Ex Parte Moran et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2018

14281030 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/281,030 05/19/2014 Tamir E. Moran
35690 7590 08/01/2018
MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398
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.
6150-34801 7273
EXAMINER
SATANOVSKY,ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2857
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2018 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
ExparteTAMIRE. MORAN,
JATINDERJIT S. BAINS and DANIELS. WERTZ
Appeal2017-008815 1
Application 14/281,030
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MONTE T. SQUIRE,
and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR.,AdministrativePatentJudges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is National Instruments
Corporation. See App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-008815
Application 14/281,030
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's Final
rejection of claims 1-15 and 17-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellants' invention is generally directed to "systems and methods
for determining the gain ( at a given frequency or over a range of
frequencies) of a measuring instrument that includes a series of one or more
computer controlled modules." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1 illustrates the subject
matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. An electronic module comprising:
a frrst input port for receiving an input signal;
a calibration signal generator having a calibration output
and configured to generate a calibration signal at the
calibration output so that a frequency and amplitude of
the calibration signal are stable with respect to time and
with respect to changes in temperature;
a switching device configured to selectively pass either
the input signal or the calibration signal as a selected
signal to an internal signal path within the electronic
module, wherein the switching device selectively passes
either the input signal or the calibration signal based on a
selection input;
frrst circuitry configured to receive the selected signal
from the internal signal path and operate on the selected
signal in order to generate an output signal;
an output port for outputting the output signal;
2
Appeal 2017-008815
Application 14/281,030
memory that stores measured values associated with the
calibration signal, wherein the measured values include a
measured value of the frequency of the calibration signal
at the calibration output and a measured value of the
amplitude of the calibration signal at the calibration
output;
control logic configured to access the memory and to
provide the measured values to a computer external to the
module in response to a request received from the
computer;
wherein the module is configured to insert in a slot of a
chassis and to interconnect with one or more additional
electronic modules in the chassis.
The Examiner maintains the following rejections from the Final
Office Action for our review:
I. Claims 1--4, 8, 9, and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Becker et al. (US 5,929,628; iss.
July 27, 1999, hereinafter "Becker"), Kwok (US 2010/023 7951 Al;
pub. Sept. 23, 2010), Heam(US 5,262,957; iss. Nov. 16, 1993), and
Curry et al. (US 5,914,609; iss. June 22, 1999, hereinafter"Curry").
Final Act. 2-11.
II. Claims 5-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combination of Becker, Curry, Kwok, and Heam, andRoufoogaranet
al. (US 8,102,953 B2; iss. Jan. 24, 2012, hereinafter "Roufoogaran").
Id. at 11-14.
III. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Becker, Curry, Kwok, and Heam, Andrade et al. (US 7,024,660
B2; iss. Apr. 4, 2006, hereinafter "Andrade") and in further view of
3
Appeal 2017-008815
Application 14/281,030
Leyonhjelm et al. (US 6,943,627 B2; iss. Sept. 13, 2005, hereinafter
"Leyonhjelm"). Id. at 14--15.
IV. Claims 11-14rejectedunder35U.S.C. § 103(a)asunpatentableover
the combination of Andrade, Becker, Kwok, and Heam. Id. at 15-21.
V. Claims 17-19rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Becker, Curry, Kwok, and Heam, and Andrade. Id. at21-25.
VI. Claims 20,21 and30rejectedunder35U.S.C. § 103(a)as
unpatentable over Becker, Curry, Kwok, and Heam, and Quinlan et al.
(US 2008/0132191 Al;pub. June 5, 2008,hereinafter"Quinlan"). Id.
at 25-31.
VII. Claims 22-26and29rejectedunder35U.S.C. § 103(a)as
unpatentable over Becker, Curry, Kwok, and Heam, Quinlan and
Gorin (US 8,112,238 Bl; iss. Feb. 7, 2012). Id. at31-39.
VIII. Claims 27 and28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Becker, Curry, Kwok, and Heam, Quinlan andKuijk et al. (US
7,633,354 B2; iss. Dec. 15, 2009, hereinafter "Kuijk"). Id.at 39--42.
OPINION
Rejections under 35 U.S. C. § 103(a) based on Kalala
Appellants limit their arguments to independent claims 1, 11, 15, and
20, which are argued as a group, and prior art references Becker, Kwok, and
Heam. (App. Br. generally). Appellants did not substantively address or
further distinguish the additionally cited secondary references. (Id.)
4
Appeal 2017-008815
Application 14/281,030
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we affrrm the prior art rejections for the reasons presented by
the Examiner and add the following. 2
The Examiner found that Becker discloses an electronic module
having all the elements of the claimed invention. The Examiner found
Becker did not explicitly disclose storing measured values associated with
the calibration signal. (Final Act. 3--4). The Examiner found that Kwok and
Heam disclose storing measured values associated with a calibration signal
including the frequency of the calibration signal and the amplitude of the
calibration signal. (Final Act. 5---6). The Examiner determined that it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify an
electronic module, such as described by Becker including memory, wherein
the obtained measured values for frequency and amplitude of the calibration
signal are stored as referenced values. (Final Act. 6).
Appellants argue the claimed invention is non-obvious over the
combination of Becker, Kwok, and Heam because Kwok does not teach
storing the measured frequency values of the calibration signal at a
calibration output and Heam does not teach storing the measured amplitude
values associated with the calibration signal at a calibration output as
claimed. (App. Br. 7-8).
Appellants' argument lacks persuasive merit because the Examiner
determined that Becker described all the elements of the claimed invention
except for storing the measured values associated with the calibration signal.
The Examiner cited Kwok and Heam as evidence that it was known by
2 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1
5
Appeal 2017-008815
Application 14/281,030
persons of ordinary skill in the art to store in memory values associated with
the calibration signal. These teachings would have given the artisan a
reasonable expectation to one skilled in the art that it was known to store the
measured values associated with a calibration in memory. See Pfizer, Inc. v.
Apotex, 480 F.3d 1348, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (The expectation of success
needs only to be reasonable, not absolute.).
Appellants have not directed us to evidence that establishes that
storing values associated with a calibration signal were unknown to persons
of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
of claims 1-15 and 17-30 for the reasons given above and presented by the
Examiner.
DECISION
The Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 1-15 and 17-30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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)(l ).
AFFIRMED
6