Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2018

13325340 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/325,340 12/14/2011
124903 7590 12/14/2018
Park, Vaughan, Fleming & Dowler LLP -- Yao Group
2800 Fifth Street, Suite 110
Davis, CA 95618
Hans Wang
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.
AVC11-1007US 1571
EXAMINER
HU,RUIMENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2018 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):
sy _incoming@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte HANS WANG, BINGLE! ZHANG, TAO LI, and
SHIH HSIUNG MO 1
Appeal2018-002854
Application 13/325,340
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 14, 16, and 18 through 28. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a transceiver for wireless communication,
which has a programmable band-pass filter. Abstract. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and is reproduced below.
1. A wideband wireless receiver, comprising:
1 According to Appellants, A viacomm Inc. is the real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-002854
Application 13/325,340
an antenna configured to receive a plurality of RF
signals belonging to different RF frequency bands;
a single programmable band-pass filter (BPF)
directly coupled to the antenna, wherein the single
programmable band-pass filter is configured to select an
RF frequency band from the different RF frequency
bands by tuning a center frequency based on a currently
active communication standard, and wherein the center
frequency of the single programmable BPF is
continuously tunable from 300 MHz to 3.6 GHz; and
a tunable demodulator coupled to the single
programmable BPF, wherein the tunable demodulator is
configured to demodulate an RF signal belonging to the
selected RF frequency band.
EXAMINER'S REJECTI0NS 2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3, 8, 14, 20, 21, 24, and 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rohani (US 2008/0261540 Al;
published Oct. 23, 2008), Clement (US 8,116,706 Bl; issued Feb. 14, 2012),
and Vaisanen (US 2009/0135781 Al; published May 28, 2009). Non-Final
Act. 3-7; Answer 3---6.
The Examiner has rejected claims 4, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, and 25
through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rohani, Clement,
Vaisanen, and Rajkotia (US 2010/0197257 Al; published Aug. 5, 2010).
Non-Final Act. 7-8; Answer 7-8.
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 14, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Rohani, Rajkotia and Vaisanen. Non-Final Act. 8-10;
Answer 8-10.
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief ("Br.") filed March
6, 2017, Non-Final Office Action ("Non-Final Act.") mailed October 6,
2016, and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed June 16, 2017.
2
Appeal2018-002854
Application 13/325,340
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Brief, the Examiner's
rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments.
Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's
obviousness rejections of independent claims 1, 14, and 24.
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection of independent claims
1, 14, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is in error as Rohani, does not teach a
programmable filter directly coupled to the antenna and continuously
tunable from 300 MHz to 3.6 GHz. Br. 15. Further, Appellants assert that
the frequency range is not a simple design choice. Br. 16. Appellants
additionally argue that the other references----Clement, V aisanen, and
Rajkotia- are programmable over other frequency ranges. Br. 16.
The Examiner finds that Rohani teaches a single tunable filter.
Answer 11. Further, the Examiner identifies that applying a broad
interpretation of "directly coupled," which allows for intermediary elements,
Rohani teaches the filter directly coupled to the antenna. Answer 11.
Alternatively, if a more narrow interpretation is applied, such that the only
intervening components are connecting wires, Clement and Rajkotia teach
the filter directly coupled. Answer 11. Additionally, the Examiner finds
that Rohani's teaching that the system has an operating frequency of
between 200 MHz to 7 GHz shows that Rohani teaches the filter
continuously tunable over the claimed range. Answer 11-16.
We have reviewed the Examiner's findings and rationale, and the
teachings of Rohani, and concur with the Examiner. We specifically note
that Rohani teaches a device that operates in the range of 200 MHz to 7 GHz
and that the filters are tuned such that the center frequencies align with the
3
Appeal2018-002854
Application 13/325,340
appropriate standard. See para's 10, 11, and 26. We consider this to meet
the claimed continuously tunable in the same manner as Appellants' device
(see para. 26 of the Speciation which discusses changing the center
frequency to the appropriate standard as tuning the filter). Further, while the
range in Rohani is not the same as the claimed range, the range taught by
Rohani overlaps and encompasses the claimed range (i.e., the claimed 300
MHz to 3.6 GHz is within the range of 200 MHz to 7 GHz). Ordinarily,
"where there is a range disclosed in the prior art, and the claimed invention
falls within that range, there is a presumption of obviousness." Iron Grip
Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2004);
accord Lazare Kaplan Int'!, Inc. v. Photoscribe Techs., Inc., 628 F.3d 1359,
1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejections of independent claims 1,
14, and 24, and we sustain the rejections of these claims.
Appellants have not presented separate arguments with respect to the
rejections of dependent claims 3, 4, 8, 16, 18 through 23, and 25 through 28.
Accordingly, we similarly sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims
for the reasons discussed with respect to independent claims 1, 14, and 24.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 14, 16, and
18 through 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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) (2016).
AFFIRMED
4