Ex Parte Mohindra et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 29, 2010

10780471 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 29, 2010)

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.
10/780,471 02/17/2004 Rishi Mohindra 853463.421C1 1404
38106 7590 11/29/2010
SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC
701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104-7092
EXAMINER
AFSHAR, KAMRAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte RISHI MOHINDRA and PETRUS M. STROET
________________

Appeal 2009-011666
Application 10/780,471
Technology Center 2600
_________________

Before THOMAS S. HAHN, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR. Administrative Patent Judges.

HAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant invokes our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 1, 4-7, and 10-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-011666
Application 10/780,471

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants claim a radio device and method for determining a
received signal strength indicator (RSSI) by summing absolute values of
received in-phase and quadrature signal components, with the summed
components contributing “in equal proportion” as recited in all independent
claims.2 Claims 1 and 15 are illustrative (disputed limitations are
emphasized):
1. A method of determining a received signal strength indicator signal from
an in-phase signal component and a quadrature signal component of a low
intermediate frequency signal that represents a received radio frequency
signal, said method comprising:

determining a first absolute value from said in-phase signal component:
determining a second absolute value from said quadrature signal component:
and forming a sum of said first and second absolute values, wherein the in-
phase signal component and the quadrature signal component contribute to
the sum in equal proportion.
15. A method of determining a received signal strength indicator signal from
an in-phase signal component and a quadrature signal component of a low
intermediate frequency signal that represents a received radio frequency
signal, said method comprising:

performing a limiting operation to obtain a limited in-phase signal
component and a limited quadrature signal component; determining a first
absolute value from said limited in-phase signal component; determining a
second absolute value from said limited quadrature signal component; and
forming a sum of said first and second absolute values, wherein the limited

2 See generally Abstract; Spec. 6:18-32; Figs. 2, 3.
Appeal 2009-011666
Application 10/780,471

3
in-phase signal component and the limited quadrature signal component
contribute to the sum in equal proportion.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Bodtmann US 4,028,641 June 7, 1977
Gabato US 5,603,112 Feb. 11, 1997
Chambers US 5,901,347 May 4, 1999
Haartsen US 6,081,697 June 27, 2000
Yoshizawa US 6,311,049 B1 Oct. 30, 2001
The Examiner, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), rejected:
1. Claims 1, 4, 15, and 16 as unpatentable over Gabato and Bodtmann
(Ans. 3, 4).
2. Claims 7, 13, 20, 21, and 25 as unpatentable over Gabato, Bodtmann,
and Haartsen (Ans. 4-6).
3. Claims 5 and 17 as unpatentable over Gabato, Bodtmann, and
Yoshizawa (Ans. 6).
4. Claims 10, 12, 14, 18, 22, and 23as unpatentable over Gabato,
Bodtmann, Haartsen, and Yoshizawa (Ans. 6-8).
5. Claim 6 as unpatentable over Gabato, Bodtmann, and Chambers
(Ans. 7).
6. Claims 11, 19, 24, and 26 as unpatentable over Gabato, Bodtmann,
Haartsen, and Chambers (Ans. 8).

Appeal 2009-011666
Application 10/780,471

4
APPELLANT’S CONTENTION
Appellants in the Appeal Brief group different claims in accord with
the rejections under separate headings (Br. 12-16), but do not identify any
separate claim(s) as being argued.
Initially, Appellants group claims 1, 4, 15, and 16 and identify that the
claimed invention has in-phase and quadrature components summed “in
equal proportion” (Br. 12, 13). Relying on this recited limitation,
Appellants argue that Gabato is distinguished because the reference instead
teaches that “the in-phase and quadrature components contribute to the sum
[of these components] in vastly differing proportions” (Br. 12).
Appellants additionally contend that the Examiner’s combination of
Gabato and Bodtmann for finding teachings or suggestions for the disputed
limitations is unsupportable because Gabato “relate[s] to an RSSI circuit
used in a radio receiver” and Bodtmann “relat[es] to a radio transmitter”
(Br. 13). This argument that the Examiner erred in combining Gabato and
Bodtmann is repeated as the sole argument for all of the other grouped
claims.

ISSUE
The pivotal issue, based on the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
and Appellants’ contentions, is whether the Examiner, under § 103(a), erred
in concluding that Gabato teaches or suggests determining an RSSI signal
based on summing in-phase and quadrature components “in equal
proportion” as recited in independent claims 1 and 15.

Appeal 2009-011666
Application 10/780,471

5
FINDING OF FACT
The following Finding of Fact is shown by a preponderance of the
evidence.
1. Gabato discloses in the “Background of the Invention” section that
RSSI can be calculated by taking the square root of the summation of
the square of the absolute value of “I” (i.e., an in-phase component)
and the square of the absolute value of “Q” (i.e., a quadrature
component) (col. 1, ll. 16-38: Fig. 1, 2).

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
The scope of claimed limitations is determined by giving the terms in
claims their ordinary and accustomed meaning while interpreting the claims
as broadly as is reasonable and consistent with the specification. See In re
Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
On appeal, Appellants may rebut the Examiner’s findings and
reasoning with opposing evidence or argument. Failure to do so may
constitute a waiver of potential arguments. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072, 1075 (precedential) (BPAI 2010) (“If an appellant fails to present
arguments on a particular issue — or, more broadly, on a particular rejection
— the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those
uncontested aspects of the rejection.”); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307,
1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (The Board may treat arguments appellant failed to
make for a given ground of rejection as waived); 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2009-011666
Application 10/780,471

6
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 4, 15, and 16
For the following reasons, Appellants’ assertions are not persuasive
that the Examiner erred in rejecting these grouped claims, because we do not
agree that Gabato is deficient in teaching or suggesting determining an RSSI
signal based on summing in-phase and quadrature components in equal
proportion as recited in independent claims 1 and 15.
In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief, finds that Gabato “teach[es] the in-phase signal component
and the quadrature signal component contribute to the sum used to form the
RSSI indication in equal proportion (See Gabato e.g. I (Component) is fed
into a squaring function block 201, and Q (Component) is fed into a
squaring function block 203” (Ans. 9) (italicized emphasis added). The
Examiner acknowledges that this finding is in response to the Appeal Brief
and was made after a “further review of references” (Ans. 9).
We agree with the Examiner that Gabato teaches adding squared
absolute values of in-phase and quadrature signal components to determine
RSSI ( FF 1).
Both the claim 1 and claim 15 disputed limitations substantively recite
“forming a sum of said first and second absolute values, wherein the in-
phase signal component and the quadrature signal component contribute to
the sum in equal proportion.”3 Using ordinary and accustomed meanings for

3 Claim 15 further recites that the in-phase and quadrature signal
components are “limited.” This additional recited limitation is not argued by
Appellants as distinguishing over Gabato, and we, accordingly, address the
Appeal 2009-011666
Application 10/780,471

7
recited terms, we find that a broadly reasonable interpretation for the
disputed limitations encompasses summing absolute values of in-phase and
quadrature signal components and that this claimed summation does not
exclude squaring of the signal components prior to summation as taught by
Gabato (see FF 1). Further, we find this interpretation is consistent with our
review of Appellants’ Specification. See Thrift, 298 F3d at 1364.
Appellants argue that the disputed claim limitation for “equal
proportion” distinguishes over Gabato’s disclosed embodiment that includes
scale factors (Br. 12). The Examiner, however, does not rely on that Gabato
embodiment for the above discussed finding identified in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 9). For the foregoing reasons, we agree with
the Examiner’s finding that the disputed independent claim limitations read
on the Gabato embodiment identified in the Examiner’s Answer.
In view of our concurring with the Examiner concerning the disputed
limitations reading on Gabato, we do not reach the Appellants’ now moot
argument that the Examiner erred in combining Gabato and Bodtmann to
find teachings or suggestions for the disputed limitations (Br. 13).
We will sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 15. We will
also sustain the rejection of the respective grouped dependent claims 4 and
16 that are not separately argued.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 5-7, 10-14, and 17-26
Appellants separately group these claims according to the rejections,
but collectively argue these claims, without separately identifying and

disputed limitations of claims 1 and 15 as being substantively identical. See
Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075.
Appeal 2009-011666
Application 10/780,471

8
arguing any particular claim(s), by repeating the same argument.
Appellants’ repeated argument is that the Examiner erred in combining
Gabato and Bodtmann to find teachings or suggestions for the disputed
limitations (Br. 13-16). For the reasons addressed supra, we concur with the
Examiner concerning the disputed limitations reading on Gabato. Therefore,
we do not reach the Appellants’ now moot argument that the Examiner erred
in combining Gabato and Bodtmann to find teachings or suggestions for the
disputed limitations.
We, accordingly, will sustain the rejections of claims 5-7, 10-14, and
17-26.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4-7, and 10-26 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)(v).

AFFIRMED

KIS

SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC
701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5400
SEATTLE WA 98104-7092