Ex Parte Dharmaraju et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

11624634 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111624,634 01/18/2007
23696 7590 06/02/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dinesh Dharmaraju
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.
051262U2 6999
EXAMINER
CAI, WAYNE HUU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DINESH DHARMARAJU, RANGANATHAN KRISHNAN, and
LAUREN KWANKIT LEUNG.
Appeal2014-008633 1
Application 11/624,634
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, SHARON PENICK, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as QUALCOMM Inc. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2014-008633
Application 11/624,634
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-7 and 14-38, which are all of the claims pending
in this appeal. App. Br. 13. Claims 8-13 have been canceled. Claims App.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a method and system for
communicating data at a high rate between a host entity and a client device
via a wired medium or wireless medium depending on the data type being
communicated. Abstr.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows:
1. A method for wirelessly communicating digital data at a
high rate between a host entity and least one remote user
interface client device for user interface data, comprising:
associating the at least one remote user interface client
device with the host entity;
determining if a communication should be sent to the host
entity using a wired protocol or a wireless protocol, based on the
communication's data type;
sending a capability packet to the host entity that includes
at least one capability of the at least one remote user interface
client device; and
transmitting a status packet to the host entity that
includes at least one link quality information.
2
Appeal2014-008633
Application 11/624,634
Prior Art Relied Upon
Meier US 2004/0103282 Al May 27, 2004
Hong US 2004/0214571 Al Oct. 28, 2004
Lu US 2005/0130611 Al June 16, 2005
Lee US 2006/0058003 Al Mar. 16, 2006
Abhishek US 2007 /0008922 Al Jan. 11, 2007
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
Claims 1, 2, 5, 16, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Abhishek, Lu and Lee.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, and 26 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Abhishek, Lu, Lee, and Meier.
Claims 18, 24, 27-29, 31, 34, and 37stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Abhishek, Lu, Lee,
and Hong.
Claims 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Abhishek, Lu, Lee,
Hong, and Meier.
3
Appeal2014-008633
Application 11/624,634
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 13-21, and the Reply Brief, pages 2-5.2
First, Appellants argue that the combination of Abhishek, Lu, and Lee
does not teach or suggest "determining if a communication should be sent to
the host entity using a wired protocol or a wireless protocol, based on the
communication's data type," as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br.
14--16, Reply Br. 5---6. In particular, Appellants argue Lu's disclosure of
determining whether to transmit data via a wired communication medium or
a wireless is based according to a predetermined priority, as opposed to a
communication's data type. App. Br. 15-16 (citing Lu i-fi-192-97).
Likewise, Appellants argue that Lee's disclosure of transferring a
communication from a wireless data processor to a wired data processor
based on whether the communication is voice or non-voice data does not
teach sending the communication to a host entity using a wireless protocol
based on the communications' data type. Id. at 16-17, Reply 3 (citing Lee i1
16). Accordingly, Appellants submit that neither Lee nor Lu cures the
admitted deficiencies of Abhishek. Id. These arguments are not persuasive.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 11, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed July
31, 2014), and the Answer (mailed June 2, 2014) for the respective details.
We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal2014-008633
Application 11/624,634
As correctly noted by the Examiner, Lee's disclosure of using the
communication data type to determine whether a wireless data processor
should process a communication or transfer it to a wired data processor
teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. Ans. 3--4. In particular, one of
ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the wireless data
processor uses a wireless protocol during its handling (processing or
transfer) of the communication. Likewise, the ordinarily skilled artisan
would also appreciate that when the communication is transferred to a wired
processor, the latter device uses a wired protocol for processing the data.
Accordingly, we echo the Examiner's finding that Lee teaches using the
communication data type as a basis for selecting a wireless protocol or a
wired protocol. Id. 4.
Second, Appellants argue that Lee's disclosure would change the
principle operation of Lu's invention by selecting a wired processor or a
wireless processor based on the data type, and not based on a predetermined
priority. App. Br. 19-20. This argument is not persuasive.
Appellants are reminded that an argument that a system is rendered
unsuitable for its intended purpose or changing the principle of operation
thereof is a teaching away argument. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed.
Cir. 1984) (The court concluded that in effect, "French teaches away from
the board's proposed modification" because "if the French apparatus were
turned upside down, it would be rendered inoperable for its intended
purpose"). The Federal Circuit has held "[a] reference may be said to teach
away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
5
Appeal2014-008633
Application 11/624,634
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led
in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." In re
Kahn, 441F.3d977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d
551, 553 (Fed.Cir.1994)). 3 In this case, although the communications
systems disclosed and Lu and Lee disclose using different criteria for
deciding whether the communication is processed by a host entity with a
wireless protocol or a wired protocol, Appellants have not pointed to any
portion of Lu that discourages, criticizes or otherwise discredits such
systems from using an alternative criterion for determining how the
communication is sent to the host. In other words, the fact that the Examiner
relied upon Lee's criterion does not preclude Lu's system from additionally
or alternatively using other criteria as bases for handling the
communications. Because Appellants have failed to show that Lee's
alternative basis of using the communication's data type would render
unsuitable for its intended purpose Lu's disclosure of using a priority as the
basis for routing the communication to a host using a wired or a wireless
3 "If references taken in combination would produce a 'seemingly
inoperative device,' ... such references teach away from the combination
and thus cannot serve as predicates for a prima facie case of obviousness."
McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(citation omitted); see also In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d
1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("a reference teaches away from a combination
when using it in that combination would produce an inoperative result," but
the obviousness analysis must account for "modifications that one skilled in
the art would make to a device borrowed from the prior art").
6
Appeal2014-008633
Application 11/624,634
protocol, we agree with the Examiner that the proposed combination is
proper.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find Appellants have not
sustained the requisite burden on appeal of providing arguments or evidence
persuasive of error in the Examiner's rejection of representative claim 1. It
therefore follows that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Abhishek, Lu, and Lee renders claim 1
unpatentable.
Regarding claims 2-7 and 14--3 8, because Appellants reiterate
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claims 1 and 6 above, claims 2-5 and 7-23 fall therewith.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-7 and
14--38.
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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7