Ex Parte Zhang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2016

13075805 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/075,805 03/30/2011
76614 7590
Terry W, Kramer, Esq,
Kramer & Amado, P.C.
330 John Carlyle Street
3rd Floor
Alexandria, VA 22314
06/24/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yunchi Zhang
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.
ALC 3688 2412
EXAMINER
PATEL, RAKESH BHASKARBHAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2842
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2016 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):
mail@krameramado.com
ipsnarocp@alcatel-lucent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUNCHI ZHANG
Appeal2014-009720
Application 13/075,805
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
AVEL YN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the final rejection of
claims 1-5, 7, 9-16, 18, and 20-22. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant's invention is directed to a wireless base station and a
method of using a wireless base station (claims 1and12).
Appeal2014-009720
Application 13/075,805
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A wireless base station comprising:
a same-band combiner configured to receive and transmit
a plurality of dualband channels comprising:
an antenna configured to transmit and receive the
plurality of dualband channels;
a plurality of dual-bandpass filters, each dual-bandpass
filter associated with a reception passband and a transmission
passband separated by a defined guard band, wherein each of
the plurality of dual-bandpass filters comprises a dual-mode
resonator; and
a combining element connected to the antenna and the
plurality of dual-bandpass filters that is configured to combine
the plurality of dual-band channels associated with the plurality
of dual-bandpass filters to produce a combined carrier signal.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 4, 7, 11, 12, 15, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as unpatentable over Skarby et al., (US 2005/0136875 Al,
published June 23, 2005) in view of Saito et al., (US 2002/0118080
Al, published Aug. 29, 2002).
2. Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Skarby in view of Saito and Sarkka (US 5,949,302,
issued Sept. 7, 1999).
3. Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 13, 14, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as unpatentable over Skarby in view of Saito and Forrester et
al., (US 7,376,440 B2, issued May 20, 2008).
Appellant argues the following claim groupings: (1) independent
claims 1 and 12, (2) claims 4 and 15, (3) claims 11 and 22, ( 4) claims 5 and
2
Appeal2014-009720
Application 13/075,805
16, (5) claims 9 and 20, and (6) claims 10 and 21 (App. Br. 7-14). For each
of the groups we select the following claim as representative of the
particular group: (1) claim 1, (2) claim 4, (3) claim 11, (4) claim 5, (5) claim
9, and (6) claim 10. Any claim not argued separately will stand or fall with
our analysis of the rejection of claim 1.
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
CLAIM 1
Appellant argues that there is no reason to substitute Saito's dual-
mode resonator for Skarby' s duplex filters 208b because doing so would add
unnecessary complexity to Skarby's transceiver system (App. Br. 8).
Appellant contends that unnecessary complexity would be added to Skarby's
device because Saito's filter requires the dual-mode resonator and a single-
mode resonator (App. Br. 7). Appellant contends that one of ordinary skill
in the art cannot just substitute a dual-mode resonator for a duplex filter as
alleged in the Examiner's conclusory statement. Id.
Appellant's arguments fail to show reversible error in the Examiner's
prima facie case of obviousness. Specifically, the Examiner finds that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the entirety of Saito' s filter
that consists of a dual-mode resonator and single-mode resonator for
Skarby' s duplexer filter as a known equivalent. The Examiner finds that
Saito' s filter is an equivalent structure that performs the same function as
Skarby's filter (i.e., separating transmit and receive signals) (Ans. 3).
Although Appellant contends that equivalency must be art recognized, the
Examiner has established that the art recognizes these as functional
3
Appeal2014-009720
Application 13/075,805
equivalents (i.e., they are filters that perform the same functions). Appellant
does not contest specifically this finding of the Examiner.
Based upon the Examiner's uncontested finding that the filters of
Saito are functionally equivalent to the filters of Skarby, the preponderance
of the evidence favors the Examiner's obviousness conclusion. As
functional equivalents, an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent for
another need not be present. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982).
Appellant's allegation of undue complexity by the combination of Saito' s
filter with Skarby is not persuasive in light of the functional equivalency of
the structures.
Moreover, we find that claim 1 uses the open-ended claim language
"comprising." As such, claim 1 does not exclude the single-mode resonator
in combination with the dual-mode resonator as taught by Saito.
On this record we affirm the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claim 1, 7,
12, and 18 over Skarby in view of Saito.
CLAIM4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites "wherein the plurality of
dual-bandpass filters comprises: at least two dual-bandpass filters connected
in parallel."
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not established that the duplex
filters inherently filter and are connected in parallel (App. Br. 9). Appellant
argues that the Examiner has not provided articulated reasoning to carry the
burden of proof for the alleged inherency of the parallel connection. Id.
Appellant's argument are not persuasive because they fail to address
the Examiner's specific findings that Skarby teaches two dual-band pass
4
Appeal2014-009720
Application 13/075,805
filters connected in parallel. The Examiner finds that Skarby's Figure 4A
shows duplex filters 208b are connected in parallel between radio base
stations and the part-band duplex filter (Final Act. 2). The Examiner finds
that as shown in Skarby's Figure 4A dual-bandpass filters 208b branch from
different respective ports of the part-band duplex filter 402, and therefore are
necessarily all connected in parallel with on another (Ans. 7).
In the Reply Brief Appellant argues that the Examiner merely alleges
that the parallel connection of claim 4 is well known (Reply Br. 4).
Appellant's characterization of the Examiner's position is not accurate in
that the Examiner made other findings based upon Skarby's Figure 4A as
noted above, and Appellant has not shown error with these findings of the
Examiner (Reply Br. 4).
On this record, we affirm the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 4
and 15 over Skarby in view of Saito.
CLAIM 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and recites "wherein each of the
plurality of dual-band channels is configured to communicate with a distinct
provider."
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection is based upon the
conclusory statement that units "inherently communicate with other users or
distinct providers" (App. Br. 10). Appellant contends that there is no
articulated reasoning to support that the assumption that each of the plurality
of dual-band channel filters would necessarily be configured to
communicate with a distinct provider as claimed. Id.
5
Appeal2014-009720
Application 13/075,805
The Examiner finds that Skarby's radio transceiver base station units
RBS 1, RBS2, etc. must inherently communicate with other users or distinct
providers (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds that Skarby's Figure 4A shows
the plurality of dual-band channels TXl, RXl, TX2, RX2, etc. are connected
to the radio base stations RBS 1, RBS2, etc. which make up part of a radio
communication system (Ans. 7). The Examiner finds that each transmit and
receive channel of such a radio communication system must necessarily be
configured to communicate to other uses or distinct providers that use such a
radio communication system through these radio base stations (Ans. 7).
The preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner's obviousness
conclusion. The purpose of a transceiver is to send and receive
communications. Therefore, Skarby's transceiver must necessarily transmit
and receive communications from distinct users of its radio network. The
Examiner makes particular findings and conclusions regarding claim 11
which Appellants have not addressed specifically (Reply Br. 5). Appellant
has not shown reversible error with the Examiner's findings and conclusions
regarding claim 11.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 1,
4, 7, 11, 12, 15, 18, and 22 over Skarby in view of Saito.
REJECTION (2): CLAIM 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites "wherein the combining
element comprises: a transmission line that connects the plurality of dual-
bandpass filters in parallel."
Appellant argues that Skarby in view of Saito fail to teach the claimed
plurality of dual-bandpass filters connected in parallel so that the alleged
6
Appeal2014-009720
Application 13/075,805
teachings of Sarkka could not be applied to the faulty combination (App. Br.
12).
Appellant's argument fails to address the Examiner's specific finding
that Skarby teaches that the dual-bandpass filters are connected in parallel as
noted supra with regard to the arguments made regarding claim 4.
Appellant has not shown reversible error with the Examiner's determination
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used Sarkka's transmission
line to form a parallel connection between Skarby's dual-bandpass filters.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner's § 103 rejections of claims 5
and 16 over Skarby in view of Saito and Sarkka.
REJECTION (3): CLAIMS 9 AND 10
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites "wherein widths of the
reception pass bands are substantially different from widths of the
transmission pass bands." Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and recites
"wherein widths of the reception pass bands are substantially different from
each other."
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of claims 9 and 10 is
based on the width of the passbands being an obvious design consideration
which lacks articulated reasoning regarding width values of any passbands
(App. Br. 13, 14).
Appellant's arguments fails to show reversible error with the
Examiner's finding that Forrester teaches particular width values for the
reception and transmission bandpasses (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that
one of ordinary skill would have modified the passband for the transmission
filter to be below 1000 MHz for cellular transmission and the second narrow
7
Appeal2014-009720
Application 13/075,805
frequency band filter to be centered at 1575 ivIHz, respectively as taught by
Forrester for the benefit of simultaneously transmitting in the cellular band
for reception of GPS signals (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that as an obvious
consequence of the modification, the combination would have necessarily
provided the widths of the reception pass bands are substantially different
from the widths of the transmission bands (Ans. 5).
Appellant's only response is that the Examiner has not shown that
Forrester's teachings are applicable to Skarby and Saito (Reply Br. 7). We
disagree because the Examiner has established that both Skarby, Saito and
Forrester concern transceivers for wireless communication (i.e., devices that
transmit and receive communications) (Skarby i-f 2; Saito i-f 7; Forrester col.
1, 11. 16-20). Accordingly, Forrester's teachings regarding the bandpass
width would have been applicable to Skarby's and Saito's wireless
communication devices. The Examiner finds that Forrester's Figure 5 shows
transmission and reception passbands having different widths (Ans. 8). The
Examiner further finds that by virtue of the combination of Skarby, Saito
and Forrester, the reception passbands are necessarily different as an obvious
result of the combination. Id. Appellants do not respond to or otherwise
show reversible error with the Examiner's findings regarding Forrester's
Figure 5 and what Figure 5 would have suggested to the ordinary skilled
artisan (Reply Br. 6-8).
On this record, we affirm the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 2,
3, 9, 10, 13, 14, 20, and 21 over Skarby in view of Saito and Forrester.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
8
Appeal2014-009720
Application 13/075,805
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).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
9