Ex Parte Ghauvel et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 29, 2006

09606057 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 29, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GERARD GHAUVEL, FRANCIS AUSSEDAT and PIERRE CALIPPE
____________

Appeal No. 2003-1929
Application No. 09/606,057
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before BARRETT1, GROSS, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

REQUEST FOR REHEARING
In a decision dated January 31, 2005, the decision of the
examiner rejecting all of the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 was affirmed. Appellants have filed a Request for
Rehearing in response to that decision.

1 Administrative Patent Judge Barrett has been substituted
for Administrative Patent Judge Fleming, who was previously on
the panel.
Appellants argue (Request, page 3) that the definition of
"cellular telephone" from encyclopedia.com (relied upon by the
Appeal No. 2003-1929
Application No. 09/606,057

2

Board) requires that the transmitter and the receiver are linked
via microwave radio frequencies, and Paneth uses UHF frequencies
rather than microwave. However, Paneth states (column 6, lines
4-7) that "where a particular band (e.g., 454 to 460 MHz) is used
in the described embodiment, the invention is equally applicable
to at least the entire VHF, UHF and SHF bands." Since SHF is
considered part of the microwave spectrum (see last paragraph of
page 1 of the attached entry from "searchNetworking.com
Definitions" on radio frequency), Paneth does disclose microwave
radio frequencies.
Appellants contend (Request, pages 6-7) that since there is
no direct connection between elements 17 and 20 in Paneth, those
two elements cannot be considered together to satisfy the claimed
first, main processor. We disagree. We note that the examiner
relied upon elements of Figure 2 or of Figure 3 to meet the
claimed processor. In Figure 3, the elements corresponding to
Figure 2's codec unit 17 and remote connection processor 20 are
VCU 28 and STU 27, respectively. Elements 28 and 27 are shown as
directly connected, and element 27 is coupled to CCU 29 (the
equivalent of CCU 18 from Figure 2, satisfying the claimed second
processor) and also coupled to element 33 through 29 (thereby
satisfying the claimed third processor). Thus, looking at Figure
Appeal No. 2003-1929
Application No. 09/606,057

3

3, the codec unit and subscriber terminal unit can be considered
together as one processor.

Appellants assert (Request, pages 7-9 and 11-13) that the
Decision should have been designated as a new ground of rejection
because the determinations made in the Decision differ from those
made by the examiner. Specifically, appellants contend that
using Paneth's elements 17 and 20 together differs from the
examiner's indication of element 20 alone. However, the examiner
(Answer, pages 3-4) relied upon several elements including 17 and
Appellants (Request, page 10) argue that Paneth's processor
33 is not positioned between modem 19 and CCU 18 and coupled to
elements 17 and 20 through element 18. Appellants continue that
element 33 in Figure 3 "does not couple any of elements 28, 29
and 30a together." Claim 6 requires that the third processor be
coupled to the first processor and perform signal processing on
vectors. Appellants do not dispute that element 33 performs the
recited processing. Thus, the question is whether element 33 is
coupled to the first processor. Figure 3 shows VCU 28 connected
to CCU 29, which in turn is connected to element 33. Thus,
element 33 is coupled to VCU 28 through CCU 29. As claim 6 does
not require a direct connection between the two processors,
Paneth satisfies the coupling limitations of claim 6.
Appeal No. 2003-1929
Application No. 09/606,057

4

20 from Figure 2 and elements 28 and 27 from Figure 3. Although
the examiner used alternative language in referring to the
elements, we employed the same elements but clarified it is the
combination thereof that satisfies the claim limitation.
Further, appellants assert that the indication that processor 33
is coupled to elements 17 and 20 through element 18 differs from
the examiner's determination. However, the examiner also
designated element 33 as the third processor. We merely
clarified how element 33 satisfied the coupling portion of the
claim. Thus, the Decision did not introduce a new ground of
rejection.
Appellants argue (Request, pages 13-14) that the
determination in the Decision that Claesson discloses cellular
radios is erroneous and not consistent with the examiner's
determination. Upon further consideration, we withdraw the
statement that Claesson discloses cellular radios. However, as
indicated on page 10 of the Decision, the reason for modifying
Paneth to incorporate Claesson's DSP still holds. Specifically,
Claesson suggests that DSP is used for high performance and keeps
total cost reasonable. Since the benefits of the DSP would have
been likewise desirable in a cellular radio, it would have been
Appeal No. 2003-1929
Application No. 09/606,057

5

obvious to the skilled artisan to use a DSP for the first
processor in Paneth.
Last, appellants argue (Request, pages 3-4) that the
definition of "cellular telephone" from encyclopedia.com requires
plural base stations being divided into "cells," each with a
central base station, and that Paneth fails to disclose these
portions of the definition. We agree. There is no evidence in
Paneth of plural base stations or cells. Consequently, we would
have to resort to speculation to say that Paneth discloses a
cellular radio. Since we also fail to find anything in Barnes
suggesting the examiner's stated motivation (Answer, pages 3-4)
for combining Barnes with Paneth to satisfy the limitation of a
cellular radio, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19 over Paneth and Barnes.
Further, since Claesson and Mano do not cure the deficiencies in
the primary combination, we cannot sustain the obviousness
rejections of claims 12, 15 through 18, 20 and 21.
Appeal No. 2003-1929
Application No. 09/606,057

6
Appellants' request for rehearing has been granted. In
other words, the rejection of claims 6, 8, 10, and 12 through 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REHEARING
GRANTED

LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 2003-1929
Application No. 09/606,057

7
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
ATTN. WILLIAM E. HILLER
P.O. BOX 655474 M/S 219
DALLAS, TX 75265