11638502 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2014)

Ex Parte Pascht et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 21, 2014

11638502 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/638,502 12/14/2006 Andreas Pascht LUTZ 200665 4611 48116 7590 03/24/2014 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 EXAMINER LU, ZHIYU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/24/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ANDREAS PASCHT, JENS STRAUSS, THOMAS BITZER, THOMAS BOHN, and BERND HABERLAND ____________________ Appeal 2011-010094 Application 11/638,502 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-010094 Application 11/638,502 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-17 (App. Br. 3). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to a transceiver circuit for transmission and reception of multi-standard, multi-band radio signals, which includes a modular design comprising exchangeable and removable modules with dedicated functionalities, where the transceiver circuit is configurable by software (Abstract). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A transceiver circuit for transmission and reception of multi- standard, multi-band radio signals, having a modular design comprising exchangeable and removable modules with dedicated functionalities and well defined interfaces between said modules, wherein the transceiver circuit is configurable via software, depending on the functionalities to be fulfilled by said transceiver circuit and to its particular modular assembly. C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Phillips US 6,072,994 Jun. 6, 2000 Tom US 2004/012180 A1 Jun. 24, 2004 Carter US 2004/0170154 A1 Sep. 2, 2004 Kenington US 7,106,806 B1 Sep. 12, 2006 Rofougaran US 2007/0082715 A1 Apr. 12, 2007 Appeal 2011-010094 Application 11/638,502 3 Claims 1 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Tom. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carter in view of Tom. Claims 2, 5, 7, 10-l3, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tom in view of Phillips. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tom in view of Phillips and Kenington. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tom in view of Phillips and Rofougaran. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carter in view of Tom and Phillips. II. ISSUE The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in finding that Tom teaches “the transceiver circuit is configurable via software, depending on the functionalities to be fulfilled by said transceiver circuit and to its particular modular assembly” (claim 1, emphasis added). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. 1. Tom discloses a method for reconfiguring a flexible wireless communication device, such as a smartphone or Personal Data Assistant (PDA), which includes multiple replaceable cartridges having varying functionality (featureset) (Fig. 6; ¶¶ [0061], [0065], and [0068]). Appeal 2011-010094 Application 11/638,502 4 2. Each replaceable cartridge includes software that performs new or differing functions supported by the replacement cartridge and the telephone (¶ [0068]). The cartridge is removably connected to a handset through at least one handset interface (id.). IV. ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 9 As to representative claim 1, Appellants contend Tom “mentions software for performing a particular function supported by the replaceable cartridge that contains the software, but not software that configures a transceiver circuit, let alone software for configuring a transceiver circuit as a function of functionalities to be performed thereby and of the particular modular assembly thereof” (App. Br. 13). However, the Examiner finds that Tom shows that a set of instructions (or software) is used to reprogram or reconfigure a transceiver circuit (wireless communication components in the wireless communication handset, modular cartridge, or both) for switching among multiple wireless systems, at least by configuring on or off, especially important to a wireless communication device with a plurality of simultaneously connected cartridges (Ans. 13). The Examiner finds further that “the wireless communication device of Tom is a smartphone” “that inherently runs with both hardware and software;” therefore, “it would have been reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret that the software (e.g., user controls software application via keypad) in the wireless communication device of Tom configures the hardware (e.g. transceiver circuit or RF/IF subsystem) to connect a voice call or exchange data” (Ans. 12). The Examiner notes that Appeal 2011-010094 Application 11/638,502 5 the claim “does not specifically limit where and what kind of software is and how the transceiver circuit is configured by software” (Ans. 12). We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim 1 does not define “configurable via software.” Thus, we give “the transceiver circuit is configurable via software” its broadest reasonable interpretation as a transceiver circuit that is capable of being modified by software. Tom is directed to a method for reconfiguring a flexible wireless communication device, such as a smartphone or Personal Data Assistant (PDA), which includes multiple replaceable cartridges having varying functionality; wherein, the cartridges include software which performs new or differing functions supported by the replacement cartridge and the telephone (FF 1 and 2). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Tom teaches a transceiver circuit that is capable of being modified by software (Ans. 12). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Tom. Further, independent claim 9 having similar claim language which has not been argued separately, fall with claim 1. Claims 2-8 and 10-17 Appellants argue that claim 2-8 and 10-17 are patentable over the cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 15-18). As noted supra, however, we find that Tom teaches all the features of claim 1. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under Appeal 2011-010094 Application 11/638,502 6 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Carter in view of Tom; of claims 2, 5, 7, 10-l3, and 15- 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Tom in view of Phillips; of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Tom in view of Phillips and Kenington; of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Tom in view of Phillips and Rofougaran; and of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Carter in view of Tom and Phillips. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 2-8 and 10-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(iv). AFFIRMED gvw