QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 19, 2022

2020003502 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2022)

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. 14/751,018 06/25/2015 Gurkanwal Singh SAHOTA 147164US 9644 23696 7590 01/19/2022 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 5775 MOREHOUSE DR. SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 EXAMINER CADEAU, WEDNEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2632 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/19/2022 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): us-docketing@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GURKANWAL SINGH SAHOTA Appeal 2020-003502 Application 14/751,018 Technology Center 2600 Before DAVID M. KOHUT, ERIC B. CHEN, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-7, 9-18, 20-24 and 26-29.2, 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Qualcomm Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Final Action mailed April 2, 2019 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed November 5, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 5, 2020 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed April 6, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 3 Claims 2, 8, 19, 25, and 30 have been cancelled. See Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 13, 14, 16, 17 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-003502 Application 14/751,018 2 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. ¶ 1. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER 1. An apparatus for wireless communications, comprising: a transceiver; a first antenna configured to support communications in 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 having a first multiplexer having filters configured to process one or more first signals for only transmission over a first bandwidth via the first antenna, wherein the first bandwidth is in the first frequency range; a second circuit block coupled to the transceiver and having a second multiplexer having filters configured to process one or more second signals for only reception over a second bandwidth via the second antenna, wherein the second bandwidth at least partially overlaps the first bandwidth, the first multiplexer being different than the second multiplexer, wherein the second bandwidth is in the second frequency range; a third circuit block coupled to the transceiver and configured to process third signals for transmission and reception over a third bandwidth via the first antenna, the third bandwidth having frequencies lower than frequencies of the first bandwidth; and a fourth circuit block coupled to the transceiver and configured to process fourth signals for transmission and reception over a fourth bandwidth via the second antenna, the Appeal 2020-003502 Application 14/751,018 3 fourth bandwidth having frequencies higher than frequencies of the second bandwidth, wherein at least one of the first, second, third, or fourth circuit blocks supports carrier aggregation. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Recouly US 6,434,401 B1 Aug. 13, 2002 Domino et al. US 2006/0089107 A1 Apr. 27, 2006 Chayat US 2014/0066757 A1 Mar. 6, 2014 Chang et al. US 2014/0072001 A1 Mar. 13, 2014 Li et al. US 2015/0312018 A1 Oct. 29, 2015 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3-7, 9-15, 17, 18, 20-24, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Domino, Recouly, and Li. Final Act. 6-13. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Domino, Recouly, Li, and Chayat. Final Act. 13-14. OPINION With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant argues that Chang, Domino, Recouly, and Li fail to teach or suggest “a second circuit block coupled to the transceiver and having a second multiplexer having filters configured to process one or more second signals for only reception over a second bandwidth via the second antenna,” as claimed. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant further argues that Chang, Domino, Recouly, and Li fail to teach or suggest “a fourth circuit block coupled to the transceiver and configured Appeal 2020-003502 Application 14/751,018 4 to process fourth signals for transmission and reception over a fourth bandwidth via the second antenna, the fourth bandwidth having frequencies higher than frequencies of the second bandwidth.” Id. In particular, Appellant argues that “the FOA has failed to show that Chang teaches a multiplexer having filters configured to process signals for only reception via the antenna 312, as well as a circuit block configured to process signals for transmission and reception via the same antenna 312.” Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 2. Similarly, Appellant argues that Domino, Recouly, and Li fail teach “a circuit block having a multiplexer having filters configured to process signals for only reception via a second antenna, as well as a circuit block configured to process signals for transmission and reception via the second (e.g., the same) antenna.” Appeal Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2-3. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because the Examiner relies upon the combination of Chang, Domino, Recouly, and Li to teach the claimed second and fourth circuits, whereas Appellant’s argument consists of arguments against each reference individually. See Final Act. 5-6. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here, the basis of the obviousness rejection is predicated on the combined teachings of Chang, Domino, Recouly, and Li. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the combination of Chang, Domino, Recouly, and Li, taken as a whole, would have suggested the claimed second and fourth circuits. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We agree with the Examiner’s findings that the combination of Chang, Domino, Recouly, and Li teach the claimed second and fourth circuit blocks. The Examiner finds that the wireless device of Chang, best depicted in Figure 3, reproduced below, as Appeal 2020-003502 Application 14/751,018 5 modified by Domino, Recouly, and Li teaches or suggests each and every element of claim 1. Figure 3 of Chang depicts a diagram of a wireless device including a Front- End Module 320 connected to Primary Antenna 310 and a Front-End Module 322 connected to Secondary Antenna 312. Chang ¶¶ 8, 24. Front- End Module 320 includes Power Amplifiers (“PA”) 330a through 330k for transmission of signals through Primary Antenna 310 and Low Noise Amplifiers (“LNA”) 340pa through 340pk for reception of signals from Primary Antenna 310. Id. ¶ 25. Front-End Module 322 includes LNAs Appeal 2020-003502 Application 14/751,018 6 340sa through 340s1 for reception of signals from Secondary Antenna 312. Id. The Examiner finds that Chang teaches the claimed second circuit to process signals for reception by disclosing Front-End Module 322 receiving signals for processing by LNAs 340sa through 340s1. Final Act. 6-7 (citing Chang ¶¶ 25, 26, 29; Figs. 3-4). The Examiner further finds that Domino, Recouly, and Li teach that Chang’s Front-End Module 322 can include “a fourth circuit block coupled to the transceiver and configured to process fourth signals for transmission and reception over a fourth bandwidth via the second antenna.” Final Act. 8-9 (citing Recouly 6:8-15, 7:10-38, Figs. 1, 2; Li ¶¶ 68-69, 104-105, Figs. 5, 8); Ans. 5-7 (citing Domino ¶¶ 7, 8, 27; Recouly Fig. 1, element 20; Li Fig. 5, elements 1225, 1227). In other words, “Domino, Recouly and Li are included to show that . . . the second front end module with the second antenna can include transmission as well.” Ans. 6. Moreover, the Examiner finds that the teachings of Chang alone would teach or suggest the claimed fourth circuit stating: Chang in paragraphs [0005], [0014], [0017], [0025] and figures 2-5 teaches a front-end module 320 includes an antenna interface circuit 324, multiple (K) power amplifiers (PAs) 330a to 330k, and multiple (K) MIMO LNAs 340pa to 340pk to support multiple bands, carrier aggregation, multiple radio technologies, etc. Front-end module 322 includes an antenna interface circuit 326 and multiple (L) MIMO LNAs 340sa to 340sl to support multiple bands, carrier aggregation, multiple radio technologies, receive diversity, MIMO transmission from multiple transmit antennas to multiple receive antennas, etc. The first front end (320) of Chang comprises k transmit blocks an[d] k receiving blocks and the front end 322 comprise 340sa to 340sl block[s] to support multiple bands, carrier aggregation, multiple radio technologies, receive diversity, MIMO transmission from multiple transmit antennas to multiple receive antennas, etc. [I]n other words, although not shown in fig. 3) both front end Appeal 2020-003502 Application 14/751,018 7 modules 320 and 322 are intended to for receiving and transmitting, both are intended for MIMO transmission from multiple transmit antennas to multiple receive antennas (Chang [0025]). Ans. 4. The Examiner further explains that: The arrangement proposed by the office is that transforming the module to perform both reception and transmission would have been obvious to one skill in the art even based on the cited prior arts including the disclosure of Chang. For instance the module 322 would only need to be a simple duplication of front end module 320 of Chang in figure 3. Indeed, it would have been obvious to include not only MIMO LNAs for reception but also power amplifiers for transmission in module 322 to transmit via the second antenna 312 since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Id. at 4-5. In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s conclusion that modifying Chang “to include not only MIMO LNAs for reception but also power amplifiers for transmission in module 322 to transmit via the second antenna 312” would have been obvious as a mere duplication of essential working parts involving only routine skill is improper because the Examiner states that further modifications are required. Reply Br. 3 (citing Ans. 5-8). Specifically, Appellant asserts that the Examiner states that modifying Chang in this manner requires further modification by the teachings of Domino and Recouly. Id. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because it mischaracterizes the Examiner’s position. The Examiner states that it would be obvious to modify Chang to include power amplifiers for transmission in Front-End module 322 to transmit via the second antenna 312 because it Appeal 2020-003502 Application 14/751,018 8 would be mere duplication of the elements of Front-End Module 320. Ans. 4-5. In this discussion, the Examiner does not state that further modifications by Domino and Recouly are required when duplicating the elements of Front-End module 320 in Front-End module 322. See id. Rather, the portions of the Answer cited by Appellant explain an alternative finding by the Examiner to show how “Domino, Recouly and Li are included to [merely] show that . . . the second front end module with the second antenna can include transmission as well.” Id. at 6. Appellant further argues that the Examiner has failed to provide a sufficient reasoning for combining Domino and Recouly with the new arrangement of Chang. Reply Br. 3-5. To the extent that Appellant’s argument rests on the mischaracterization of the Examiner’s position in the Answer, it is unpersuasive for the reasons noted above. Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s proffered motivation to combine is insufficient is also improper because it is first presented in the Reply Brief. The Reply Brief is not an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2019); accord Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74 (BPAI 2010) (informative opinion) (absent a showing of good cause, the Board is not required to address an argument newly presented in the reply brief that could have been presented in the principal brief on appeal); see also Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (argument raised for the first time in the reply brief that could have been raised in the opening brief is waived). Appellant further argues: [N]o rationale was provided by the Office for modifying the proposed combination of Chang and Domino with Li. Applicant Appeal 2020-003502 Application 14/751,018 9 therefore respectfully submits that any combinations which include Li are improper. . . . . Appellant further respectfully submits that even if the references are combined as alleged by the Office, the Office has failed to show all of the elements of Claim 1. As a first example, Claim 1 recites “a second frequency range different than the first frequency range, wherein the second frequency range partially overlaps the first frequency range.” . . . . . . . As a second example, Claim 1 recites “a third circuit block coupled to the transceiver and configured to process third signals for transmission and reception over a third bandwidth via the first antenna, the third bandwidth having frequencies lower than frequencies of the first bandwidth,” and “a fourth circuit block coupled to the transceiver and configured to process fourth signals for transmission and reception over a fourth bandwidth via the second antenna, the fourth bandwidth having frequencies higher than frequencies of the second bandwidth.” Reply Br. 5-6. For the same reason as above, Appellant’s argument is improper and will not be considered because it is first presented in the Reply Brief. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3-7, 9-15, 17, 18, 20-24, and 26-29, which are not argued separately. With respect to claim 16, Appellant argues Chayat also fails to teach “a first antenna configured to support communications in a first frequency range; [and] 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” as recited in claim 1 and fails to overcome the deficiencies of the FOA with respect to Chang in view of Domino. Appeal 2020-003502 Application 14/751,018 10 Appeal Br. 12. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because Chayat was relied upon by the Examiner only to teach that the first and second antennas have different sizes. See Final Act. 13. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 16. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-7, 9-18, 20-24, and 26-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is AFFIRMED. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-7, 9- 15, 17, 18, 20-24, 26-29 103 Chang, Domino, Recouly, Li 1, 3-7, 9-15, 17, 18, 20-24, 26-29 16 103 Chang, Domino, Recouly, Li, Chayat 16 Overall Outcome 1, 3-7, 9-18, 20-24, 26-29 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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