Ex Parte DeLeeuw

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2013

11008698 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2013)

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.
11/008,698 12/08/2004 William C. DeLeeuw 042390.P18389 2246
45209 7590 05/28/2013
Mission/BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
PYZOCHA, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2437
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/28/2013 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 WILLIAM C. DELEEUW
_____________

Appeal 2010-011822
Application 11/008,698
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-011822
Application 11/008,698

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 15, 17 through 20, and 22 through 30. Claims 16 and 21
have been canceled
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a reconfigurable communication
architecture. See pages 1 and 3 of Appellant’s Specification. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a host input/output node to receive configuration request
packets including configuration request from a host;
one or more analog front end (AFE) nodes configurable
by the host input/output node to operate according to one or
more communication protocols; and
a first authentication element to receive the configuration
request packets from the host input/output node, to authenticate
a first configuration request packet indicating that a first AFE
node is to be reconfigured from a first communication protocol
to operate according to a second communication protocol and to
authenticate a second configuration request packet indicating
that a second AFE node is to be reconfigured from a third
communication protocol to operate according to a fourth
communication protocol.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4, 7 through 12, 14, 15,
17, 19, 20, 22, and 24 through 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Auckland (U.S. 2003/0078037 A1, Apr. 24, 2003), Schmidt (U.S.
Appeal 2010-011822
Application 11/008,698

3

2003/0219035 A1, Nov. 27, 2003), Vafaei (U.S. 2004/0095897 A1, May 20,
2004), and Eberle (U.S. 2004/0002308 A1, Jan. 1, 2004). Answer 3-6.
1

The Examiner has rejected claims 5, 10, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Auckland, Schmidt, Vafaei, Eberle, and Souissi (U.S.
2002/0068608 A1, Jun. 6, 2002). Answer 6.
The Examiner has rejected claims 6, 13, 18, 23, and 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Auckland, Schmidt, Vafaei, Eberle, and
Menezes (Handbook of Applied Cryptography). Answer 6-7.

ISSUE
Appellant argues on pages 9 through 15 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 7, 14, and 19 is in error.
2

These arguments present us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding
that the combined teachings of Auckland, Schmidt, Vafaei, and Eberle
disclose a first Analog Front End (AFE) being reconfigured from a first to a
second communication protocol and a second AFE being reconfigured from
a third to a fourth communication protocol?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. We disagree with

1
Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
June 1, 2010.
2
Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed on
April 6, 2010.
Appeal 2010-011822
Application 11/008,698

4

Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims
1, 7, 14, and 19 is in error. Appellant’s arguments summarize each of the
references and have contested the Examiner’s citation of Schmidt. Brief 9-
14. Appellant asserts that “Schmidt discloses a processor core that controls
a cellular radio core and a short range wireless transceiver core to provide a
seamless dual mode network integrated circuit that operates with a plurality
of distinct and unrelated communications standards and protocols” Brief 14.
Based upon this the Appellant asserts that the cores in Schmidt are not
equivalent to the claims AFEs as the cores do not have the capability of
being reconfigured from a first protocol to second protocol as claimed.
Brief 15 (no citations were provided to support this assertion).
We are not persuaded of error by this argument, as Appellant admits;
Schmidt teaches that the processor core is capable of changing protocols
(reconfigure the device). Further, the Examiner has provided a
comprehensive response to these arguments. In this response, the Examiner
cites to several passages of Schmidt to support the finding that the cellular
radio core 110 and short range wireless transceiver core 130 are
reconfigurable. Answer 8-10. Appellant’s arguments have not addressed
these findings or identified why they are erroneous. Thus, we find no error
in these findings and are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument (unsupported
assertion on page 15 of the Brief) that the cores do not have the capability of
being reconfigured from a first protocol to second protocol.
Similarly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s additional argument
that Schmidt’s reconfigurable antennas are not equivalent to the claimed
reconfigurable AFE nodes. Brief 15. The Examiner finds that Eberle
teaches AFE nodes and that it is the combination of the references which
Appeal 2010-011822
Application 11/008,698

5

teach reconfiguring AFE nodes. Brief 9. Appellant has not addressed the
Examiner’s finding concerning the combined teachings. Accordingly, we
are not persuaded of error.
As Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner erred
in finding that the combined teachings of Auckland, Schmidt, Vafaei and
Eberle disclose a first AFE being reconfigured from a first to a second
communication protocol and a second AFE being reconfigured from a third
to a fourth communication protocol, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 7, 14, and 19. As Appellant have not presented
separate arguments directed to the rejections of the dependent claims we
similarity sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2 through 6, 8 through
13, 15, 17 through 18, 20, and 22 through 30.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of 1 through 15, 17 through 20, and 22
through 30 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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD