15/256,216 6 2005/0009477 Al) at figures 2 and 3, and paragraphs 6 and 20; Nomura (US 7,027,482 B1); and Dajer (US 7,161,912 B1). It is seen in FIG. 1 that a plurality of individual digital spread spectrum channel signals (either speech or data) are multiplexed (or “digitally summed”) in a multiplexer 1 into digital amplitude data. Nomura, column 2, lines 40–41. In addition, it is assumed that the multiplexer 204 is able to digitally sum the channel element outputs for the channel elements assigned to the same carrier. Dajer, column 5, lines 1–4. Thus, if we were to construe Appellant’s claim more narrowly, which we do not do today, we note that a skilled artisan would have been aware of teachings in the prior art where a summer multiplexes data or a multiplexer acts as a summer. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. We agree with the Examiner’s determination that Zalewski anticipates claim 1. B. Uyehara Appellant repeats the above argument in contending that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Uyehara. Appeal Br. 25. Again, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument for the reasons set forth above. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s determination that Uyehara anticipates claim 1. Appeal 2019-003562 Application 15/256,216 7 CONCLUSION The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1–5, 7–25, 27–33, 35– 38, 46–50, and 55–60 as being anticipated by Zalewski under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1–42, 44–51, and 53– 60 as being anticipated by Uyehara under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 6, 26, 34, 39–45, and 51–54 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–42, 44–51, and 53–60 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) are affirmed. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 6, 26, 34, 39–45, and 51–54 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 7–25, 27–33, 35– 38, 46–50, 55–60 102(b) Zalewski 1–5, 7–25, 27–33, 35– 38, 46–50, 55–60 1–42, 44– 51, 53–60 102(b) Uyehara 1–42, 44– 51, 53–60 Appeal 2019-003562 Application 15/256,216 8 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 6, 26, 34, 39–45, 51– 54 103(a) Zalewski, Uyehara 6, 26, 34, 39–45, 51– 54 43, 52 103(a) Zalewski, Uyehara, Official Notice 43, 52 Overall Outcome 1–60 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED