Ex Parte Garudadri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 4, 2016

12777698 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121777,698 05/11/2010
23696 7590 08/08/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Harinath Garudadri
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.
100471Ul 4880
EXAMINER
DAVENPORT, MON CHERI S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/08/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARINATH GARUDADRI, PAW AN KUMAR BAHETI, and
SOMDEB MAJUMDAR
Appeal2015-003213
Application 12/777,698
Technology Center 2400
Before NATHAN A. ENGELS, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-34, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Qualcomm Incorporated as the real party in interest.
Supplemental Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") 3.
Appeal2015-003213
Application 12/777,698
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
distributed processing for wireless sensors. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of processing data, the method comprising:
maintaining, at a first apparatus, a first clock signal;
transmitting, from the first apparatus, a clock
synchronization signal for synchronizing a second clock signal,
at a second apparatus, to the first clock signal;
receiving, at the first apparatus, one or more packets
comprising a first set of samples indicative of an input over a
period of time, the first set of samples corresponding to the
second clock signal; and
generating, at the first apparatus, a second set of samples
based, at least in part, on the first set of samples, wherein the
second set of samples corresponds to the first clock signal.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Andren us 5,654,991 Aug. 5, 1997
Osorio US 2006/0155495 Al July 13, 2006
REJECTION
Claims 1-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Osorio in view of Andren. Final Act. 2---6.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
2
Appeal2015-003213
Application 12/777,698
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding claims 1-34, and
we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 2---6), and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' arguments (Ans. 2--4). We
incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless
otherwise noted. However, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments regarding claims 1 and 18 for emphasis as follows.
Claims 1-17
Transmitting Step
Appellants argue Osorio does not teach or suggest "transmitting, from
the first apparatus, a clock synchronization signal for synchronizing a second
clock signal, at a second apparatus, to the first clock signal," as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 10-11. According to Appellants, Osorio teaches that "the
programmer determines the reference time of the first clock or the drift time
between the first and second clock in order to synchronize the second clock
with the first clock." App. Br. 11. However, Appellants argue Osorio does
not teach or suggest "any clock synchronization signal [being] transmitted
from the medical device (first apparatus) to the bedside device (second
apparatus)." Id. Appellants only rely on the disclosure of Osorio paragraph
9 in their argument. See App. Br. 10-11.
The Examiner finds Osorio teaches a programmer coupled to a
bedside device that is used to synchronize a second clock. Final Act. 2
(citing Osorio i-f 9); Ans. 3 (same). The Examiner further finds Osorio
3
Appeal2015-003213
Application 12/777,698
teaches that any of the components in the medical device system can be used
to implement clock synchronization:
Also Osorio teaches in [0078] "medical device systems are
configured to provide synchronization and calibration of all
system clocks.["] []Moreover, the embodiment may support
configurations in which one or more of the clocks are associated
with an entity that is different from a medical device system. It
may become desirable to ensure that the clocks are synchronized
with each other. The clocks are synchronized via a clock
synchronization signal.
Final Act. 3 (citing Osorio i-f 78).
We are not persuaded of error based on Appellants' argument because
it does not address the reasoning relied on by the Examiner (Ans. 3 (citing
Osorio i-f 78)) and, thus, does not adequately address the rejection on appeal.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Osorio teaches or suggest
the transmitting step recited in claim 1. Specifically, Osorio teaches or
suggests that both the programmer and the bedside device have separate
clocks and that any device-which includes the programmer---can be used
to send a synchronization signals:
For example, in the embodiment of the external system 100, the
system comprises monitoring equipment 105, bedside device
107, and programmer 109, in which each component may have
separate clocks. In order to coordinate the clocks, bedside
device 107 provides a synchronization and calibration process
that enables the plurality of clocks to be aligned within a desired
accuracy. It will be appreciated, however, that the
synchronization process may be implemented within any other
component.
4
Appeal2015-003213
Application 12/777,698
Osorio if 78 (emphasis in original omitted, emphasis added). 2
Furthermore, Appellants' arguments appear to be based on a
misunderstanding of the Examiner's findings and the disclosure of Osorio.
Specifically, Appellants' argument is premised on a medical device system
being an apparatus, and specifically the first apparatus. However, in Osorio,
the medical device system refers not to a single apparatus, but the collection
of apparatuses shown in Figure 1, including the bedside device and the
programmer. See Osorio iii! 42 ("Disclosed herein are three general
embodiments of the medical device system-an external system, a hybrid
system, and an implanted system-however, the invention may be embodied
in any number of configurations."), 10 ("FIG. 1 shows one possible
embodiment of an external system for treating a nervous system disorder.")
(emphasis omitted). As discussed, the programmer-which is an element of
the medical device system---can have a first clock which is used to
synchronize the second clock of the bedside device, the second apparatus.
See Final Act. 2; Ans. 3. Because Appellants' arguments do not accurately
describe the prior art or the Examiner's rejection, they do not persuade us
that the Examiner erred.
Receiving Step
Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in finding Andren teaches
"receiving, at the first apparatus, one or more packets comprising a first set
2 Because we agree with the Examiner that Osorio teaches or suggests the
transmitting step recited in claim 1 and the Examiner did not rely on Andren
to find that limitation, Appellants' arguments regarding Andren (App. Br.
11) are moot.
5
Appeal2015-003213
Application 12/777,698
of samples indicative of an input over a period of time, the first set of
samples corresponding to the second clock signal," as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 2--4. According to Appellants, Andren "teaches
that samples 12 illustrated in Figure 1 are taken at a periodic rate and
digitally stored and processed at a receiver." App. Br. 13 (citing Andren
2:23--43). However, Appellants argue Andren does not teach or suggest that
the samples correspond to a second clock signal that has been synchronized
with a first clock signal. App. Br. 13; Reply 3.
The Examiner finds Andren teaches or suggest "receiving, at the first
apparatus, one or more packets comprising a first set of samples indicative
of an input over a period of time, the first set of samples corresponding to
the second clock signal." Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. The Examiner concludes that
there is no requirement in the claims that the second clock signal must have
been adjusted prior to the second device transmitting the signal to the first
device (which receives the signals). Ans. 3. Moreover, the Examiner finds
if the second clock had been adjusted, it would be using the adjusted clock
signals. Id. Specifically, the Examiner finds Osorio teaches the importance
of using synchronized clock time. Id. (citing Osorio i-f 175).
During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation while reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Furthermore, it is
improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims unless "as a
matter of logic or grammar, they must be performed in the order written" or
if the specification "directly or implicitly requires such a narrow
construction." Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369, 1370
6
Appeal2015-003213
Application 12/777,698
(Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal citation and quotation omitted). Appellants do not
identify-nor do we see-any recitation in claim 1 that requires the
receiving step to occur subsequent to the transmitting step. Additionally,
although the claims require that a synchronization signal be sent from the
first device to the second device, claim 1 does not recite any requirement
that the synchronization signal actually be used to synchronize the second
clock signal. Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner correctly applied the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim and claim 1 does not require
the first set of samples to be created using an adjusted second clock signal.
Because Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the
claims, they are unpersuasive. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA
1982).
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that, to the extent the samples
are taken after the synchronization signal is received by the second apparatus
and used to synchronize the second clock, a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to use the synchronized clock signal. As the
Examiner finds, the prior art teaches the importance of using synchronized
signals. See Osorio i-f 175. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us
that the Examiner erred.
Generating Step
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the
prior art teaches or suggests "generating, at the first apparatus, a second set
of samples based, at least in part, on the first set of samples, wherein the
second set of samples corresponds to the first clock signal," as recited in
claim 1. Reply Br. 4--5.
7
Appeal2015-003213
Application 12/777,698
Appellants did not raise this argument in their Appeal Brief nor have
they argued-let alone demonstrated-good cause as to why it could not
have been raised earlier. Because Appellants' argument was presented for
the first time in the reply brief, it has been waived. Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion
Beam Appl'ns S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006); accord Ex parte
Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (absent a
showing of good cause, the Board is not required to address an argument
newly presented in the reply brief that could have been presented in the
principal brief on appeal); 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (same). Because
Appellants waived this argument in their Appeal Brief, we are not persuaded
that the Examiner erred.
Motivation To Combine
Appellants argue there is no motivation to combines the references.
App. Br. 13-15. First, Appellants argue that neither reference "teaches or
suggests direct communication between a pair of apparatuses in order to
synchronize their clock signals." App. Br. 13. Second, Appellants argue the
Examiner provided only conclusory statements that are not sufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
The Examiner finds Andren teaches "systems and methods for
determining and/or adjusting a clock used to extract the data from a received
signal" and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used that
teaching to improve the system taught in Osorio. Final Act. 4. The
Examiner further finds that Osorio and Andren teach well known concepts
that would achieve their expected results. Ans. 4.
8
Appeal2015-003213
Application 12/777,698
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding a reason to
combine the references.
First, for the reasons discussed above regarding the transmitting step,
we find Osorio teaches and suggests direct communication between a pair of
apparatuses in order to synchronize their clock signals. Accordingly, we are
not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Osorio does not teach direct
communication.
Second, the Supreme Court has determined the conclusion of
obviousness can be based on the interrelated teachings of multiple patents,
the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the
marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having
ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007); id. at 416 ("The combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results."). Furthermore, "the analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418. In other words, "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." Id. at 417. We agree with the Examiner the prior
art contains known solutions that have been used to improve one device and
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it could
have been used to improve other prior art devices in a predicable way.
Appellants have not argued that it would have been "uniquely challenging or
9
Appeal2015-003213
Application 12/777,698
ditlicult for one of ordinary skill in the art" to make the modifications
suggested by the Examiner. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner
erred in combining the prior art references.
According! y, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejections of claims 6, 11, 16, and 17, for which substantially the
same arguments are raised (App. Br. 14--16), along with claims 2-5, 7-10,
and 12-15, which are not argued separately.
Claims 18-34
Appellants argue Osorio in view of Arden neither teaches nor suggests
"receiving a clock synchronization signal" and "adjusting a clock signal
based, at least in part, on the clock synchronization signal" as recited in
claim 18. Specifically, Appellants argue Osorio does not teach the limitation
because the programmer sends the clock synchronization signal, not the
medical device system. App. Br. 16-17.
Appellants' argument is premised on a medical device system being
an apparatus, and specifically the first apparatus. However, as discussed
above for claim 1, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that the programmer is
the first apparatus.
Additionally, there is no requirement in claim 18 that the
synchronization signal comes from any particular apparatus. Instead, claim
18 merely recites a method that involves "receiving a clock synchronization
signal" without reciting any limitation on where the signal comes from. See
App. Br. 23 (Claims App'x). Because Appellants' arguments are not
10
Appeal2015-003213
Application 12/777,698
commensurate with the scope of the claims, they are unpersuasive. See Selj;
671 F.2d at 1348.
Appellants also argue that neither Osorio nor Andren teach or suggest
"generating a first set of samples corresponding to the adjusted clock signal"
as recited in claim 18. App. Br. 17-18. Specifically, Appellants argue
Andren does not teach or suggest using adjusted clock signals and Osorio
does not teach or suggest generating a set of samples. Id.
The Examiner finds the combination of Osorio and Andren teaches or
suggests the generating step recited in claim 18. Final Act. 3, 7-8. In
particular, the Examiner finds Osorio teaches adjusting a clock signal,
Andren teaches generating a set of samples, and that the combination of the
teachings of the references by a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have resulted in using the adjusted clock signal when generating subsequent
sets of samples:
Examiner respectfully disagrees Osorio in view of Adren
[sic] teaches Osorio [sic] teaches the concept of synchronzing
[sic] a first clock with a second clock signal which is the adjusted
clock. Adren [sic] teaches the concept of a first set of samples
of a [sic] input over a period of time in col. 2, lines 23-43,
Samples 12 of the signal are taken at a periodic rate and digitally
stored and processed. The sample set corresponds to the
synchronized adjusted clock signal.
Final Act. 7-8.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject
11
Appeal2015-003213
Application 12/777,698
matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981). Because Appellants' arguments are directed to the
references individually instead of to the combined teachings of those
references, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Instead, we agree with
the Examiner that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art to combine the teaching of clock signal synchronization from Osorio
and use it to synchronize the clock in Andren prior to generating a set of
samples.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 18, along
with the rejections of claims 23, 29, 33 and 34, which are argued on
substantially the same grounds, and dependent claims 19-22, 24--28, and
30-32, which are not separately argued.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting
claims 1-3 4.
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
12