Ex Parte Fernandez

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 28, 2014

11844254 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANDREW D. FERNANDEZ
____________

Appeal 2012-002926
Application 11/844,254
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-002926
Application 11/844,254

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed April 15, 2011, the Answer
(“Ans.”) mailed July 12, 2011, and the Reply Brief filed September 12,
2011, for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only
those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other
arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a wideband signal generator (Spec.
¶¶ 42, 45–48, Fig. 4, item 40) that comprises 1) means (Fig. 4, digital
processing 43, Fig. 7, DSP 72) for receiving a plurality of signals (Fig. 4,
items 41, 42); and 2) means (¶ 42, Fig. 4, “digital processing” block 43, and
“analog processing” block 44; ¶¶ 61–74, Figs. 7–9, DSP 72, DACs 11A,
12A, 118, 128, filters 13A, 14A, 138, 148, 10 Modulators 15A, 158,
summation logic 73, filters 82A, 828, mixers 83A, 838, filters 92-94) for
frequency interleaving the plurality of signals to produce a continuous
wideband signal (¶¶ 39, 42, Figs. 3, 4, item 45, Fig. 6, item 60).
Claim 12 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
12. A wideband signal generator comprising:
means for receiving a plurality of signals; and
means for frequency interleaving the plurality of signals
to produce a continuous wideband signal.
Appeal 2012-002926
Application 11/844,254

3
Examiner’s Rejections1
The Examiner rejected claims 12–14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Collados (US 2008/0291974 A1, Nov. 27, 2008).
Ans. 4–5.
The Examiner rejected claims 15 and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Collados and Dixon (US 2003/0125030 A1,
July 3, 2003). Ans.6–9.

ANALYSIS
Section 102 rejection of claims 12-14 and 16
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred.
Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to each
argument presented by the Appellant on page 10 of the Answer. We have
reviewed this response and concur with the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Ans. 4–5, 10.
Appellant contends, “Because Collados’ sub-bands do not overlap,
and have spectral holes therebetween, Collados does not disclose ‘means for

1 The Examiner states, “Claims 1-11 are similarly analyzed as claims 12-
20.” Ans. 9. Appellant argues the patentability of claims 1–11 “for reasons
similar to why claims 12 and 15 are believed to be allowable.” App. Br. 13.
Thus, rejection of claims 1–11 turns on our decision as to the underlying
§ 102 rejection, and is not further addressed herein.
Appeal 2012-002926
Application 11/844,254

4
frequency interleaving [a] plurality of signals to produce a continuous
wideband Signal.’” App. Br. 9 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds:
Collados teaches means for frequency interleaving the
plurality of signals to produce a continuous wideband signal
(Collados, Para [0006], Fig. 1 item 26). As described in para
[0018] the signal after digital to analog conversion at item 26 in
Fig. 1 added and amplified for transmission (para [0019]). The
combined analog signal at item 26 is a continuous signal ready
for transmission. The output combined analog signal is a
continuous wideband signal.

Ans. 10.
We find that the Examiner, giving the claim its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, has properly found that the
claimed “continuous” limitation is met by Collados’ resultant signal 30
(Collados ¶¶ 18–20), as explained below.
Collados’ Figure 1, with markings added, is reproduced below:
Appeal 2012-002926
Application 11/844,254

5

Figure 1 is a schematic diagram illustrating the
principal components of a signal transmitter.
In particular, Figure 1 in Collados shows how signals 14 are
transformed to generate the resultant signal 30. The resultant signal 30 that
is shown as an envelope is a continuous signal. As described in paragraphs
18 and 19 of Collados, signals 14 are combined and processed. The
resultant signal 30 replaces signals 14 because signals 14 have been
processed, to obtain resultant signal 30, which is transmitted as signal 30. In
other words, resultant signal 30 is the end-result of the combination of
signals 14 such that there are “no holes” in signal 30, which is a 4 GHz
bandwidth signal (see Collados ¶ 20).
Accordingly, we agree with the decisions reached by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer. We sustain the rejection of claims 12–14 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Appeal 2012-002926
Application 11/844,254

6
Section 103 rejection of claims 15 and 17–20
Regarding dependent claims 15 and 17–20, while Appellant raised
additional arguments for patentability of the cited dependent claims (App.
Br. 12–13), we find that the Examiner has rebutted in the Answer each and
every one of those arguments supported by sufficient evidence. Ans. 6–7
(citing Collados ¶¶ 17, 19, Fig. 1, item 26; and Dixon ¶ 35). Therefore, we
adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning, which are
incorporated herein by reference.

DECISION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–14 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Collados.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 15 and 17–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Collados and Dixon.
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.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

msc