Ex Parte Behzad et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2017

12877941 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2017)

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.
12/877,941 09/08/2010 Arya Reza BEHZAD 2875.3540000 4083
26111 7590 07/28/2017
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
KHAN, OMER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2017 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARYA REZA BEHZAD, MICHAEL BOERS,
JESUS ALFONSO CASTANEDA,
AHMADREZA (REZA) ROFOUGARAN,
and SAM ZIQUN ZHAO
Appeal 2015-007773
Application 12/877,9411
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—21 and 25—30. (Appeal Br. 5.) Claims 22—24
are cancelled. {Id. at 28—29.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b)(1).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Broadcom Corporation as the real party in interest.
(Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2015-007773
Application 12/877,941
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to locating a wireless-enabled
component (WEC) which includes an antenna element coupled to a
functional module (such as a processing or memory resource). The antenna
element is configured to transmit a search signal to locate a proximately-
situated WEC and transmit a communication signal to communicate with
that proximately-situated WEC. (Abstract.)
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with italicization added for emphasis, is
exemplary:
1. A method for locating a wireless-enabled component
(WEC), comprising:
transmitting, via an antenna element of the WEC, a
search signal to locate a proximally situated WEC;
receiving at least one of a backscatter-transmitted signal,
a scattered signal, or a return-transmitted signal from the
proximally situated WEC;
determining a location of the proximally situated WEC
based on the at least one signal received from the proximally
situated WEC;
selecting a unidirectional transmission technique, from a
plurality of unidirectional transmission techniques, based on
the location of the proximally situated WEC; and
transmitting, via the antenna element of the WEC, a
communication signal to communicate with the proximally
situated WEC, in accordance with the selected unidirectional
transmission technique.
2
Appeal 2015-007773
Application 12/877,941
Rejections2
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 19, and 25—30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shao et al. (US
2008/0175199 Al; pub. July 24, 2008) (“Shao”); Nystrom et al. (US
2008/0224825 Al; pub. Sept. 18, 2008) (“Nystrom”); Schafer (US
6,300,875 Bl; iss. Oct. 9, 2001), andNanda et al. (US 2008/0026797 Al;
pub. Jan. 31, 2008) (“Nanda”). (Final Action 5—13.)
The Examiner rejects claims 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shao, Nystrom, Schafer, Nanda,
and Duckworth (US 7,072,669 Bl; iss. July 4, 2006). (Final Action 13—15.)
The Examiner rejects claims 7, 14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shao, Nystrom, Schafer, Nanda, and Li et al. (US
2008/0216125 Al; pub. Sept. 4, 2008). (Final Action 15—16.)
Issues
A. Did the Examiner err in combining Shao, Nystrom, Schafer, and
Nanda in the rejection of claim 1?
B. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Shao,
Nystrom, Schafer, and Nanda teaches or suggests “selecting a unidirectional
transmission technique, from a plurality of unidirectional transmission
techniques, based on the location of the proximally situated WEC,” as
recited in claim 1?
C. Did the Examiner err in taking official notice in the rejection of
claim 25?
2 The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1—21 and 25—30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph (Final Action 3—5) was withdrawn (Answer 16).
3
Appeal 2015-007773
Application 12/877,941
ANALYSIS
A. Combination of Shao, Nystrom, Schafer, and Nanda
The Examiner combines Shao with Nystrom, Schafer, and Nanda in
the rejection of claim 1. (Final Action 5—9.) Appellants argue that “Shao
does not disclose or suggest the need for adding functionality to its wireless
communication system to allow it to ‘select[] a unidirectional transmission
technique, from a plurality of unidirectional transmission techniques, based
on the location of the proximally situated WEC. (Appeal Br. 18 (alteration
in original).) However, the reason to modify a reference does not have to
originate from the references being combined; the rationale for combining
references can be gleaned from a variety of sources. See DyStar
Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d
1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“The motivation need not be found in the
references sought to be combined, but may be found in any number of
sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the
nature of the problem itself.”).
Additionally, Appellants argue the combination used by the Examiner
is based solely on impermissible hindsight. (Appeal Br. 18—21.) The
Supreme Court has held that, “if a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int 7 Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)). The Examiner has provided
reasoning for the combination of the prior art applied (Final Action 7—9) but
Appellants do not address this reasoning. We are not persuaded by
4
Appeal 2015-007773
Application 12/877,941
Appellant’s arguments of Examiner error with respect to the reasoning
underlying the combination.
Appellants additionally argue “combining Nanda’s ‘omni-directional
antenna or a directional antenna concepts’ with Shao’s bandwidth
reservation concept would have been counterintuitive at the time of the
invention” because Nanda’s features “would have offset Shao’s inventive
concept of ‘selecting a wireless data channel for a new transmission with the
discovered station and reserving bandwidth for the new transmission on the
fselectedl data channel.’” (Appeal Br. 18 (alteration in original).)
Appellants argue this combination would improperly change the basic
principle under which Shao was designed to operate. (Reply Br. 7 (citing In
re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959).) However, we are not convinced
that transmissions according to a selected unidirectional transmission
technique could not occur with bandwidth reservation on a data channel, for
example a data channel transmitted using the selected unidirectional
transmission technique. We are not convinced of error in the combination.
As our reviewing court has explained, the proposition set forth in Ratti is
inapplicable where the modified apparatus will operate “on the same
principles as before.” See In reMouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (citing In re Umbarger, 407 F.2d 425, 430-31 (CCPA 1969)).
Thus, we are not convinced of error in the Examiner’s combination of
Shao, Nystrom, Schafer, and Nanda in the rejection of claim 1, or error with
respect to this combination in the rejection of independent claims 8 and 15,
argued together with claim 1, or with respect to this combination in the
rejection of claims 2—6, 9-13, 16—20, 22—24, and 26—30, argued on the same
basis. (Appeal Br. 21, 24.)
5
Appeal 2015-007773
Application 12/877,941
B. “selecting a unidirectional transmission technique, from a
plurality of unidirectional transmission techniques, based on
the location of the proximally situated WEC”
Appellants argue the applied references do not teach or suggest
“selecting a unidirectional transmission technique, from a plurality of
unidirectional transmission techniques, based on the location of the
proximally situated WEC,” as recited in claim 1. (Appeal Br. 15—17.)
Appellants specifically argue that Nanda discloses only that “[o]nce an
optimal antenna is chosen, Nanda’s station communicates with the target
station 350 in the same manner, regardless of which antenna is chosen.” {Id.
at 16.) Thus, Appellants argue, there is no selection of a transmission
technique from a plurality of transmission techniques. {Id. at 16—17.)
However, the Examiner finds Schafer teaches selecting a
communication network from among a plurality of communication
networks. (Final Action 7—8.) Schafer relates to a system for
communicating the location of an object via a first, second or third choice of
communication networks, based on signal strength. (Schafer 5: 52—61; Figs.
1, 2.) The Examiner’s finding with respect to the disputed limitation is that
Schafer, in combination with Nanda’s antenna selection teachings and other
teachings of Nanda, Shao, and Nystrom, teaches or selects the claimed
selection of different transmission techniques from among a plurality of
possible techniques. Appellants do not address this combination, and the
argument presented amounts to an attack on one reference (Nanda)
individually while ignoring the combination of references applied. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in the rejection of
claim 1, rejection of independent claims 8 and 15, argued together with
6
Appeal 2015-007773
Application 12/877,941
claim 1, and the rejection of claims 2—6, 9—13, 16—20, 22—24, and 26—30,
argued on the same basis. (Appeal Br. 21, 24.)
C. Official Notice in the Rejection of Claim 25
The Examiner, in rejecting claim 25, takes Official Notice “that
WEC’s functional modules/blocks can be within a semiconductor chip of a
device.” (Final Action 13.) Addressing the Examiner’s taking of Official
Notice, Appellants argue that the Examiner is obligated to provide
documentary support but “failed to ‘provide documentary evidence in the
next Office action’ following the Final Office Action.” (Appeal Br. 23—24.)
However, Appellants do not show where they have previously (before the
Appeal Brief) requested such documentary evidence, and in the absence of a
demand by Appellants, the Examiner was not required to provide such
evidence in an office action. In re Chevernard, 139 F.2d 711,713 (CCPA
1943).
To adequately traverse the findings with respect to Official Notice,
Appellants must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s
action, including stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be
common knowledge or well known in the art. MPEP § 2144.03 (9th ed.,
Mar. 2014). Here, Appellants fail to persuasively argue or explain why
inclusion of multiple modules in one chip is not a well-known concept in the
art, such that one skilled in the art would not have been led to apply such a
known technique to a known device to yield predictable results. (Reply 7—
9.) See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
The Examiner provides documentary evidence by citing to
Rofougaran (US 2011/0021138 Al; pub. Jan 27, 2011). (Answer 23—24.)
Appellants argue the Examiner has made a new rejection, and that
7
Appeal 2015-007773
Application 12/877,941
Rofougaran is not a proper reference to apply in such a rejection. (Id.)
However, whether the discussion of the rejection of claim 25 in the Answer
should have been designated a new grounds of rejection is a petitionable
matter, not an appealable matter before us. Appellants had the opportunity
to raise this issue by filing a timely Petition to the Director under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.181, but did not do so. Rofougaran was cited as evidence to support the
Official Notice, and not as part of a prior art rejection, and thus Appellants
arguments regarding common ownership (Answer 8—9) are unavailing.
We find no argument which persuades us that the Examiner erred in
finding the noticed fact to be common knowledge or well known in the art,
and thus we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim
25, or of dependent claims 26 and 27, argued together with claim 25.
(Appeal Br. 24.)
DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1—21 and 25—
30 is affirmed.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
8