Ex Parte Conti

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 29, 2010

10606189 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PATRICK CONTI
_____________

Appeal 2009-003724
Application 10/606,189
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, THOMAS S. HAHN,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-003724
Application 10/606,189

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 9-16, 18-24, 26-34, and 36-40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a radio-frequency
switching device incorporated in wireless communication terminals, such as
cellular telephones operating under different transmission standards (i.e.,
GSM, DCS, PCS, and WCDMA) (see Spec. 1:2-7).
Claim 9, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
9. A radio-frequency (RF) switching device comprising:
an input/output terminal;
a plurality of RF channels connected to said input/output
terminal; and
switching means for selecting one of said plurality of RF
channels based upon a switching control signal, said switching means
comprising
a respective control module connected to each RF
channel, each control module comprising
a control input for receiving the switching control
signal,
a PIN diode having a cathode connected to said
input/output terminal, and an anode, and
a control transistor comprising a control terminal
connected to said control input, and a first conducting
terminal connected to the anode of said PIN diode, the
first conducting terminal forming a common node
between an anode of a PN diode formed by the control
Appeal 2009-003724
Application 10/606,189

3
terminal and the first conducting terminal of said control
transistor and a corresponding parasitic PN diode.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Ashar US 3,840,886 Oct. 8, 1974
Ogawa US 4,386,327 May 31, 1983
Tamura US 2002/0180510 A1 Dec. 5, 2002
Clifton US 2003/0001787 A1 Jan. 2, 2003
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 9-14, 18, 26, and 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tamura in view of Clifton, Ashar, and
Ogawa.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 15, 16, 19-24, 27-34, and 37-40
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tamura in view of
Clifton and Ogawa.

ISSUES
The pivotal issues are:
1. Whether the modification of Tamura in view of Clifton teaches a
multiband transceiver or “plurality of RF channels” as recited in claim 9;
and
2. whether the modification of Tamura in view of Ogawa teaches a
“parasitic PN diode” as recited in claim 9.

Appeal 2009-003724
Application 10/606,189

4
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at
425.

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 9-14, 18, 26, and 36
At the outset we note that we adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact
and reasoning as set out in the Answer, but we add the following for
amplification.
Appellant first argues (Br. 11) that modifying Tamura with Clifton’s
teaching of a multiband switch would increase the complexity of Tamura’s
high frequency switch because additional signals would be required by the
control section, and the additional channels would also have to interface
with the bias power supply.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. We agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 17-19) that Clifton’s teaching value is that a common
transmit receive (TX/RX) switch device can be duplicated to form a
multiband transceiver, such as the TX/RX switch shown in Clifton’s Figure
2. Appellant’s reference (Br. 11) to increased complexity caused by adding
channels is irrelevant because the test for obviousness is not whether the
Appeal 2009-003724
Application 10/606,189

5
features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference, but rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art (i.e., a common TX/RX switch device can be duplicated to form a
multiband transceiver). See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Appellant (Br. 13-15) further argues that there is no motivation to
modify the respective control modules in Tamura so that the control
transistor Q1 (as shown in Fig. 11C) also forms a common node between an
intersection of an anode of a PN diode formed by the control terminal and
the conducting terminal of the control transistor, and a corresponding PN
diode. Appellant notes that Tamura does not teach parasitic diodes (Br. 13).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. We again agree with
the Examiner (Ans. 19-22) that while Tamura does not teach a parasitic
diode, the modification of Tamura with Ogawa does teach the parasitic
diode. The Examiner (Ans. 19-20) correctly interpreted the claims in view
of Appellant’s Specification, wherein, by comparing Appellant’s Figures 1
and 4, it is apparent that the claimed “PN diode” and “a corresponding
parasitic PN diode” (shown as Q1 in Figures 1 and 4) constitute alternative
devices, or in other words, alternative functional equivalents.
The Examiner acknowledged that while Tamura teaches the control
input, a PIN diode, a control transistor, and their connections (Ans. 4, 19),
Tamura does not teach the limitation of “the first conducting terminal
forming a common node between an anode of a PN diode formed by the
control terminal and the first conducting terminal of said control transistor
and a corresponding parasitic PN diode,” which is shown in Appellant’s
Figure 4. The Examiner relied on Ogawa’s teaching of using a two-diode
Appeal 2009-003724
Application 10/606,189

6
circuit as an equivalent of a control transistor, shown as Q20 in Ogawa’s
Figure 4 (col. 3, ll. 28-39). Thus, we also agree with the Examiner’s
reasoning (Ans. 19-22) that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the
art at the time that the invention was made to have modified Tamura’s
control transistor Q1, as shown in Figure 11C, with the functional equivalent
of Ogawa’s Figure 4 two diode circuit because they constitute well known
functional equivalents.
For the reasons articulated supra, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 9 and for similar reasons the rejections of claims 10-14,
18, 26, and 36, as Appellant does not present any separate arguments of
patentability with respect to these claims.
Rejection of claims 15, 16, 19-24, 27-34, and 37-40
Appellant (Br. 16-23) repeats substantially the same arguments as
presented above for independent claims 15, 23, and 33. Accordingly, we
will also sustain the Examiner’s rejections for these claims and their
dependent claims 16, 19-22, 24, 27-32, 34, and 37-40 for the same reasons
as articulated supra.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The modification of Tamura in view of Clifton teaches a multiband
transceiver or “plurality of RF channels;” and
2. the modification of Tamura in view of Ogawa teaches a “parasitic
PN diode.”

Appeal 2009-003724
Application 10/606,189

7
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 9-16, 18-24, 26-34, and
36-40 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED

babc

ALLEN, DYER, DOPPELT, MILBRATH & GILCHRIST P.A.
1401 CITRUS CENTER 255 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE
P.O. BOX 3791
ORLANDO, FL 32802-3791