Ex Parte Capece et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2014

11771213 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER J. CAPECE and
GREGG NARDOZZA1
________________

Appeal 2012-003670
Application 11/771,213
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before JOHN G. NEW, HUNG H. BUI, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The Real Party-in-Interest is Alcatel-Lucent USA. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2012-003670
Application 11/771,213

2
SUMMARY

Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-9.2 Specifically, claims 1-3 and 11
stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over the combination of over Jinich (US 4,748,423, May 31, 1988)
(“Jinich”) and Nardozza et al. (US 6,097,266, August 1, 2000)
(“Nardozza”).
Claims 4-9 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Jinich, Nardozza, and Yuan (US
7,514,995 B2, April 7, 2009) (“Yuan”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a wireless communication device
equipped with more than one radio. A lossless switching module allows for
selectively using one of the radios in a standby mode. The switching
module allows for switching in the standby radio in the event that another
radio fails without introducing any loss. In disclosed examples, switching
module inputs and inactive or failed radio output ports are coupled to an
impedance corresponding to the associated radio. Disclosed examples are

2 Appellants originally appealed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-19.
App. Br. 13. However, the Examiner has allowed claims 12-19 and has
conditionally allowed claim 10 if rewritten in independent form including all
the limitations of base claim and any intervening claim. Ans. 14. We
therefore, consider only claims 1-9 and 11 in this appeal.
Appeal 2012-003670
Application 11/771,213

3
also useful for combining the outputs of more than one radio under selected
circumstances. Abstract.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Because Appellants make substantially the same arguments for claims
1-9 and 11 (App. Br. 4, 8), we select independent claim 1 as representative
pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claim 1
recites:
1. A wireless communication device, comprising

a first radio configured to provide a first radio frequency
output on a plurality of carriers;

a second radio configured to provide a second radio
frequency output on a plurality of carriers;

and
a lossless switching module including
a first input coupled with the first radio;
a second input coupled with the second radio; and
a switched output;

and

a controller that selectively controls the switching
module to

(i) provide the first radio frequency output on the
switched output and couple the second input to an impedance
corresponding to an impedance of the second radio if the
second radio is in a standby mode and

(ii) provide the second radio frequency output on the
switched output and couple the first input to an impedance
Appeal 2012-003670
Application 11/771,213

4
corresponding to an impedance of the first radio if the second
radio is operating in place of the first radio.

App. Br. 10.

ISSUES AND ANALYSES
A. Claim 1
Issue 1
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited prior
art references teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1 reciting “coupl[ing]
the second input to an impedance corresponding to an impedance of the
second radio if the second radio is in a standby mode” and “coupl[ing] the
first input to an impedance corresponding to an impedance of the first radio
if the second radio is operating in place of the first radio.” App. Br. 4.

Analysis
Appellants argue that the Jinich reference does not teach or suggest
coupling an input of the switch to an impedance corresponding to a radio, if
that (first or second) radio is in stand-by mode. App. Br. 4. Appellants
dispute the Examiner’s finding that Jinich’s teaching of a dummy load 30
corresponds to these limitations, arguing that Jinich teaches instead that
“[t]he signals that the RF switch receives from the standby amplifier are
supplied to a dummy load 30 through the RF switch 14.” App. Br. 4-5
(quoting Jinich, col. 4, ll. 47-49). According to Appellants, there is nothing
in the teachings of Jinich that indicates that the dummy load 30 is an
impedance corresponding to the impedance of a radio. Ans. 5. Rather,
contend Appellants, Jinich teaches that the dummy load 30 includes “an RF
Appeal 2012-003670
Application 11/771,213

5
monitor point and a signal sensor detector for connection to alarm circuitry.”
Id. (quoting Jinich, col. 2, ll. 15-18). Appellants argue that the sensor in the
dummy load 30 detects whether there is a problem with a standby amplifier.
App. Br. 5 (citing Jinich, cols. 4-5, ll. 61-22). Moreover, allege Appellants,
Jinich reference does not even teach a radio but, instead, discusses only
power amplifiers for power savings. App. Br. 5.
The Examiner responds that Jinich teaches that the two amplifiers 12
and 18 can be coupled either with antenna 32 or the dummy load 30 since
they have to be able to work interchangeably, one as substitute for the other.
Ans.16 (citing Jinich Fig. 1; col. 1, ll. 1-9; col. 4, ll. 34-62). The Examiner
finds that the most direct solution for implementing such a system is for the
two amplifiers 12, 18 to be identical. Ans. 16 (citing Jinich, col. 2, l. 8).
The Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that the connecting lines are designed to have both amplifiers
setting at their output a “matched load” when they are either connected to
the antenna, and also when they are switched to the “dummy load.” Ans.
16-17.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. As an initial matter,
and contrary to Appellants’ argument that Jinich does not teach a radio, we
find that Jinich teaches a radio system including sources of signals A and B
that provide signals to the respective amplifiers 12 and 18. Jinich, Fig. 1;
col. 2, ll. 1-9. We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that a signal source can include a radio and a coupled amplifier.
Appellants provide no explicit definition of the claim term
“impedance” in their Specification; we therefore interpret the term in the
broadest, most reasonable manner consistent with the Specification. See In
Appeal 2012-003670
Application 11/771,213

6
re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(Claims under examination before the PTO are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification). The Technical
Electronics Engineering Dictionary defines “impedance” as “[t]he total
opposition offered to the flow of an alternating current. It may consist of
any combination of resistance, inductive reactance, and capacitive reactance.
The total passive opposition offered to the flow of electric current.”
Available at http://www.interfacebus.com/Glossary-of-Terms_I.html (last
visited July 29, 2014). We find this definition to be consistent with the use
of the term “impedance” in Appellants’ Specification. For example,
Appellants’ Specification teaches “[t]he first input 28 is coupled to an
impedance corresponding to an impedance of the radio 22.” Spec., p. 6, ll.
9-10.
Jinich teaches that “the RF output power from both (main and hot-
standby) amplifiers are [sic] monitored all the time. The signals that the RF
switch receives from the standby amplifier are supplied to a dummy load 30
through the RF switch 14.” Jinich, col. 4, ll. 45-49. Jinich also teaches that:
[w]hen the logic circuitry is provided a signal from switch 28
that amplifier 18 is to be placed in an active or main condition,
and amplifier 12 is to be placed in a standby condition, the
loads 30 and 32 are switched as to the source of their signals,
the bias supplies 36 and 38 are also switched and amplifier 18
then proceeds to supply power output signals to antenna 32.

Id., col. 4, ll. 55-62.
Jinich thus teaches that the output from the stand-by signal
source/amplifier is coupled to, and balanced by, an impedance (i.e., dummy
load 30). When the amplifiers are required to be switched between active
Appeal 2012-003670
Application 11/771,213

7
and stand-by modes, the impedance loads are switched between antennae
and dummy loads. We agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would understand that the connecting lines are designed to
have both amplifiers seeing at their output a “matched load” when they are
either connected to the antenna, and also when they are switched to the
“dummy load.” See Ans. 16-17. We consequently conclude that Jinich
teaches the limitations of claim 1 reciting “coupl[ing] the second input to an
impedance corresponding to an impedance of the second radio if the second
radio is in a standby mode” and “coupl[ing] the first input to an impedance
corresponding to an impedance of the first radio if the second radio is
operating in place of the first radio” and we affirm the Examiner’s rejection
on this ground.

Issue 2
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred because modifying the
teachings of Jinich would alter its principle of operation. App. Br. 6.

Analysis
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s findings would change Jinich’s
dummy load 30, which includes RF sensor functionality, to a different load,
such as an impedance corresponding to an impedance of a standby radio.
App. Br. 6. Appellants argue that, rather than using sensor functionality
associated with an output of the switch in the Jinich reference, the
Examiner’s findings would, instead, couple a different impedance with an
input of the switch in the Jinich reference. Id.
Appeal 2012-003670
Application 11/771,213

8
We disagree. We have related supra why we find that the dummy
load 30 of Jinich corresponds to the impedance corresponding to the
impedance of a (first or second) radio. We can see no change in
functionality in modifying Jinich; the purpose of the dummy load 30 is to
serve as an impedance load to the standby signal source/amplifier. We
therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection on this ground.

Issue 3
Appellants next argue that the Examiner erred because there would be
no benefit to combining the teachings of Jinich, with those of Nardozza.
App. Br. 6.

Analysis
Nardozza teaches a lossless RF coupler. Nardozza, Abstract.
Appellants argue that there would be no benefit to combining Nardozza’s
lossless switch with the teachings of Jinich, because Jinich uses a different
technique for purposes of conserving power when having a standby
amplifier associated with the switch of that reference. App. Br. 6.
According to Appellants, the standby amplifier is provided with a bias
voltage that is lower than normal to reduce power consumption; that
approach allows for switching the standby amplifier into service in less time
than it takes to bring up an amplifier from a “cold” condition. Id.
Appellants maintain that changing from the low bias condition to the normal
bias level is regarded in the Jinich reference as being extremely quick and
less than any switching requirements. App. Br. 6-7.
Appeal 2012-003670
Application 11/771,213

9
The Examiner responds that a person of ordinary skill in the art
seeking to minimizing loss along a radio transmission path, would select a
lossless switch, such the one taught by Nardozza, to implement the
functional block 14 of Jinich. Ans. 19-20 (citing Nardozza, Abstract). The
Examiner finds that the lossless switch of Nardozza was especially designed
for redundant systems such as the one taught by Jinich. Ans. 20 (citing
Nardozza, col. 1, ll. l-37).
We agree with the Examiner. Nardozza teaches an RF switch that can
shift between amplifier outputs in redundant systems (such as that taught by
Jinich) without loss. However, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
interpretation that the purpose of the lossless switch is to allow for switching
the standby amplifier into service in less time than it takes to bring up an
amplifier from a “cold” condition. See App. Br. 6. Rather, the function of
Nardozza’s lossless switch is such that when “only one of the input signals is
present, [the RF coupler] passes that input signal along its branch circuit to
the output without loss, while terminating the branch circuit associated with
the absent (i.e., missing or failed) input signal with an equal impedance.”
Nardozza, col. 1, ll. 32-36. We therefore conclude that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Jinich and
Nardozza to minimize loss when switching to the standby amplifier, in case
of failure of the active amplifier. We consequently affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1.

B. Claims 4-9
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s combination of the teachings of
Yuan with the teachings of Jinich and Nardozza does not cure the
Appeal 2012-003670
Application 11/771,213

10
deficiencies of Jinich. We have related supra the reasons why we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 based the teachings of Jinich and Nardozza.
We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-9.
Appeal 2012-003670
Application 11/771,213

11
DECISION
The Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-9 and 11 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

lp