Ex Parte SAHOTA

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 19, 2018

14751018 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/751,018 06/25/2015
15055 7590 07/23/2018
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gurkanwal Singh SAHOTA
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.
147164US 9644
EXAMINER
CADEAU, WEDNEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2018 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):
qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com
P AIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GURKANW AL SINGH SAHOTA
Appeal 2017-011101
Application 14/751,018 1
Technology Center 2600
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, ERIC B. CHEN, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-30, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the Real Party in Interest is "QUALCOMM
Incorporated." App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision references Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Aug. 28,
2017) and Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed April 28, 2017), and the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed June 26, 2017) and Final Office Action ("Final Act.,"
mailed Dec. 1, 2016).
Appeal 2017-011101
Application 14/751,018
INVENTION
The invention "relate[ s] to wireless communications and, more particularly,
to a simplified ... carrier aggregation radio frequency front-end based on multiple
frequency-shifted antennas." Spec. ,r 1.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of all but claims 6, 10, 12, 16,
and 28. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (representative claims); App. Br. 7-10
(grouping claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17-27, 29, and 30), 10-12 (separately
arguing claims 6, 10, 12 with 28, and 16).
1. An apparatus for wireless communications, comprising:
a transceiver;
a first antenna configured to support communications m a first
frequency range;
a second antenna configured to support communications in a second
frequency range different than the first frequency range, wherein the
second frequency range partially overlaps the first frequency range;
a first circuit block coupled to the transceiver and configured to process
one or more first signals for transmission over a first bandwidth via the
first antenna; and
a second circuit block coupled to the transceiver and configured to
process one or more second signals for reception over a second
bandwidth via the second antenna, wherein the second bandwidth at
least partially overlaps the first bandwidth.
App. Br. 14, Claims App'x.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-15 and 17-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2014/0072001 Al; Mar. 13, 2014) ("Chang")
2
Appeal 2017-011101
Application 14/751,018
and Domino et al. (US 2006/0089107 Al; Apr. 27, 2006) ("Domino"). Final Act.
9--16.
The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Chang, Domino, and Chayat (US 2014/0066757 Al; Mar. 6, 2014). Final Act. 9--
16.
ISSUES
We consider the following issues in view of Appellant's arguments:
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chang and Domino
teaches or suggests a device having first and second antennas that
communicate on respective, partially overlapping, frequency ranges? ( claims
1-5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 16-27, 29, and 30)
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chang and Domino
teaches or suggests a triplexer as claimed? ( claim 6)
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chang and Domino
teaches or suggests diplexers as claimed? ( claim 10)
4. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chang and Domino
teaches or suggests a quadplexer as claimed? ( claims 12 and 28)
CLAIMS 1-5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17-27, 29 AND 30
Representative claim 1 (see supra 2) recites first and second antennas
respectively configured to communicate on partially overlapping first and second
frequency ranges. The Examiner finds Chang and Domino suggest this limitation
as follows:
[Chang's paragraph 25 teaches] both antennas can be configured to
utilize same bands, different bands or overlap bands. As appellant
conceded (see applicant Appeal brief filed on 04/28/2018 page 8), both
antennas in the system of Chang are able to communicate using
3
Appeal 2017-011101
Application 14/751,018
different band range[ s]. Domino was introduce[ d] to further boost and
show more clearly [Chang's] antenna[s] can transmit and/or receive
signal using different frequency range or band which can overlap.
[Domino's] antenna can transmit and/or receive[ a] signal in many
different bands of different ranges using PCS 1900 transmit band and
the DCS1800 receive band that are overlapped[. Chang's] antenna[s]
(312 and 310) [are] able to transmit as taught by Domino[.]
Ans. 4. The Examiner further explains "Chang is not explicit in term[ s] of which
band is used with which antenna[,] but indicates that both antenna[s] can support
communication in many different bands." Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues the prior art does not teach or suggest the disputed
limitation because Chang's two antennas operate on non-overlapping frequency
bands and Domino teaches a single antenna. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3.
Appellant's argument, however, is unpersuasive because it alleges deficiencies in
Chang and Domino individually rather than address the Examiner's reliance on the
combination of Chang and Domino. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3. See In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references.").
Appellant also argues Chang's disclosure of non-overlapping frequency
bands teaches away from overlapping bands. App. Br. 9. We disagree. Instead,
Chang recognizes packing of available frequencies. Chang ,r 19 ("contiguous
carriers"); see also Spec. ,r 7 (background section discussion of an "ever-growing
... number of receiving (RX) and transmitting (TX) CA band combinations").
Domino recognizes "multi-band" communication can result in unwanted
overlapping of bands. Domino ,r,r 7-8. Thus, Chang and Domino evidence
packing of available frequencies and a tradeoffthereof, i.e., some overlapping of
bands. Merely recognizing or omitting such a tradeoff does not constitute teaching
4
Appeal 2017-011101
Application 14/751,018
away. See Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
("[A] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages disadvantages[.
This] does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine."); EWP Corp. v.
Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ("A reference must be
considered for everything it teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the
particular invention it is describing and attempting to protect.").
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejections of claim 1 and claims 1-
5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, and 17-30 that were grouped with claim 1.
CLAIM 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites: "the first bandwidth comprises
three component carriers for the transmission; and the first circuit block comprises
a triplexer configured to process the one or more first signals for the transmission
based on carrier aggregation using the three component carriers."
Appellant argues:
Claim 6 recites that "the first circuit block comprises a triplexer
configured to process the one or more first signals for the transmission."
To the contrary, "the switches" of FIG. 4A of Chang, referred by the
Examiner, provide signals to down converters 470al and 470b2, which
are used to process signals for reception. Therefore, Appellant submits
that the Examiner has failed to show that Chang teaches [ the limitations
of claim 6].
Reply Br. 4.
Again, however, Appellant's argument fails to address the Examiner's
reliance on the combination of Chang and Domino. The Examiner finds Chang
teaches an ability to switch between three frequency bands-low, mid, and high.
Final Act. 10 (Chang "support[s] communication in many different range[s] and
with respect to receiving and transmitting."); Ans. 8 (Chang "disclose[s]
5
Appeal 2017-011101
Application 14/751,018
... switches to select one of the [l]ow-band, mid-band and high-band."). The
Examiner further finds Domino's use of diplexers and switches evidences it would
have been obvious to switch between three frequency bands via a triplexer. Final
Act. 10 ( citing, for base claim 1, Domino's paragraph 2 7 as teaching "a switch, or
switches, to separate transmit and receive time slots"), 12 (again citing, for claim
6's triplexer, Domino's paragraph 27); see also infra 7 (Examiner's modification
of Chang's device, in view of Domino, to operate quadbands with a quadplexer).
Because Appellant's argument does not address the combination of Chang and
Domino, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 6.
CLAIM 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 8 ( depending from claim 1) and further
recites: "a first diplexer coupled to the first antenna and configured to interface the
first circuit block and the third circuit block with the first antenna; and a second
diplexer coupled to the second antenna and configured to interface the second
circuit block and the fourth circuit block with the second antenna."
Appellant argues the claimed diplexers, one for each of two antennas, are
not taught because Chang's antennas lack a diplexer and Domino's diplexer serves
one antenna. App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 4--5. Again, however, Appellant's
argument fails to address the Examiner's reliance on the combination of Chang and
Domino. The Examiner finds Domino's use of diplexers and switches evidences it
would have been obvious for each of Chang's two antennas 310, 312 to connect
via a respective diplexer to transmit and receive branches. Ans. 8. Failing to
address the above combination of Chang and Domino that is applied against the
disputed claim feature, Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner's
6
Appeal 2017-011101
Application 14/751,018
specific findings and conclusions. See Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075; Keller, 642 F.2d
at 426.
As Appellant does not identify an error, we sustain the rejection of claim 10.
CLAIMS 12 AND 28
Claim 12 depends from claim 8 ( depending from claim 1) and further
recites:
the third bandwidth comprises two component carriers for at least one
of the transmission or the reception; and the third circuit block
comprises a quadplexer configured to process the one or more third
signals for the at least one of the transmission or the reception based on
carrier aggregation using the two component carriers.
Claim 12 is representative of claim 28. See suprafn. 3.
Appellant argues the claimed quadplexer is not taught because neither
Chang nor Domino teaches a quadplexer. App. Br. 11. Appellant further argues
the Examiner's response, in the Answer, presents conclusory findings. Reply Br.
5; see also Ans. 9 (Chang and Domino suggest "combining multiple streams into
one stream" and, "[t]herefore, it would have been obvious ... to combine 4
streams into one stream.").
Again, Appellant's argument fails to address the Examiner's reliance on the
combination of Chang and Domino. The Examiner finds Domino teaches four
bands and, in tum, one of ordinary skill in the art would predictably implement a
quadplexer (i.e., use four signal ports). Final Act. 14 ("quadruplexer can be used
to separate the signals"); Ans. 9 ("combine 4 streams"). The Examiner further
finds Domino thereby evidences it would have been obvious to configure Chang's
device with four bands and a corresponding quadplexer. Id.; see also Ans. 9
(emphasizing the reliance on Chang and Domino for the quadplexer). Failing to
address the above reasoning that is applied against the disputed claim feature,
7
Appeal 2017-011101
Application 14/751,018
Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner's specific findings and
conclusions. See Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075, supra 4 (parenthetical).
We note the Examiner's determination is not conclusory, as contended, but
rather supported by Domino's cited disclosures of Figure 1 and paragraph 9. Final
Act. 14. Referencing Figure 1, paragraph 9 teaches a "quadband" architecture for
four bands (namely, by example, GSM850, EGSM900, DCS 1800, and PCS 1900).
These disclosures also teach the cited diplexer 12 (see supra 6-7 (Examiner's
diplexer findings for claim 10)) that has two signal ports 14, 16 each serving one
band at any given time (per the switches 17, 18). This configuration of a
"di "-plexer having two signal ports for two bands supports a prima facie case of
obviousness for four bands served by a "quad"-plexer having/our signal ports
( each serving a band).
As Appellant does not identify an error in the rejection of representative
claim 12. Thus, we sustain the rejections of claims 12 and 28.
CLAIM 16
The arguments for claim 16 are the same as those for claim 1. Appellant
only contends Chayat, an additional reference, does not cure the alleged failure of
Chang and Domino to teach or suggest "the second frequency range partially
overlaps the first frequency range" (claim 16). App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 5.
As such, we sustain the rejection of claim 16 for the same reasons indicated
above with respect to claim 1.
8
Appeal 2017-011101
Application 14/751,018
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-30 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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9