Ex Parte Hekstra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 1, 2018

14683367 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/683,367 04/10/2015
65913 7590 11/05/2018
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andries Hekstra
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.
81656573US01 1002
EXAMINER
POTRATZ, DANIEL B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/05/2018 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex Parte ANDRIES HEKSTRA, STEP AN DRUDE,
FRANK LEONG, and ARIE KOPPELAAR
Appeal2018-004641
Application 14/683,367
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, BETH Z. SHAW, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-18, which represent all the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to multi-pulse communication using
spreading sequences. Spec. ,r 1.
1 The Applicant NXP B.V. is the real party in interest.
Appeal2018-004641
Application 14/683,367
Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims
at issue and is reproduced below:
1. A transmitter for communicating, the transmitter
compnsmg:
a memory;
a processor in communication with the memory, the processor
configured to:
create information to be used by a receiver to define a spreading
sequence for a subsequent packet in a transmission channel;
code the information into a current communications packet in
the transmission channel; and
transmit the current communications packet.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-8 and 10-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Giallorenzi (US 8,358,613 Bl issued Jan.
22, 2013). Final Act. 4--9.
The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 18 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Giallorenzi and Bukshpun (US 2010/0211787 Al
published Aug. 19, 2010). Final Act. 10-11.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § I02(a) as being anticipated by Giallorenzi. In particular,
Appellants argue Giallorenzi does not disclose "that the format information
is included in the data packet." App. Br. 3.
We agree with Appellants that the cited portions of Giallorenzi do not
disclose that the claimed spreading sequence is coded into the "current
communications packet," as recited in claim 1. We agree with the Examiner
that Giallorenzi teaches that information can be sent over the same channel,
2
Appeal2018-004641
Application 14/683,367
i.e., "wireless channel 106" or "wireless channel 105" which Giallorenzi
expressly states can be the same as channel 106 (Giallorenzi, 5:28-37). Ans.
5, 6. We also agree that Giallorenzi teaches that a continuous data stream
can be broken into individual packets for transmission, input data can
already be in packet form, and one individual packet can be placed into a
data frame. Ans. 7 ( citing Giallorenzi, 4:35-39). However, we agree with
Appellants that on this record, although Giallorenzi teaches placing data
frames into packets, it is unclear that the discovery frame and data frame are
placed into the same packet, i.e., "a current communications packet." See
Reply Br. 4. Unlike obviousness, to find anticipation, "it is not enough that
the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention, which an
ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it includes
multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to
achieve the claimed invention." Net Moneyin, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545
F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
Id.
[U]nless a reference discloses within the four comers of the
document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of
the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited
in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the
thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
Thus, constrained as we are by the record before us, we are persuaded
of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. We
do not determine the obviousness of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Therefore, on this record, we do not sustain the § 102 rejection of claim 1, or
of independent claim 10, which recites commensurate limitations.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 11-1 7 stand with their respective independent
3
Appeal2018-004641
Application 14/683,367
claims. Further, we also do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of
dependent claims 9 and 18, because the Examiner does not find that the
additional cited art cures the deficiencies discussed above.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-18 is reversed.
REVERSED
4