ROHDE & SCHWARZ GMBH & CO. KG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 4, 2021

2020002752 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2021)

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.
14/784,579 10/14/2015 Matthias KELLER P1183US00 7626
110683 7590 05/04/2021
Potomac Technology Law, LLC
9713 Sotweed Drive
Potomac, MD 20854
EXAMINER
NORMAN, JAMES G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2827
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2021 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):
Craig@potomactechlaw.com
craiglp19@outlook.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHIAS KELLER and WOLFGANG WENDLER
Appeal 2020-002752
Application 14/784,579
Technology Center 2800
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 16, 20–28, and 32–35 under

1 The following documents are of record in this appeal: Specification filed
Oct. 14, 2015 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated Mar. 29, 2019 (“Final
Act.”); Appeal Brief filed Nov. 12, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer dated Feb. 10, 2020 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed Feb. 25, 2020
(“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Rohde & Schwarz GmbH &
Co. KG. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002752
Application 14/784,579

2

35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Miller (US 6,151,010, issued Nov. 21,
2000).3
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to a measuring device and measuring method
with multiple displays. The invention enables selection and analysis of
regions of interest (ROI) of a measurement signal via parametrisation. Spec.
¶ 49. Irrelevant regions of non-interest (RONI) are excluded from the
analysis, resulting in reduced analysis time. Id. Claim 16, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
16. A measuring device comprising:
a signal input configured to receive a radio frequency (RF)
measurement signal;
a processor;
a data interface; and
a display; and
wherein the data interface is configured to receive one or more
measurement parameters, and to provide the one or more
measurement parameters to the processor;
wherein the processor is configured to analyze the measurement
signal to determine a plurality of statistical signals based
on the measurement signal and the measurement
parameters, and wherein an overall measurement range
of the measurement signal includes one or more regions
of non-interest along with regions of interest and the
analysis is performed based on the regions of interest and
excludes the regions of non-interest;

3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2020-002752
Application 14/784,579

3

wherein the processor is configured to control the display to
display the plurality of statistical signals respectively in a
plurality of regions of the display, in parallel, whereby
each region of the display is configured to display the
statistical signal associated with a respective region of
interest of the measurement signal, and to exclude the
regions of non-interest from the display; and
wherein a number of the regions of the display and/or a size of
the regions of the display are variable.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).
OPINION
The Appellant argues that independent claims 16 and 28 recite a
processor configured to analyze only the regions of interest in a
measurement signal that includes both regions of interest and regions of non-
interest. See Appeal Br. 6–7. The Appellant contends that the Examiner
reversibly erred in finding that Miller discloses this feature. See, e.g., id. at
10.
In response, the Examiner cites Miller Figure 2E and column 6, lines
6–13, as evidence that Miller performs a statistical analysis “only . . . on the
regions of interest in the X (time) and Y (amplitude) regions.” Ans. 4; see
also id. at 5–8. Miller column 6, lines 6–13 read as follows:
The scope of the summations across the time axis is limited by
user adjusted right and left time scale cursers 216, 218.
Similarly, a population histogram for various sampling times
may also be generated. These summations are performed
between the top and bottom amplitude cursers 212, 214. The
histogram generation 70 then converts these summations 222,
220 into display information and then updates the display
memory.
Miller 6:6–13 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-002752
Application 14/784,579

4

We agree with the Appellant that, when read in context—taking into
account Miller’s disclosure in column 3, lines 51–67—the ordinary artisan
would have understood Miller as “describ[ing] that, it is not the actual
processing of the input signals that is limited by the user adjusted cursers,
but rather it is only the accumulation of the time-scaled samples that is
limited for generation of the histogram.” Reply Br. 3; see also id. at 3–4;
see, e.g., Miller 3:65–67 (“Conceptionized another way, the map holds
population counters for each time increment at each possible quantized
amplitude.”).
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 16,
20–28, and 32–35.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
16, 20–28,
32–35
103 Miller 16, 20–28,
32–35
REVERSED