Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 25, 2021

2020005364 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 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.
15/716,730 09/27/2017 Rastislav Vazny P33424US1/APPL:0714 6414
73576 7590 10/25/2021
APPLE INC. - Fletcher
c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
WONG, LINDA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2655
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2021 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):
docket@fyiplaw.com
hill@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RASTISLAV VAZNY, MATTHIAS SAUER, and
RONALD W. DIMPFLMAIER
____________________

Appeal 2020-005364
Application 15/716,7301
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, MARC S. HOFF, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–9, 11, and 13–22.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s claimed invention is a portable electronic device. The
device includes a baseband integrated circuit configured to generate
communication data and control signals, and a radiohead to receive data
signals from the baseband integrated circuit. The device further includes an

1 Appellant states that the real party in interest is Apple, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 10 and 12 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2020-005364
Application 15/716,730

2
optical path configured to be coupled between the baseband integrated
circuit and the radiohead. The device transmits data signals from the
baseband integrated circuit, along the optical path, to the radiohead.
Abstract.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a housing of a handheld cellular telephone or a handheld
tablet;
a baseband integrated circuit disposed within the housing
and configured to generate communication data signals and
control signals;
a radiohead disposed within the housing and configured
to receive the communication data signals from the baseband
integrated circuit; and
an optical path disposed within the housing and coupled
between the baseband integrated circuit and the radiohead,
wherein the optical path is configured to transmit the
communication data signals from the baseband integrated
circuit to the radiohead.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Ahmadi US 2013/0142054 A1 June 6, 2013
Yehezkely US 2015/0087248 A1 Mar. 26, 2015
Rada US 2015/0207534 A1 July 23, 2015
Tarighat Mehrabani US 2016/0150591 A1 May 26, 2016
Carpino US 2016/0152591 A1 June 2, 2016
Chung US 2016/0218801 A1 July 28, 2016

Claims 1–3, 5–9, 11, and 13–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Yehezkely and Chung.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Yehezkely, Chung, and Rada.
Appeal 2020-005364
Application 15/716,730

3
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Yehezkely, Chung, and Tarighat Mehrabani.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Tarighat Mehrabani, Yehezkely, Ahmadi, and Rada.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Feb. 5, 2020), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 9,
2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 12, 2020) for their
respective details.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner articulate reasoning to combine Yehezkely and
Chung having a rational underpinning to support a legal conclusion of
obviousness?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–3, 5–9, 11, and 13–21
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “an optical path
disposed within the housing [of a handheld cellular telephone or a handheld
tablet] and coupled between the baseband integrated circuit and the
radiohead.” The optical path is configured to transmit communication data
Appeal 2020-005364
Application 15/716,730

4
signals from the baseband integrated circuit to the radiohead. Independent
claims 8 and 19 recite analogous limitations.
The Examiner finds that Yehezkely teaches a baseband integrated
circuit and a radiohead, both disposed within the housing, and a transmission
path that consists of cable or printed transmission line. Final Act. 7. The
Examiner further finds that Chung discloses an optical transmission line
between a digital unit 110 and a radio unit 120. Id. (citing Chung Fig. 1).
The Examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Yehezkely to include the optical transmission line of Chung because it
amounts to the simple substitution of one well-known element of a
transmission line for another well-known element of a transmission line, to
obtain predictable results. Ans. 13.
Appellant argues that Chung is directed to an optical signal monitor
between cellular towers and base stations, rather than to a handheld mobile
device. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant further avers that Chung discloses a digital
unit 110 which may be located indoors, and a radio unit 120 that performs
the functions of an antenna and may generally be located outdoors. Appeal
Br. 8; Chung ¶ 25. Appellant submits that, as a result, there would be no
motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Yehezkely and
Chung to obtain the invention under appeal, which requires an optical
transmission path within the housing of a mobile device. Id.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner may be
literally correct that Chung does not explicitly state that there are “hundreds
of feet[,] or miles” between base stations and antenna towers of a fronthaul
system, as Appellant argues in the Brief, but Chung does explicitly disclose
that its optical transmission hardware connects an indoor digital unit with an
Appeal 2020-005364
Application 15/716,730

5
outdoor radio unit. Ans. 8–9; Chung ¶ 25. We agree with Appellant that
Chung’s invention concerns analog optical fiber link monitoring for a
mobile fronthaul system and has “no apparent relevance to circuitry within a
handheld cellular telephone or handheld tablet.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant
contends, and we agree, that the Examiner has not presented evidence to
suggest that the optical path of Chung could be properly combined with the
small or handheld electronic device contemplated in Yehezkely to obtain the
invention under appeal.
We determine that the Examiner has not established a motivation to
combine references having a rational underpinning to support a legal
combination of obviousness. We do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 1–3, 5–9, 11, and 13–21.
Claims 4 and 22
Claims 4 and 22 depend from independent claim 1. As analyzed
supra, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. The Examiner
does not find that Rada or Tarighat Mehrabani remedy the deficiencies we
have identified in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Thus, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 4 over Yehezkely, Chung
and Rada, or of claim 22 over Yehezkely, Chung, and Tarighat Mehrabani.
In view of the Examiner’s withdrawal of the rejection of independent
claim 1 over Tarighat Mehrabani, Yehezkely, and Ahmadi, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 4 over Tarighat Mehrabani, Yehezkely,
Ahmadi, and Rada.

Appeal 2020-005364
Application 15/716,730

6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not articulate reasoning to combine Yehezkely and
Chung having a rational underpinning to support a legal conclusion of
obviousness.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–9, 11,
13–21
103 Yehezkely, Chung 1–3, 5–9, 11,
13–21
4 103 Yehezkely,
Chung, Rada
4
22 103 Yehezkely,
Chung, Tarighat
Mehrabani
22
4 103 Tarighat
Mehrabani,
Yehezkely,
Ahmadi, Rada
4
Overall
Outcome
1–9, 11, 13–
22

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9, 11, and 13–22 is
reversed.

REVERSED