Ex Parte Currivan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2018

14551313 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/551,313 11/24/2014
51472 7590 03/30/2018
GARLICK & MARKISON (BRCM)
106 E. 6th Street, Suite 900
AUSTIN, TX 78701
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bruce J. Currivan
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
BP30902Cl 9070
EXAMINER
KANG, SUK JIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2018 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):
MMURDOCK@TEXASPATENTS.COM
bpierotti@texaspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRUCE J. CURRIV AN, ROGER FISH,
HAROLD RAYMOND WHITEHEAD,
and
THOMAS J. KOLZE 1
Appeal2017-002500
Application 14/551,313
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Broadcom Corporation as the real party in interest.
Appeal2017-002500
Application 14/551,313
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "characterizing, tracking, and/or
monitoring operation of various components and/or elements within" data
communication systems (Spec. 2:8-10).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A communication device comprising:
a communication interface; and
a processor, at least one of the processor or the communication
interface configured to:
generate first spectrum analysis (SA) information based on a
first full bandwidth of an upstream (US) usable frequency spectrum for one
or more US channels within a communication system;
generate second SA information based on a second full
bandwidth of a downstream (DS) usable frequency spectrum for one or more
DS channels within the communication system, wherein full bandwidth of a
usable frequency spectrum in the communication system spans both the first
full bandwidth and the second full bandwidth; and
transmit the first SA information and the second SA
information to another communication device for use by the another
communication device to determine a performance characteristic of at least
one of the one or more US channels or at least one of the one or more DS
channels within the communication system.
REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Ponnuswamy (US 2011/0188544 Al; Aug. 4, 2011)
and Nishide (US 2009/0007210 Al; Jan. 1, 2009).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Ponnuswamy teaches and suggests "a spectrum
analyzer, in the AP (120, figure 1), generating information by spectrum
2
Appeal2017-002500
Application 14/551,313
analysis of the full spectrum for one or more channels of the communication
system and channel scanning of the entire spectrum ([0022]-[0025])." (Final
Act. 12). The Examiner further finds Ponnuswamy "teaches communicating
SA information to the controller (100, figure 1) to determine and
communicate performance characteristics, such as interference and noise, of
the one or more channels ([0022]-[0026]; [0032]-[0037])" (id.). The
Examiner then finds Nishide teaches and suggests spectrum analysis of an
upstream usable frequency spectrum and a downstream usable frequency
spectrum for one or more channels in a CATV system to "determine a
performance characteristic, such as noise, of at least one of the one or more
US channels or at least one of the one or more DS channels within the
communication system" (Final Act, 13, citing Nishide i-fi-150, 51, 53, and 83).
The Examiner thus finds it:
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to incorporate analysis of an
upstream and downstream usable spectrum for one or more
channels as taught by Nishide with the method of spectrum
analysis as disclosed by Ponnuswamy for the purpose of
enabling transmission of spectrum analysis information and
detecting interference and noise (id.).
Initially we note Appellants' claim 1 broadly recites a communication
interface and a processor, the processor generating first and second spectrum
analysis (SA) information, including an upstream (US) usable frequency
spectrum and a downstream (DS) usable frequency spectrum. The processor
then transmits the first and second SA information to a communication
device for determining a performance characteristic.
Appellants contend Ponnuswamy's spectrum samples are merely
collected at the wireless receiver AP and are not generated spectrum
analysis information as claimed (App. Br. 14). That is, according to
3
Appeal2017-002500
Application 14/551,313
Appellants the claim requires, the SA information be generated by the
communication device and the generated SA information be transmitted to
another communication device; neither Ponnuswamy nor Nishide "generate"
spectrum analysis information (id.). We do not agree. Appellants'
Specification does not say how the spectrum analysis information is
generated. The Examiner finds Ponnuswamy's process of collecting
spectrum samples is "analogous to the claimed SA information based on the
broadest reasonable interpretation" (Ans. 14). Appellants, for the most part,
repeatedly recite the claim limitations and portions of the references but do
not provide persuasive argument or reasoning as to why the Examiner's
reasonable findings are incorrect (App. Br. 12-24).
Thus, in light of the broad claim limitations and the Examiner's
reasonable findings, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1, 9, and 14, as obvious over the collective teachings of Ponnuswamy
and Nishide.
With respect to claims 2 and 15, we agree with the Examiner that
Ponnuswamy's paragraph 22 teaches and suggests the claimed "observe the
full bandwidth of the usable frequency spectrum" ("the spectrum analysis
features require full-spectrum visibility" and "the entire spectrum needs to
be scanned" (i-f 22)) (App. Br. 24; Final Act. 5).
With respect to claims 3, 4, and 16, Appellants merely state the
portions of Ponnuswamy and Nishide fail to teach or suggest the claim
limitations, without providing argument or reasoning (App. Br. 25).
Appellants' arguments are, therefore, unpersuasive.
With respect to claims 5 and 1 7, Appellants argue Nishide does not
teach or suggest generating "SA information within one device (e.g., 'fault
detection server 10 ') and then transmitting such SA information to another
4
Appeal2017-002500
Application 14/551,313
device (e.g., 'fault analyzing server 12') for use by that another device (e.g.,
'fault analyzing server 12')" as claimed (App. Br. 25). However, the
Examiner relies on Ponnuswamy for these limitations (see claim 1
arguments infra) and Nishide for the limitation regarding the performance
characteristics of the US and DS channels (Final Act. 7 "analysis of an
upstream usable frequency spectrum for one or more channels"). Thus,
Appellants are arguing the references separately and not for what they were
cited.
With respect to claims 6 and 18, Appellants contend Ponnuswamy's
paragraph 24 disclosure of "scan the entire spectrum (e.g., 500MHz or
more)" does not teach or suggest the claim limitation "[the] full bandwidth
of usable frequency spectrum ... has an upper bound of approximately 1008
MHz" (App. Br. 26). We do not agree. The term "500 MHz or more"
suggests the upper bound of the frequency spectrum can be 500 MHz or
anything greater than 500 MHz.
For the above reasons we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 2-6, and 16-18 argued separately and claims 7, 8, 10-13, 15, 19, and
20, for which no arguments were provided.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5