Ex Parte Troemel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2013

11230408 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2013)

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.
11/230,408 09/20/2005 Hans Alfred Troemel JR. PASA012-04.US 5526
7590 04/29/2013
Panasonic Automotive Systems Company of America
776 Highway 74 South
Peachtree City, GA 30269
EXAMINER
MIAH, LITON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2013 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 HANS ALFRED TROEMEL, JR.
____________________

Appeal 2010-008173
Application 11/230,408
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and GEORGIANNA W.
BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008173
Application 11/230,408

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-4, 6, 11, 12, 14, 17-19, 22, 24, 25, 27-30, 32-38, and 40-55. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART and ENTER NEW GROUNDS OF
REJECTION PURSUANT TO OUR AUTHORITY UNDER 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b).

Introduction
According to Appellant, the invention relates to a distributed
architecture system for receiving radio frequency (RF), with a receiving unit
including a means for combining the RF signals into a multiplexed signal,
such that the head unit receives and separates the multiplexed signal into a
plurality of information signals. Spec. § Abstract.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1 A device for receiving radio frequency signals, comprising:
means for receiving a plurality of radio frequency (RF)
signals;
means for combining said plurality of RF signals into a
multiplexed signal;
means for separating said multiplexed signal into a
plurality of information signals, each information signal
Appeal 2010-008173
Application 11/230,408

3
corresponding to a respective one of said plurality of RF
signals, said means for separating being disposed remotely from
said means for receiving and said means for combining;
means for providing said multiplexed signal from said
means for combining to said means for separating; and
means for preparing said information signals for
presentation to a user.

References
Troemel
Richenstein
Girardeau
US 2002/0163981 A1
US 2003/0083024 A1
US 2005/0032497 A1
Nov. 7, 2002
May 1, 2003
Feb. 10, 2005

Rejections
Claims 1-4, 6, 11, 12, 14, 17-19, 22, 24, 25, 27-30, 32-38, and 40-49
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Richenstein and Girardeau. Ans. 3-13.
Claims 50-55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Richenstein, Girardeau, and Troemel. Ans. 13-17.

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. §103(a) Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 24, 28, 32, and 36
Appellant contends that the module identified by reference numeral
24 in Girardeau merely discloses combining RF signals through summation
and/or phase shifting but not combining “RF signals into a multiplexed
signal,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 12. Appellant further argues that the
multiplexers (identified by reference numerals 85 and 90) of Girardeau do
not “perform a multiplexing function as defined in the present invention,”
because Girardeau’s multiplexers “do not combine signals, but rather merely
Appeal 2010-008173
Application 11/230,408

4
select signals to pass through based on an antenna select signal.” App. Br.
12.
Issue: Does the combination of Richenstein and Girardeau teach or
suggest “means for combining said plurality of RF signals into a multiplexed
signal,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 3,
24, 28, 32, and 36?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We do not agree with Appellant’s
contentions.
We agree with the Examiner that Figure 1 and paragraphs 11, 22, and
28 of Girardeau disclose a “combining module for combining plurality of
signals, whereby the combining module combines the first RF signal
and the second RF signals.” Ans. 17-18 (emphasis in original). We also
agree “Girardeau explicitly discloses a RF switch or a multiplexer
(paragraph 0011, 0030, and 0031 of Girardeau).” Ans. 18 (emphasis in
original). The Examiner states “Richenstein et al explicitly does not disclose
receiving and combining the plurality of RF signals,” and relied on
Girardeau for this teaching. Ans. 3. However, the Examiner finds
Richenstein discloses every other limitation in claim 1 and finds Richenstein
“discloses the means for combining and the means for separating comprise
respective multiplexers (see fig. 1, box 32 and 74).” Ans. 4 (emphasis in
original). Therefore, the Examiner finds the combination of Richenstein and
Girardeau teaches or suggests each limitation recited in independent claim 1,
Appeal 2010-008173
Application 11/230,408

5
including “means for combining said plurality of RF signals into a
multiplexed signal.” Ans. 3-4, 17-18.
The Examiner relies on Richenstein for “receiving and combining the
plurality of signals.” Ans. 3. We agree with the Examiner that Richenstein
teaches using a multiplexer and demultiplexer in the transmission of a
plurality of signals. We also agree Girardeau teaches or suggests a means
for receiving RF signals and a means for combining RF signals. Therefore
the combination of Richenstein and Girardeau teaches or suggests a “means
for combining said plurality of RF signals into a multiplexed signal,” as
recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 24
and 32. The same analysis applies to dependent claims 3, 28, and 36 and
independent claims 14 and 41, which recite combining IF signals. See App.
Br. 13, 15-16, 17, 18, and 19.
Moreover, should this matter undergo further prosecution, we note
Richenstein itself discloses combining a plurality of RF signals. For
example, Richenstein discloses:
[t]o minimize RF interference throughout building 1010 from
multiple RF transmitters, room 1012 in the building may be
equipped with interface encoder/decoder 1040 connected to RF
antenna 1034 to receive RF signals 1032 from RF transmitter
1030 carrying data from network 1020. Encoder/decoder may
then encode the received network signals as described
elsewhere herein . . . and drive an IR LED of IR
transmitter/receiver 1050 to emit IR signal 1052 carrying the
network data. Devices in the room such as a PC 1060 may be
equipped with IR transmitter receiver 1070 to receive IR signal
1052 . . . Interface encoder/decoder 1040 may then decode or
demultiplex data carried by IR signal 1062 from PC 1060 and
pass it on to RF antenna 1034, which in turn transmits the data
as RF signals 1036 to be received by transceiver 1030 and
communicated to network 1020.
Appeal 2010-008173
Application 11/230,408

6
Richenstein ¶ [0175]. Thus, Richenstein teaches that RF signals carrying
data are encoded into an IR signal and that is then demultiplexed to retrieve
the data. Since the signal is demultiplexed to retrieve the data, it is clearly
apparent that the RF signals had been multiplexed as part of converting to
the IR signal.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. §103(a) Rejection of Claims 11, 34, 47, and 48
Appellant argues the connection between the multiplexer and
demultiplexer in Richenstein consists of an infra-red signal and thus, there is
no cable meeting the “coaxial cable configured to carry a supply voltage,” as
recited in claim 11, and similarly recited in claims 34 and 48. App. Br. 13-
14, 18, and 22; Reply 6-7. Appellant also asserts “Richenstein does not
disclose a cable electrically interconnecting a receiving unit and a head unit”
because the “infra-red (IR) signals 16 of Richenstein are not carried on a
cable.” App. Br. 17; See also App. Br. 21.
Issue 2a: Does the combination of Richenstein and Girardeau teach or
suggest a “means for providing [that] comprises a coaxial cable configured
to carry a supply voltage to at least one of said means for separating and said
means for combining,” as recited in claim 11, and similarly recited in claims
34, and 48?
Issue 2b: Does the combination of Richenstein and Girardeau teach or
suggest a “multiplexed link [that] comprises one of a coaxial cable and a
biaxial cable,” as recited in claim 25 and a “means for providing comprises a
cable directly interconnecting said means for combining and said means for
separating,” as recited in claim 47?
Appeal 2010-008173
Application 11/230,408

7
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds “Richenstein discloses that the battery system is
directly interconnected to the decoder, which is the means for separating, to
power the system, whereby the system is powered by using cable.” Ans. 20.
However, as argued by Appellant, the battery system is used to power the
wireless headset, not to power the multiplexer or the demultiplexer. App.
Br. 13-14. Even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited
“means for providing said multiplexed signal from said means for
combining to said means for separating” must include a coaxial cable that is
capable of carrying a power supply voltage to either the combining or
separating means. While some embodiments of Richenstein disclose a
providing means that includes a cable supplying power, we do not see, in the
evidence and findings before us, where Richenstein includes a cable that is
capable of supplying power to the multiplexer and/or the demultiplexer as
part of a “means” to provide a signal from the multiplexer to the
demultiplexer. Therefore, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of
claims 11, 34, and 48.
However, claim 25 merely recites the “multiplexed link comprises one
of a coaxial cable and a biaxial cable,” and does not recite that the cable
carries a voltage to the multiplexer and/or the demultiplexer. Appellant
argues the IR signals in Richenstein are not carried on a cable. However, the
IR signals are only a portion of Richenstein’s “multiplexed link” connecting
Richenstein’s head unit (which includes a multiplexer) and receiving or
headset unit (which includes a demultiplexer). Another portion of the link
includes the “hardwired” connections connecting Richenstein’s head unit
with the IR transmitter. Ans. 23; Richenstein ¶¶ 33-35, 146, 160.
Appeal 2010-008173
Application 11/230,408

8
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of claim 25 reads on the combination of Richenstein and
Girardeau and affirm the rejection of claim 25.
Similar to claim 25, claim 47 merely recites that the providing means
“comprises a cable” connecting the multiplexer and the demultiplexer. As
discussed above with respect to claim 25, Richenstein’s connection between
the multiplexer and demultiplexer may include both cables and infrared
transmission portions. We agree with the Examiner’s findings that
Richenstein includes “hardwired” connections. Ans. 28; Richenstein ¶¶ 33-
35, 146, 160. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of claim 47 reads on the combination of
Richenstein and Girardeau, and affirm the rejection of claim 47.

ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. §103(a) Rejection of Claims 12, 22, 30, 38, and 42
Appellant asserts “Richenstein is completely silent as to demultiplexer
74 including a switched capacitor network.” App. Br. 14. Appellant also
argues the Abstract and paragraphs 5, 10, and 21 of Girardeau are
“completely silent as to using a switched capacitor network to downconvert
a multiplexed signal into a near-baseband signal.” App. Br. 19.
Issue 3a: Does the combination of Richenstein and Girardeau teach or
suggest a “means for separating comprises a switched capacitor network,” as
recited in claim 12, and similarly recited in claims 22, 30, and 38?
Appeal 2010-008173
Application 11/230,408

9
Issue 3b: Does the combination of Richenstein and Girardeau teach or
suggest a “switched capacitor network is configured to downconvert the
multiplexed signal into a near-baseband signal,” as recited in claim 42?

ANALYSIS
We find nothing in paragraphs 55, 62, 91, and 172, cited by the
Examiner, to support a finding that the separating means comprises a
switched capacitor network. Ans. 5, 21. As discussed below, it is obvious
for a circuit meeting the recited “means for separating” to comprise “a
switched capacitor network,” but, the Examiner has not provided sufficient
findings to present a prima facie case of obviousness based on the teachings
of Girardeau and Richenstein. (Ans. 5, 21.) However, US 2002/0163981
A1 (hereinafter “Troemel”) does provided such a teaching. Appellant has
incorporated PCT Patent Publication Number WO 02/089312 by reference
into the Specification, which is a related publication to Troemel. Spec. 21,
ll. 15-19. Appellant’s Specification states “ADCFS 418 includes circuitry
(not shown) for performing a conventional analog-to-digital conversion of
multiplexed signal MUXR and a switched capacitor network which
downconverts multiplexed signal MUXR into a near-baseband signal.”
Spec. 21 ll. 11-14. The Specification goes on to explain that “[s]uch a
switched capacitor network is described in more detail by” Troemel. Thus,
the Troemel disclosure teaches the switched capacitor network that
downconverts the multiplexed signal as claimed; in fact, Troemel is the
support for the claim limitation. Further, Troemel was published on Nov. 7,
2002, and is therefore prior art. Combining the teachings of Troemel with
those of Richenstein and Girardeau represents nothing more than using
Appeal 2010-008173
Application 11/230,408

10
known components to perform their known functions to obtain expected
results. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 22, 30, 28, and 43.
However, as our rationale differs from that provided by the Examiner we
designate the rejection a new grounds of rejection under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b).
Regarding claim 42, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
paragraphs 5 and 21 of Girardeau teach downconversion. Ans. 24.

ISSUE 4
35 U.S.C. §103(a) Rejection of Claims 44 and 49
Appellant argues Richenstein discloses only headphones that are not
“housed and installed in a passenger compartment” and Richenstein’s
communication module and CD changer do not receive RF signals. App. Br.
19-20. Appellant also asserts “[h]eadset unit 14 of Richenstein is not housed
and installed upon a vehicle. Rather, headset unit 14 is worn on a user's
head.” App. Br. 22.
Issue: Does the combination of Richenstein and Girardeau teach or
suggest “said means for separating is housed and installed in a passenger
compartment of the automobile, and said means for receiving and said
means for combining are housed in one of a trunk and a rear deck of the
automobile,” as recited in claim 44 and “said head unit is housed and
installed at the second location upon the vehicle,” as recited in claim 49?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Richenstein’s speakers, which are “equipped with
similar circuitry [to the headset units] including IR received signal processor
Appeal 2010-008173
Application 11/230,408

11
72, decoder 74 with clock, de-multiplexer . . .,” are housed and installed in
the vehicle. Ans. 25; see Richenstein ¶ 144. We agree Richenstein teaches
or suggests the disputed limitations. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of
claims 44 and 49.

ISSUE 5
35 U.S.C. §103(a) Rejection of Claim 45
Appellant asserts Richenstein is silent regarding carrying control
signals from the separating means to the receiving means. App. Br. 20.
Issue: Does the combination of Richenstein and Girardeau teach or
suggest “said means for providing is configured to carry control signals from
said means for separating to said means for receiving,” as recited in claim
45?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds “Richenstein disclose[s] that the head phone
device [is] a receiver to receive a signal with control codes (paragraphs 0005
and 0006 of Richenstein).” Ans. 26 (emphasis omitted). We agree with the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions and note that paragraphs 33 and 49 of
Richenstein provide additional explanation of the control codes disclosed in
paragraphs 5 and 6. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 45.

Appeal 2010-008173
Application 11/230,408

12
ISSUE 6
35 U.S.C. §103(a) Rejection of Claims 46 and 50-55
Appellant asserts “Girardeau is completely silent as to a harmonic of a
sampling frequency being within a predetermined offset from a center
frequency of a multiplexed signal.” App. Br. 20-21.
Issue: Does the combination of Richenstein and Girardeau teach or
suggest “the multiplexed signal has a center frequency, the method
comprising the further step of providing a sampling signal having a sampling
frequency, the sampling frequency being less than the center frequency of
the multiplexed signal, a harmonic of the sampling frequency being within a
predetermined offset from the center frequency of the multiplexed signal,”
as recited in claim 46?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds “Girardeau suggest[s] that the receiver section
receives [a] plurality of RF signals then compares the signal[s] and select[s]
one with desirable signal integrity (paragraph 0019 of Girardeau).” Ans. 27
(emphasis omitted). We do not see how the cited portions of Girardeau
teach or suggest the disputed limitation. However, Troemel discloses the
disputed limitation. Troemel ¶ 15. Therefore, Troemel cures the alleged
deficiencies in the combination of Richenstein and Girardeau with respect to
claim 46 and claims 50-55. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 46 and
50-55. However, as our rationale differs from that provided by the
Examiner, we designate the rejection a new grounds of rejection under 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b).

Appeal 2010-008173
Application 11/230,408

13
Appellant has not provided separate arguments for dependent claims
2, 4, 6, 17-19, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 40, and 43. Therefore these claims fall
with their respective claims from which they depend.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 11, 34, and
48 are reversed.
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 12,
14, 17-19, 22, 24, 25, 27-30, 32, 33, 35-38, 40-47, and 49 are affirmed.
New grounds of rejection are entered based on our authority under 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b) such that dependent claims 22, 30, 38, 42, 46, and 50-55
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in view of
Richenstein, Girardeau, and Troemel.

37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
Examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to
the Examiner.…
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under §41.52 by the Board upon the same record.…

Appeal 2010-008173
Application 11/230,408

14
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

ELD