Ex Parte Ibrahim et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2012

11286555 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BRIMA IBRAHIM, MITCHELL BUZNITSKY,
AHMADREZA ROFOUGARAN, JOHN WALLEY,
BOJKO MARHOLEV, ROY TOBIN,
PRASANNA DESAI, ANGEL POLO,
HEA JOUNG KIM, PAUL A. LETTIERI, and
SIUKAI MAK
____________

Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is a method and system for a single-chip
integrated Bluetooth and FM transceiver. In one embodiment, the chip
receives FM audio data via an FM core and transfers the data to a Bluetooth
core. The Bluetooth core in turn transfers the data to a processor which
performs Bluetooth-compliant voice coding for transportation of FM audio
data on Bluetooth links. Bluetooth-encoded FM audio data is then
communicated to another device that supports the Bluetooth protocol. See
generally Spec. ¶¶ 0004, 61. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for providing wireless communication, the method
comprising:
communicating received FM data via an FM radio integrated in a
single chip to a Bluetooth radio integrated in said single chip;
communicating said received FM data from said Bluetooth radio to a
single on-chip processor communicatively coupled to said FM radio and said
Bluetooth radio;
encoding said received FM data to Bluetooth data; and
communicating said encoded Bluetooth data to one or more Bluetooth
enabled devices via said Bluetooth radio.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Laurila

Hamada

Kamerman

US 2004/0204168 A1

US 2005/0164632 A1

US 2005/0276241 A1

Oct. 14, 2004

July 28, 2005
(filed Mar. 21, 2005)
Dec. 15, 2005
(filed July 20, 2004)
Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

3
Rush

Karasudani

Mason

Sutardja
US 2006/0019686 A1

US 7,084,439 B2

US 2006/0223467 A1

US 2006/0232704 A1
Jan. 26, 2006
(filed July 23, 2004)
Aug. 1, 2006
(filed Dec. 20, 2003)
Oct. 5, 2006
(filed Apr. 5, 2005)
Oct. 19, 2006
(filed May 23, 2005)

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6-8, 13, 14, 18-20, 25, 26, and
30-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hamada, Laurila, and
Karasudani. Ans. 3-13.1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 3-5, 15-17, and 27-29 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hamada, Laurila, Karasudani, and
Sutardja. Ans. 13-15.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, 21, 22, 33, and 34 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hamada, Laurila, Karasudani, and
Mason. Ans. 15-16.
4. The Examiner rejected claims 11, 23, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Hamada, Laurila, Karasudani, and Kamerman.
Ans. 16-17.2

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed May 6,
2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 19, 2009; and (3) the Reply
Brief filed October 19, 2009.
2 Although the statement of the rejection lists “Laurila as applied to claims 1,
13 and 25 above, and further in view of Kamerman” (Ans. 16), we assume
that the rejection is over Hamada, Laurila, Karasudani, and Kamerman,
which reflects the references actually applied to claims 1, 13, and 25. See
Ans. 3-13.
Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

4
5. The Examiner rejected claims 12, 24, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Hamada, Laurila, Karasudani, and Rush. Ans.
17-18.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HAMADA, LAURILA, AND KARASUDANI
The Examiner finds that Hamada discloses every recited feature of
claim 1 except for (1) an FM radio integrated in a single chip and a
Bluetooth radio integrated in the single chip, and (2) communicating
received FM data from the Bluetooth radio to a single on-chip processor
communicatively coupled to the FM radio and the Bluetooth radio. The
Examiner cites Laurila and Karasudani, respectively, as teaching these
features in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 3-6.
Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue that Hamada does not disclose
receiving FM data via an FM radio, let alone communicating such FM data
to a Bluetooth radio or encoding the FM data to Bluetooth data. Appellants
also argue that Hamada does not disclose communicating the encoded
Bluetooth data to one or more Bluetooth-enabled devices via the Bluetooth
radio. Further, Appellants argue that Hamada, in view of Laurila, does not
disclose an FM radio and Bluetooth radio integrated in a single chip, and
that no reason has been shown to modify Hamada. Lastly, Appellants argue
that the combination of Hamada, Laurila, and Karasudani does not disclose
communicating the received FM data to a single on-chip processor
communicatively coupled to the FM radio and the Bluetooth radio, and that
no reason has been shown to combine these references. App. Br. 10-20;
Reply Br. 4-9.
Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

5
Appellants argue other limitations of various claims (App. Br. 20-32)
indicated in the issue statement below. The issues before us, then, are as
follows:

ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Hamada, Laurila,
and Karasudani collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1) communicating received FM data via an FM radio integrated in a
single chip to a Bluetooth radio integrated in said single chip, as recited in
claim 1?
(2) communicating said received FM data from the Bluetooth radio to
a single on-chip processor communicatively coupled to the FM and
Bluetooth radios, as recited in claim 1?
(3) encoding the received FM data to Bluetooth data, as recited in
claim 1?
(4) communicating the encoded Bluetooth data to one or more
Bluetooth-enabled devices via the Bluetooth radio, as recited in claim 1?
(5) time-division multiplexing processing of the FM data and
processing of the Bluetooth data in the single on-chip processor when the
single chip operates in Bluetooth-FM mode, as recited in claim 2?
(6) transferring the FM data out of the single chip via an analog
interface communicatively coupled to the FM radio, as recited in claim 6?
(7) the single chip operates in one of a Bluetooth-only mode, an FM-
only mode, and a Bluetooth-FM mode, as recited in claim 7?
(8) disabling at least a portion of the Bluetooth radio when the single
chip operates in said FM-only mode, as recited in claim 8?
Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

6
(9) Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of the cited
references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Hamada discloses a radio transmitting/receiving system for the
transmission of an audio signal, including a radio transmission side 10 that is
connected to a radio receiving side 20 through a Bluetooth line. Hamada ¶
0070; Fig. 1. The radio transmission side uses a real-time signal source
which can be a signal from a broadcast receiver. Hamada ¶ 0071. The radio
transmission side includes an encoding unit 12 for encoding and
compressing the audio signal, and a Bluetooth transmission unit 14 for
transmitting packets of encoded data through the Bluetooth line to the radio
receiving side, which includes Bluetooth receiving unit 21. Hamada ¶ 0073,
76, 79.
2. Laurila discloses a headset 30 that includes a radio receiver 32 for
receiving FM radio broadcasts, and personal area network (PAN) circuitry
50 for communicating with an audio gateway 46 over a PAN link 48.
Laurila ¶ 0019; Figs. 1, 6. The PAN can employ the Bluetooth radio
frequency standard. Laurila ¶ 0020. The PAN circuitry and the radio
receiver can be intertwined circuitry that shares a common substrate such as
a printed wiring board. Laurila ¶ 0024.
3. Laurila’s headset allows a user listening to FM radio via the radio
receiver to receive an incoming phone call through an audio connection
established between the audio gateway and PAN circuitry. The PAN
circuitry mutes the FM radio to a speaker 42, and then the PAN circuitry
Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

7
drives the speaker. This allows the user to hear a ring, tone, or beep for the
incoming call over the speaker without having to manually access the
headset to adjust or turn off the FM radio. The user can thus carry on a
mobile phone call via the headset while FM listening is automatically muted.
Laurila ¶ 0022; Fig. 3.
4. Karasudani discloses an integrated circuit that includes an AM
block, an FM block, a common AM/FM block, and a control circuit.
Karasudani, col. 2, ll. 53-59; Fig. 1.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 13, and 25
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 1 which recites
[1] communicating received FM data via an FM radio
integrated in a single chip to a Bluetooth radio integrated in said
single chip;
[2] communicating said received FM data from said
Bluetooth radio to a single on-chip processor communicatively
coupled to said FM radio and said Bluetooth radio;
[3] encoding said received FM data to Bluetooth data;
and
[4] communicating said encoded Bluetooth data to one or
more Bluetooth enabled devices via said Bluetooth radio.
Appellants argue every recited limitation of claim 1, and we address these
features in turn.
First, Hamada’s radio transmission system communicates a signal
from a real-time signal source, such as a broadcast receiver, to an encoding
unit and then to a Bluetooth transmitter. FF 1. The Examiner finds that FM
Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

8
radio was a known broadcast standard, and thus Hamada teaches receiving
FM data via an FM receiver. Ans. 19-20. The Examiner also concludes that
it would have been obvious to integrate Hamada’s broadcast receiver and
Bluetooth transmitter on a single chip in view of Laurila (Ans. 4-5, 21-22),
which teaches that an FM radio and PAN circuitry (Bluetooth radio) can be
intertwined circuitry that shares a common substrate such as a printed wiring
board. FF 2. Appellants have not specifically explained why the
Examiner’s finding that Hamada teaches an FM receiver is incorrect, or why
the claimed integration on a single chip is not taught or suggested by
Laurila’s intertwined circuitry on a common substrate. Rather, Appellants’
arguments merely recite the claim limitations and assert that the cited
teachings fail to disclose these limitations. See App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 4-
6. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that
the cited references collectively would have taught or suggested
“communicating received FM data via an FM radio integrated in a single
chip to a Bluetooth radio integrated in said single chip.”
Second, the Examiner has identified Hamada’s encoding unit as the
claimed processor. Ans. 24; see FF 1. Karasudani discloses AM and FM
radio circuits communicatively coupled to a control circuit on a single
integrated circuit. See FF 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to include Hamada’s encoding unit as an on-chip processor on
the same chip as the FM and Bluetooth radios taught by Hamada and
Laurila, in view of Karasudani’s circuit layout. Ans. 5-6; 23-25. Further,
with this arrangement, the Examiner finds that the references teach
communicating received FM data from the Bluetooth radio to the on-chip
processor. Ans. 6, 24. As with the previously discussed feature, Appellants
Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

9
merely recite the claim limitations and assert that the cited teachings fail to
disclose these limitations. App. Br. 16-19; Reply Br. 8-9. Absent evidence
or argument explaining the alleged failure of the Examiner’s specifically
proposed combination, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s
finding that the cited references would have taught or suggested
“communicating said received FM data from said Bluetooth radio to a single
on-chip processor communicatively coupled to said FM radio and said
Bluetooth radio.”
Third, we find that Hamada encodes the received audio signal in an
encoding unit, and transmits the encoded signal over a Bluetooth link. FF 1.
As discussed above, the received audio signal may be FM data. Appellants’
bare assertion that the cited teachings fail to disclose “encoding said
received FM data to Bluetooth data” is therefore unavailing. See App. Br.
13-14; Reply Br. 6-7. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error in the
Examiner’s finding that the cited references would have taught or suggested
this feature.
Lastly, we find that Hamada’s radio transmitting/receiving system
includes a radio transmission side with a Bluetooth transmitter, and a radio
receiving side with a Bluetooth receiver. FF 1. We find that this teaching
meets the limitation of “communicating said encoded Bluetooth data to one
or more Bluetooth enabled devices via said Bluetooth radio,”
notwithstanding Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 7), which
merely recites the claim limitations and asserts that the cited teachings fail to
disclose these limitations.
Further, although Appellants allege that no reason has been shown for
combining the cited references (App. Br. 12-13, 17, 19), the Examiner has
Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

10
clearly stated reasons for combining Laurila and Karasudani with Hamada.
Ans. 5-6. Specifically, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to combine Laurila with Hamada “to save manufactur[ing] cost[s]
and improve energy consumption and battery life,” and to combine
Karasudani with Hamada and Laurila to minimize chip size. Ans. 5, 21, 24.
Appellants do not explain why these stated reasons are insufficient. See
App. Br. 10-20. We find that these reasons are supported by articulated
reasoning based on a rational underpinning. Absent evidence or argument to
the contrary, we cannot say that the Examiner’s combination is improper.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 13 and 25 not separately argued with particularity.

Claims 2, 14, and 26
We do not, however, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 2. Appellants argue that Laurila’s muting an FM radio
to alert a user to an incoming call and Karasudani’s turning off an FM radio
block when receiving AM radio broadcasting do not suggest the claimed
time-division multiplexing feature. App. Br. 20-23. We agree. Time-
division multiplexing requires interleaving data from two or more sources in
regular time slots.3 Despite the Examiner’s assertion to the contrary (Ans.
25-26), simply muting or turning off an FM radio component in a device for
some undetermined period of time in favor of Bluetooth data processing is
not the same as time-division multiplexing processing FM data and

3 See ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING DICTIONARY (John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. 2004) (“Multiplexing in which a single channel is utilized to
transmit multiple signals, each with its allocated time slot.”).
Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

11
Bluetooth data given the ordinary and customary meaning of “time-division
multiplexing” recognized in the art.
We are therefore constrained by the record to find that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 2, and claims 14 and 26 which recite commensurate
limitations.

Claims 6, 18, and 30
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 6.
Appellants argue that the combination of Hamada, Laurila, and Karasudani
does not transfer FM data out of a single chip via an analog interface
communicatively coupled to an FM radio. App. Br. 23-26. However,
Laurila’s FM radio is connected to a speaker for listening to the radio. FF 3.
We see no error in the Examiner’s position that the connection to Laurila’s
speaker is an analog interface, and thus Laurila, in combination with
Hamada and Karasudani, discloses transferring FM data out of a single chip
via an analog interface coupled to an FM radio. Ans. 6-7, 26-27.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 6, and claims 18 and 30 not separately argued with particularity.

Claims 7, 19, and 31
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 7.
Appellants argue that the cited references fail to disclose a single chip
operating in one of a Bluetooth-only mode, an FM-only mode, and a
Bluetooth-FM mode. We first note that claim 6 only requires that the single
chip operate in one of three modes. Laurila’s headset allows a user listening
to FM radio to receive and carry on an incoming mobile phone call through
Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

12
PAN circuitry by muting the FM radio. FF 3. The Examiner finds that this
comprises a Bluetooth-FM mode because the headset is operating in a mode
where either FM radio or Bluetooth functions can be carried out. See Ans.
27. Appellants do not specifically explain why this interpretation of a
Bluetooth-FM mode is incorrect. See App. Br. 26-29. We find that the
Examiner’s interpretation is reasonable, and we thus find that Laurila, in
combination with Hamada and Karasudani, at least suggests a Bluetooth-FM
mode of operation—one of the three alternatively claimed modes.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 7, and claims 19 and 31 not separately argued with particularity.

Claims 8, 20, and 32
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 8.
Appellants argue that the cited references do not disclose disabling at least a
portion of a Bluetooth radio when a single chip operates in an FM-only
mode. App. Br. 29-32. Although Appellants acknowledge (App. Br. 31) the
Examiner’s position that Laurila’s disconnecting the PAN link between the
PAN circuitry and audio gateway comprises an FM-only mode where at
least a portion of a Bluetooth radio is disabled (Ans. 7, 28), there is no
substantive explanation as to why the Examiner’s interpretation is incorrect.
See App. Br. 29-32. Absent argument or evidence to the contrary, we find
no error in the Examiner’s position that the combination of Hamada, Laurila,
and Karasudani at least suggests this feature.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 8, and claims 20 and 32 not separately argued with particularity.

Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

13
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HAMADA, LAURILA, KARASUDANI,
AND SUTARDJA
The Examiner finds that Hamada, Laurila, and Karasudani disclose
every recited feature of claim 3 except for transferring FM data out of a
single chip via a digital interface communicatively coupled to a Bluetooth
radio, FM radio, and single on-chip processor, but cites Sutardja as teaching
this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 13-
14.
Regarding claim 3, Appellants argue that the cited references fail to
disclose the recited limitations, and that no reason has been shown for
combining Sutardja with the other references. App. Br. 33-36.
Appellants argue other limitations of various claims (App. Br. 36-44)
as indicated in the issue statement below.
The issues before us, then, are as follows:

ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Hamada, Laurila,
Karasudani, and Sutardja collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1) transferring said FM data out of said single chip via a digital
interface communicatively coupled to said Bluetooth radio, said FM radio,
and said single on-chip processor, as recited in claim 3?
(2) transferring additional FM data into said single chip via said
digital interface, as recited in claim 4?
(3) said digital interface is one of a universal series bus (USB)
interface, a secure digital input/output (SDIO) interface, a universal
asynchronous receiver transmitter (UART) interface, an inter-integrated
Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

14
circuit bus (I2C) interface, a PCM interface, and an inter-IC sound (I2S)
interface, as recited in claim 5?
(4) Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of the cited
references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
5. Sutardja discloses a set top box 40 that includes source inputs 42,
radio frequency (RF) front ends 44, tuners 46 for tuning to a channel in a
received broadband signal, amplifiers 48, analog to digital converters 50 for
converting analog channel signals to digital signals, and an RF demodulator
52. Sutardja ¶ 0039; Fig. 2. The set top box also includes a central
processing unit 54 that communicates with the RF demodulators via an
interface 56, which can be a peripheral component interface (PCI). Sutardja
¶ 0040; Fig. 2. Sutardja shows a Bluetooth interface 95 connected to the
PCI. Sutardja ¶ 0042; Fig. 2. The Bluetooth interface can be used for
sending audio signals to other devices. Sutardja ¶ 0043. Sutardja also
shows a USB interface connected to the PCI. Sutardja ¶ 0042; Fig. 2. An
audio codec 99 is also connected to the PCI for communicating audio signals
to a transmitter 103. Sutardja ¶ 0043; Fig. 2.

ANALYSIS
Claims 3, 15, and 27
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 3 which recites, in pertinent
part, “transferring said FM data out of said single chip via a digital interface
Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

15
communicatively coupled to said Bluetooth radio, said FM radio, and said
single on-chip processor.”
Sutardja’s set top box converts an analog RF input signal to a digital
signal and demodulates the digital signal in an RF demodulator connected to
a PCI interface. FF 5. The PCI interface is in turn connected to a Bluetooth
interface that can be used to send audio signals to other devices. Id. We
agree with the Examiner that Sutardja’s PCI interface is a digital interface
(see Ans. 14, 28-29), because the interface transfers digital signals to a
Bluetooth interface for further transmission. See FF 5. Appellants’
arguments (App. Br. 33-36) do not specifically explain why Sutardja’s PCI
interface is not a digital interface as claimed. Further, Appellants’ argument
that no reason has been shown for combining Sutardja with the other
references (App. Br. 34) does not address the Examiner’s stated reason—“to
provide consumers with an improved wireless entertainment system.” Ans.
14, 29.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 3, and claims 15 and 27 not separately argued with particularity.

Claims 4, 16, and 28
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 4.
Appellants argue that the cited references fail to disclose transferring
additional FM data into the single chip via the digital interface. App. Br. 36-
40. However, Appellants do not specifically explain any shortcoming of the
Examiner’s finding that Sutardja transfers additional FM data from another
input source, i.e., an audio codec, into the set top box via Sutardja’s PCI
interface. Ans. 14, 29. That is, Appellants have not explained why this
Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

16
finding is incorrect, or why the recited claim limitations are patentably
distinct from these teachings. See App. Br. 36-40.
Appellants also argue that no reason has been shown to combine
Sutardja with the other cited references. App. Br. 37. While the Examiner
does not explicitly state a reason for combining the references with respect
to claim 4 (Ans. 14, 29), the Examiner does provide a reason for combining
Sutardja with the other references as noted above with respect to claim 3,
from which claim 4 depends. We find that the Examiner’s reason—“to
provide consumers with an improved wireless entertainment system” (Ans.
14)—fairly applies to claim 4 as well. Sutardja’s set top box enables
multiple audio input signals to be transferred, via the PCI interface, to
multiple output interfaces, such as a Bluetooth interface. See FF 5. In light
of this teaching, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that
including an additional FM data source in the system taught by Hamada,
Laurila, and Karasudani would predictably yield an improved entertainment
system, at least with respect to its ability to process additional data.
Further, we note that if a technique has been used to improve one
device, and ordinarily skilled artisans 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. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Here, Sutardja is evidence that including an
additional audio input signal in a device that transfers audio signals via a
digital interface to a Bluetooth interface was within the ordinary skill in the
art. See FF 5. Accordingly, it would have been within the capability of an
ordinarily skilled artisan to transfer additional FM data via a digital interface
Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

17
to the Bluetooth transmitter in the system of Hamada, Laurila, Karasudani,
and Sutardja.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 4, and claims 16 and 28 not separately argued with particularity.

Claims 5, 17, and 29
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 5.
Appellants argue that the cited references fail to disclose a digital interface
that is one of a universal serial bus (USB) interface, a secure digital
input/output (SDIO) interface, a universal asynchronous receiver transmitter
(UART) interface, an inter-integrated circuit bus (I2C) interface, a PCM
interface, and an inter-IC sound (I2S) interface. App. Br. 40-44. However,
Appellants do not specifically explain any shortcoming of the Examiner’s
finding that Sutardja discloses a USB interface connected to the PCI
interface. Ans. 14-15, 29-30. That is, Appellants have not explained why
this finding is incorrect, or why the recited claim limitations are patentably
distinct from these teachings. See App. Br. 36-40.
Appellants also argue that no reason has been shown to combine
Sutardja with the other cited references. App. Br. 41. Here too, as with
claim 4, the Examiner has not explicitly stated a reason for combining the
references. See Ans. 14, 29-30. However, claim 5 depends from claim 3,
and as stated above the Examiner provides a reason for combining Sutardja
with the other references in the discussion of claim 3. Ans. 14. Further,
using a USB interface to transfer digital data was a known technique, as
evidenced by Sutardja. FF 5. Thus, we find that using a USB interface as
the digital interface for transferring FM data to the Bluetooth transmitter in
Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

18
the system of Hamada, Laurila, Karasudani, and Sutardja merely predictably
uses prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious
improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 5, and claims 17 and 29, not separately argued with particularity.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HAMADA, LAURILA, KARASUDANI,
AND MASON
The Examiner finds that Hamada, Laurila, and Karasudani disclose
every recited feature of claim 9 except for receiving radio data system
(RDS) data via an FM radio, but cites Mason as teaching this feature in
concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 15-16.
Regarding claim 9, Appellants argue that the cited references fail to
disclose receiving RDS data via an FM radio, and that no reason has been
shown to combine Mason with Hamada, Laurila, and Karasudani. App. Br.
44-47. Appellants also argue the limitations of claim 10 (App. Br. 47-50) as
indicated in the issue statement below.
The issues before us, then, are as follows:

ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Hamada, Laurila,
Karasudani, and Sutardja collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1) receiving radio data system (RDS) data via said FM radio, as
recited in claim 9?
Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

19
(2) transferring said received RDS data to a memory in said single
chip by direct memory access when said single on-chip processor is in a
stand-by mode, as recited in claim 10?
(3) Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of the cited
references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
6. Mason discloses:
The Radio Data System (RDS) is an extension of the
standard FM radio transmission. It allows FM broadcasters to
send more than just an analog audio signal out over the air
interface. Stations can transmit digital RDS data for reception
by RDS-equipped FM tuners. This technology opens up a
whole new range of services to a listener with RDS reception
capability. . . .
Mason ¶ 0009.
7. Mason also discloses that an RDS broadcast contains a coded list
of all the alternate frequencies broadcasting the same program. When the
original broadcast fades below a certain threshold the RDS circuitry will
search the alternate frequencies for the strongest, most useable signal and
automatically switch to it. Mason ¶ 0011. One case where the alternate
frequency function is useful is in a moving FM radio receiver, such as a car
stereo system. While driving, the receiver will occasionally leave a
reception area of a certain station/program transmitted on a certain
frequency. If that station is part of a network broadcasting the program on a
number of transmitting stations with different geographical locations, each
with its own frequency, the alternate frequency function allows the receiver
Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

20
to tune to the best station for that program at all times. Mason ¶ 0012. A
user can store an RDS frequency in a car radio as a pre-set. Mason ¶ 0084,
0110.

ANALYSIS
Claims 9, 21, and 33
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 9 which recites, in pertinent
part, “receiving radio data system (RDS) data via said FM radio.”
Mason discloses receiving RDS data via an RDS-equipped FM tuner.
FF 6. Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 46) that Mason does not teach
receiving RDS data via an FM radio is therefore unavailing. Although
Appellants also allege that no reason has been shown for combining Mason
with the other references (App. Br. 45-46), Appellants do not explain why
the Examiner’s stated reason—“to effectively wirelessly transmit[] audio
data to FM radio” (Ans. 15-16, 30)—is insufficient.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 9, and claims 21 and 33 not separately argued with particularity.

Claims 10, 22, and 34
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 10.
Mason discloses that an FM receiver with RDS capability can receive
information regarding alternate frequencies. FF 7. Further, an RDS-capable
receiver can store an RDS frequency as a pre-set. Id. The Examiner finds
Mason meets the limitation of transferring RDS data to a memory when in a
stand-by mode. Ans. 16, 31. Appellants’ arguments do not specifically
Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

21
explain why the Examiner’s finding is incorrect, or why the claimed
limitations are patentably distinct from these teachings. See App. Br. 47-50.
While the Examiner does not provide a reason to combine the cited
references with respect to claim 10, the Examiner provides a reason for
combining Mason with the other references with respect to claim 9, from
which claim 10 depends. We find that this reason, to effectively transmit
FM data, fairly applies to claim 10 as well. Storing RDS frequencies is part
of the RDS system (see FF 7), and the Examiner’s rationale regarding claim
9 makes clear that one of ordinary skill in the art would have wanted to
include RDS capability in the system of Hamada, Laurila, and Karasudani.
Additionally, the RDS system “opens up a whole new range of services to a
listener.” FF 6.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 10, and claims 22 and 34 not separately argued with particularity.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HAMADA, LAURILA, KARASUDANI,
AND KAMERMAN
Regarding representative claim 11, the Examiner finds that Hamada,
Laurila, and Karasudani disclose every recited limitation except for
modifying an adaptive frequency hopping (AFH) map for communicated
Bluetooth data based on at least one detected wireless local area network
(WLAN) channel, but cites Kamerman as teaching this feature in concluding
that the claim would have been obvious.
Appellants argue that the cited references do not disclose the claimed
modifying step, and that no reason has been shown to combine Kamerman
with Hamada, Laurila, and Karasudani. App. Br. 51-55; Reply Br. 12-14.
Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

22
The issues before us, then, are as follows:

ISSUES
(1) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 by
finding that Hamada, Laurila, Karasudani, and Kamerman collectively
would have taught or suggested modifying an AFH map for communicated
Bluetooth data based on at least one detected WLAN channel?
(2) Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of the cited
references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
8. Kamerman discloses that Bluetooth devices communicate by using
a basic hopping pattern comprising a pseudo-random ordering of 79
frequencies. The hopping pattern can be adapted to exclude a portion of the
frequencies that are used by interfering devices. This adaptive frequency
hopping (AFH) technique improves Bluetooth coexistence with static, i.e.,
non-hopping, systems, such as devices in a WLAN. Kamerman ¶ 0015, 40-
41.

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 11 which recites, in pertinent
part, “modifying an adaptive frequency hopping (AFH) map for said
communicated Bluetooth data based on at least one detected wireless local
area network (WLAN) channel.”
Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

23
Kamerman uses an AFH technique among Bluetooth devices when in
the presence of a WLAN (see FF 8), and thus meets the claimed modifying
limitation. Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 53) that Kamerman fails to
disclose this feature is unavailing, and Appellants’ argument (id. at 52-53)
that no reason has been shown to combine the references does not address
the Examiner’s stated reason—“to reduce interference between Bluetooth
networks and wireless local area networks.” Ans. 17.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 11, and claims 23 and 35 not separately argued with particularity.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HAMADA, LAURILA, KARASUDANI,
AND RUSH
Regarding representative claim 12, the Examiner finds that Hamada,
Laurila, and Karasudani disclose every recited limitation except for
disabling analog circuitry within a single chip when processing only digital
signals, but cites Rush as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim
would have been obvious.
Appellants argue that the cited references do not disclose the claimed
disabling step, and that no reason has been shown to combine Rush with
Hamada, Laurila, and Karasudani. App. Br. 55-59.
The issues before us, then, are as follows:

ISSUES
(1) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12 by
finding that Hamada, Laurila, Karasudani, and Rush collectively would have
Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

24
taught or suggested disabling analog circuitry within a single chip when
processing only digital signals?
(2) Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of the cited
references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
9. Rush minimizes interference between a transceiver and digital
circuitry formed on the same integrated circuit. Rush ¶ 0008. In one
embodiment, in a mobile telephone having a processor and an RF
transceiver, the processor is enabled after the RF transceiver is deactivated.
Rush ¶ 0009, 33; Fig. 2. Rush discloses that RF circuitry typically includes
analog circuitry. Rush ¶ 0004.

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 12 which recites, in pertinent
part, “disabling analog circuitry within said single chip when processing
only digital signals.”
Rush disables analog circuitry (deactivates the RF transceiver) in an
integrated circuit when processing digital signals (enabling the processor).
See FF 9. Appellants’ arguments do not specifically explain why Rush fails
to disclose the claimed disabling feature. See App. Br. 55-59. Further,
Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 56-57) that no reason has been shown to
combine the references fails to address the Examiner’s stated reason—“to
Appeal 2010-001635
Application 11/286,555

25
reduce interference between digital circuit and analog circuit on a single chip
and improve radio isolation.” Ans. 18, 32-33.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 12, and claims 24 and 36 not separately argued with particularity.

CONCLUSION
Under § 103, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 14, and 26, but
did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3-13, 15-25, and 27-36.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-36 is affirmed-in-part.
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-IN-PART

babc