Ex Parte Wala et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 26, 2016

13335128 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/335, 128 12/22/2011 Philip M. Wala
34206 7590 05/31/2016
FOGG & POWERS LLC
4600 W 77th Street
Suite 305
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55435
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.
100.828US02 6262
EXAMINER
HENSON, JAMAAL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2411
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2016 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):
DA VID@FOGGLA W.COM
docketing@fogglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PHILIP M. WALA, ROBERT J. KOZIY,
and DEAN ZA V ADSKY
Appeal2015-000812
Application 13/335, 128
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13-23, which are all the claims
pending in this application. Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12 were canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm. 2
1 Appellants identify ADC Telecommunications, Inc. as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 1 ).
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Dec. 22, 2011 ("Spec."), the
Final Office Action mailed Mar. 27, 2014 ("Final Act."), the Advisory
Action mailed June 19, 2014 ("Adv. Act."), the Appeal Brief filed Aug. 25,
2014 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed Sept. 30, 2014 ("Ans."),
and the Reply Brief filed Oct. 15, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2015-000812
Application 13/335, 128
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a modular wireless communications
platform. (Spec. Title.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A distributed antenna system, comprising:
a host unit that includes:
an interface adapted to communicate RF signals
with an Internet Protocol (IP) gateway as IP data;
a baseband processor, coupled to the IP gateway,
the baseband processor configured to convert between IP
data and baseband, digital data;
an RF module coupled to a base station and
configured to convert between RF signals configured for
communication over an antenna and RF sampled data;
a serializer/deserializer, coupled to the baseband
processor and the RF module, the serializer/ deserializer
configured to convert between the baseband, digital data
and a first serial data stream, wherein the
serializer/deserializer of the host unit is further
configured to convert between the RF sampied data and a
second serial data stream; and
a multiplex module, coupled to the
serializer/deserializer, configured to multiplex and
demultiplex the first serial data stream and the second
serial data stream for concurrent communication over a
communication medium; and
a remote unit, coupled to the host unit over the
communication medium, the remote unit including:
a multiplex module configured to multiplex and
demultiplex the first serial data stream and the second
serial data stream for concurrent communication over the
communication medium;
a serializer/deserializer, coupled to the
communication medium and the multiplex module, the
serializer/ deserializer configured to convert between the
first serial data stream and RF sampled data, wherein the
2
Appeal2015-000812
Application 13/335, 128
serializer/deserializer is further configured to convert
between the second serial data stream and RF sampled
data;
an RF module, coupled to the
serializer/deserializer, the RF module configured to
convert between the RF sampled data and an RF signal;
and
an antenna coupled to the RF module.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
(Ans. 3--4.)3
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-16, 18, 20, 22,
and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Millar (US 2005/0172198 Al;
Aug. 4, 2005) and Mushkin (US 2008/0267142 Al; Oct. 30, 2008). (Ans.
5-23.)
The Examiner rejected claims 17, 19, and 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Millar, Mushkin, and Wood (US 2007/0274279 Al; Nov. 29,
2007). (Ans. 23.)
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Millar and
Mushkin teaches the distributed antenna system of claim 1 because the
Examiner failed to provide a rational basis for combining the references?
3 The Examiner has withdrawn this rejection under§ 112, first paragraph
(Adv. Act. 1.), but mistakenly included the rejection in the Examiner's
Answer.
3
Appeal2015-000812
Application 13/335, 128
Appellants contend the Examiner's proffered combination of Millar
and Mushkin is improper because the Examiner's underlying basis for the
combination, providing a data retransmission method that enlarges a zone of
RF coverage without signal degradation, is not valid. (App. Br. 13-14;
Reply Br. 2.) Appellants further argue the Examiner has not explained how
the combination would result in a zone of radio frequency (RF) coverage
that is enlarged beyond what each reference teaches individually. (Id.)
Appellants further contend there is no reason to combine Millar and
Mushkin because the references are directed to two distinct types of
networks: Millar is directed to retransmission of cellular signals to mobile
phones over a large area, whereas Mushkin is directed to initial transmission
of WLAN signals to laptops over a smaller area. (Id.)
We are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection. The
Supreme Court has indicated that:
l lt 1s error to] assuml e J that a person of ordinary skiU
attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements
of prior art designed to solve the same problem. . . . Common
sense teaches . . . that familiar items may have obvious uses
beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of
ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
together like pieces of a puzzle.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (citation omitted).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that both Millar and Mushkin teach
converting a digital signal to an RF signal for transmission, thus, both
references are capable of receiving and transmitting internet protocol (IP)
data and RF data. (Final Act. 3--4, 22-23; citing Millar i-fi-1 42--43, 53-54;
Mushkin i140.) We further agree with the Examiner's finding that
modifying Miller's cellular system with Mushkin's IP gateway would
4
Appeal2015-000812
Application 13/335, 128
enlarge its coverage zone and improve signal quality by upgrading Millar' s
system from legacy technology (e.g., TDMA, CDMA, GSM; see Millar
i-f 53) to include the newer IP data protocol technology. Thus, we find the
Examiner has articulated a valid reasoning with "some rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." (See KSR International Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441F.3d977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).)
CONCLUSION
As discussed herein, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us
that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Millar and Mushkin
teaches the limitations of independent claim 1, independent claims 5, 8, 11,
14, 18, and 20 which are argued based on the same basis as claim 1 (App.
Br. 14 ), and the remaining dependent claims which are not argued
separately. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims
1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13-23.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13-23
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
5