Ex Parte GorbachovDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 26, 201512470960 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 12/470,960 05/22/2009 Oleksandr Gorbachov RFAXS-003A 4896 7663 7590 06/26/2015 STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER 75 ENTERPRISE, SUITE 250 ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 EXAMINER CHENG, CHI TANG P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2463 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/26/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte OLEKSANDR GORBACHOV1 ________________ Appeal 2013-003937 Application 12/470,960 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JOHN G. NEW, and KIMBERLY J. McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges. NEW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The Real Party-in-Interest is RFAXIS, INC. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2013-003937 Application 12/470,960 2 SUMMARY Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–21. Specifically, claims 7 and 10 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)2 as being anticipated by Caimi et al. (US 2007/0222697 A1, September 27, 2007) (“Caimi”). Claims 1 and 4–5 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Caimi and Weber et al. (US 7,590,390 B2, September 15, 2009, filed Jan. 18, 2007) (“Weber”). Claims 13–19 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Caimi and Robinett (US 7,643,848 B2, January 5, 2010, filed April 13, 2004) (“Robinett”). Claim 6 stands rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Caimi, Weber, and McNew et al. (US 2008/0232309 A1, September 25, 2008 A1, filed June 6, 2007) (“McNew”). Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Caimi, Weber, and Barker et al. (2009/0066595 A1, March 12, 2009, filed Aug. 10, 2007) (“Barker”). Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Caimi and Barker. 2 Appellant states that claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). App. Br. 8. However, the Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See Final Act. 3. Appeal 2013-003937 Application 12/470,960 3 Claim 20 stands rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Caimi, Robinett, and Barker. Claim 11 stands rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Caimi and Suzuki et al. (US 2004/0152426 A1, August 5, 2004) (“Suzuki”). Claim 12 stands rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Caimi and Wessel van Rooyen et al. (US 7,949,341 B2, May 24, 2011, filed Dec. 13, 2004) (“Wessel van Rooyen”). Claim 21 stands rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Caimi, Robinett, and Tzuang et al. (US 2009/0243890, October 1, 2009, filed Mar. 28, 2008) (“Tzuang”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed to a front end circuit for coupling a plurality of antennas to a multi-channel time domain duplex RF transceiver. The front end circuit has a first transmit port, a first receive chain primary port, a first receive chain secondary port, and a first antenna port connectible to a first one of the plurality of antennas. The front end circuit also has a second transmit port, a second receive chain primary port, and a second receive chain secondary port connectible to a second one of the plurality of antennas. A first switch has terminals connected to the first transmit port, the first receive chain primary port, and the second receive chain secondary port, as well as a common terminal that is connected to the first antenna port. Appeal 2013-003937 Application 12/470,960 4 Additionally, the front end circuit has a second switch that has terminals connected to the second transmit port, the second receive chain primary port and the first receive chain secondary port, and a common terminal connected to the second antenna port. Abstract. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM Appellant argues claims 1–6 together and we select independent claim 1 as representative. App. Br. 14. Claim 1 recites: 1. A front end circuit for coupling antennas to a multi- channel time domain duplex radio frequency (RF) transceiver, the front end circuit comprising: a first channel module selectively connecting a first transmit line, a first primary receive line, and a first secondary receive line of the transceiver to the antennas; and a second channel module selectively connecting a second transmit line, a second primary receive line, and a second secondary receive line of the transceiver to the antennas; and independently controllable switching elements each part of and shared by both the first channel module and the second channel module. App. Br. 28. Appellant argues claims 7–12 together and we select independent claim 7 as representative. App. Br. 21. Claim 7 recites: 7. A front end circuit for coupling a plurality of antennas to a multi-channel time domain duplex RF transceiver, the front end circuit comprising: a first transmit port; Appeal 2013-003937 Application 12/470,960 5 first receive chain primary and secondary ports; a first antenna port connectible to a first one of the plurality of antennas; a second transmit port; second receive chain primary and secondary ports; a second antenna port connectible to a second one of the plurality of antennas; a first switch with terminals connected to the first transmit port, the first receive chain primary port and the second receive chain secondary port, and a common terminal connected to the first antenna port; and a second switch with terminals connected to the second transmit port, the second receive chain primary port and the first receive chain secondary port, and a common terminal connected to the second antenna port. App. Br. 28–29. Appellant argues claims 13–21 together and we select independent claim 13 as representative. App. Br. 24. Claim 13 recites: 13. An RF front end circuit for coupling a pair of antennas to a transceiver having a first operational channel and a second operational channel, each operational channel including a corresponding transmit line, primary receive line, and secondary receive line, the front end circuit comprising: a plurality of switching elements including: a first switching mode connecting a first one of the transmit lines to a first one of the antennas; Appeal 2013-003937 Application 12/470,960 6 a second switching mode connecting a second one of the transmit lines to a second one of the antennas; a third switching mode simultaneously connecting a first one of the primary receive lines to the first one of the antennas and a first one of the secondary receive lines to the second one of the antennas; and a fourth switching mode simultaneously connecting a second one of the primary receive lines to the first one of the antennas and a second one of secondary receive lines to the second one of the antennas. App. Br. 29–30. ISSUES AND ANALYSES A. Claim 1 Issue 1 Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Weber and Caimi would have been obvious, because the combination is the result of improper hindsight reconstruction. App. Br. 17. Analysis Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert two additional receive lines into the RF front end of the system taught by Weber, connect the two receive lines to respective antennae A and B, define one pair of receive lines as corresponding to a first channel and another pair as the Appeal 2013-003937 Application 12/470,960 7 second channel, and reconfigure the transmit/receive switches to accommodate the two additional receive lines such that both are part of the first and second channels. App. Br. 17. In other words, contends Appellant, the Examiner impermissibly employed hindsight in selecting only desirable elements from Caimi and Weber to “piece[ ] together elements to arrive at the claimed invention.” Id. (quoting In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Specifically, Appellant contends that the circuits depicted in Figure 2 and Figure 4 of Weber teach only reception and transmission of a single channel over two antennae. App. Br. 18. Appellant argues the Examiner employed impermissible hindsight in arbitrarily defining the first and second channel modules so that the transmit/receive switches can correspond to the “switching elements” of claim 1. Id Appellant further challenges the Examiner’s finding that Weber teaches a first channel module and a second channel module as recited in claim 1. Id. Specifically, Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that, with respect to Weber’s Figure 2, elements PA 215 and LNA 230 correspond to the “first channel module” of claim 1 and elements PA 225 and LNA 220 correspond to the “second channel module.” Id. The Examiner replies that any conclusion of obviousness is, at least in one sense, necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but that such reasoning is permissible it relies only upon knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Appellant’s disclosure. Ans. 5–6 (citing In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (C.C.P.A. 1971)). Appeal 2013-003937 Application 12/470,960 8 Additionally, the Examiner finds Weber teaches all of the elements of claim 1, with the exception of the “first secondary receive line” and the “second secondary receive line.” Ans. 6. The Examiner notes these latter claim terms require only that such “first secondary receive line” and “second secondary receive line” be somehow connected by the respective first or second “channel modules” to “the antennas.” Id. Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellant’s Specification to claim 1, the Examiner finds Caimi teaches first and second secondary receive lines. Ans. 3–4 (citing Caimi ¶¶ 143–146, 150, Fig. 22, elements 934, filter 940, and LNA 938 (“i.e., ‘a first secondary receive line of the transceiver to the antennas’” and elements 980, filter 986 and LNA 984, (“i.e., ‘a second secondary receive line of the transceiver to the antennas’”)). The Examiner further finds Caimi also teaches the first and second “channel modules,” first and second “transmit lines,” as well as first and second “primary receive lines” recited in claim 1. Final Act. 8–9. The Examiner thus finds Fig. 22 of Caimi teaches a high degree of structural similarity to the relevant teachings of Weber. Ans. 6–7. The Examiner reasons this similarity provides further encouragement to an ordinary artisan to view the teachings of Caimi and Weber as mutually complementary and to therefore use the teachings of Caimi’s first and second “secondary receive lines” to supplement the teachings of Weber to arrive at the inventive subject matter in claim 1. Id. at 7. The Examiner finds doing so would have been within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made. Id. Appeal 2013-003937 Application 12/470,960 9 We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Appellant’s Specification does not explicitly define the scope of the claim term “channel module”; we therefore afford the term its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellant’s Specification and, as a result, agree with the Examiner that Weber teaches the recited channel modules. Final Act. 7–8. See In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). More specifically, we agree with the Examiner that Figures 2 and 4 of Weber, and Figure 22 of Caimi, teach circuits with at least two power amplifiers (e.g., Caimi Fig. 22, elements 920 and 964, ) and two LNAs configured to receive signals (e.g., Caimi Fig. 22 elements 928 and 970). Ans. 11–12; Final Act. 2–4. We consequently agree with the Examiner that the combination of Caimi also teaches the channel modules recited in claim 1. We further agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art, viewing the overlapping and complementary teachings of Weber and Caimi, would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of the two references. Ans. 6–7. We therefore reject Appellant’s contention that the Examiner employed impermissible hindsight in combining the references. We consequently affirm the Examiner’s rejection on this ground. Issue 2 Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding cited combined prior art references teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1 reciting “a first Appeal 2013-003937 Application 12/470,960 10 channel module selectively connecting … to the antennas” and “a second channel module selectively connecting … to the antennas.” App. Br. 20. Analysis Appellant argues that disputed limitations of claim 1 collectively require that both channel modules connect selectively to both antennae. App. Br. 20. Appellant maintains that both Figure 2 and Figure 4 of Weber teach that either antenna A or antenna B is used for a “single channel transceiver.” Id. at 19. By way of example, Appellant points to Weber’s Figure 2, which, Appellant argues, demonstrates that transmitter PA 215 and receiver LNA 220 connect, via transmit/receive switch 205, only to antenna A and, similarly, that PA 225 and receiver LNA 230 connect, via transmit/receive switch 205, only to antenna B. Id. (citing Weber, Fig. 2). Appellant argues further that adding another receive line to each of the channel modules, for which the Examiner relies upon Caimi, does not remedy the alleged deficiencies of Weber because that addition would only be connected to one of the antennas, while the claim requires that both channel modules be selectively connected to both antennas. Id. at 20. The Examiner replies that Appellant places too restrictive a construction upon the language of claim 1. Ans. 8. We agree with the Examiner. The claim does not require that the channel modules connect selectively to both antennae. Rather, claim 1 requires “a first channel module selectively connecting a first transmit line, a first primary receive line, and a first secondary receive line of the transceiver to the antennas” and “a second channel module selectively connecting a second transmit line, a Appeal 2013-003937 Application 12/470,960 11 second primary receive line, and a second secondary receive line of the transceiver to the antennas.” The claim language does not elaborate on how these elements are connected “to the antennas” other than that they are “selectively” connected. “Selectively connected” may be construed to read the elements are connected to at least one, but not necessarily both of the antennas, orthat the elements of the channel module are selectively connected to a single antenna. Such broad language could reasonably encompass the scenario envisioned by the Examiner. See Ans. 9; Caimi, Fig. 22. We therefore find the Examiner did not err in finding the combined cited prior art teaches or suggests the disputed limitations and we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. B. Claim 7 Issue Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Caimi anticipates the limitations of claim 7 reciting: a first switch with terminals connected to the first transmit port, the first receive chain primary port and the second receive chain secondary port, and a common terminal connected to the first antenna port; and a second switch with terminals connected to the second transmit port, the second receive chain primary port and the first receive chain secondary port, and a common terminal connected to the second antenna port. App. Br. 28–29. Appeal 2013-003937 Application 12/470,960 12 Analysis Appellant argues Caimi discloses an RF switch 101 that appears to be composed of four separate switches: (1) a switch composed of switching terminal 908, the receive terminal 914, and the transmit terminal 912; (2) a switch composed of switching terminal 941, the receive terminal 934, and the transmit terminal 932; (3) a switch consisting of switching terminal 950, the receive terminal 962, and the transmit terminal 960; and (4) a switch composed of switching terminal 954, the receive terminal 980, and the transmit terminal 978. App. Br. 22 (citing Fig. 22). Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding switches (1) and (3) of Caimi supra correspond to the “first switch” of claim 7 and the switches (2) and (4) of Caimi correspond to claim 7’s “second switch.” App. Br. 22. Appellant contends the Examiner’s findings ignore the requirement of claim 7 that switch one connects each of the associated ports (first transmit port, first receive chain primary port, and first receive chain secondary port) to a common port connected to the first antenna port. Id. Appellant points out that switch (3) of Caimi is connectible only to the high band antenna 904, which Appellant alleges the Examiner finds corresponds to the second antenna port. Id. Appellant makes a similar argument with respect to switch two. Id. at 22–23. Appellant argues further that Caimi discloses a switching arrangement in which one antenna is used for low-band signals and a second antenna is used for high-band signals. App. Br. 22–23. Appellant contends that, because the low and high bands both have two separate sub-bands, RF switch 910 is configured to connect each separate sub-band to its specific low-noise amplifier. Id. at 23. By contrast, Appellant argues, claim 7 Appeal 2013-003937 Application 12/470,960 13 recites a front-end circuit directed to a multi-channel diversity system that can utilize both antennae for the reception of each channel, along with a switch network to connect the channels. Appellant argues that this fundamental difference prevents Caimi from anticipating claim 7. The Examiner responds that Appellant appears to have misapprehended the Examiner’s findings. Ans. 18. The Examiner finds that, using the four switches identified by Appellant, the rejection in fact sets forth that the switches (1) and (2) (and not (1) and (3)) collectively correspond to the “first switch” of claim 7 and that switches (3) and (4) (and not (2) and (4)) correspond to the “second switch.” Id. at 18–19. The Examiner additionally finds that, Appellant’s arguments notwithstanding, the functionality of the claimed invention is not recited in the claims. Ans. 19. We agree with the Examiner. We find the Examiner unambiguously found that “switch one” of claim 7 corresponds to Caimi’s switches (1) and (2) supra, and not, as Appellant suggests, switches (1) and (3). Similarly, we find the Examiner unambiguously found claim 7’s “switch two” corresponds to switches (3) and (4) of Caimi. Appellant attempts to remedy this error in the Reply Brief, arguing the Examiner’s findings are inconsistent with an earlier stated position that the low band corresponds to one transmit and receive chain (with a primary and secondary receive) and the high band corresponds to another transmit and receive chain (again, with a primary and secondary receive). Reply Br. 9. This argument, however, is inconsistent with the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action. See Final Act. 4. Moreover, Appellant is precluded from raising arguments not raised in the Appeal Brief. See Ex parte Borden, Appeal 2013-003937 Application 12/470,960 14 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (Informative). We consequently affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. C. Claim 13 Issue Appellant argues the Examiner erred in combining of Caimi and Robinett because the combining the references would fundamentally alter the principle of operation of Caimi. App. Br 25. Analysis Appellant argues that the modifications needed to the band switched antenna structure 900 of Caimi to utilize the low-band antenna 902 and the high-band antenna 904 as diversity antenna would fundamentally alter its principle of operation. App. Br. 24–25. Appellant additionally argues the band switched antenna structure 900 operates in the GSM frequency bands of 850/960 MHz (low band) and 1800-1900 MHz (high band). Id. at 25 (citing Caimi ¶¶ 107, 144, Fig. 2). According to Appellant, the low-band antenna 902 is dedicated to, and used only for, the low-band transmit and receive functions and the high-band antenna 904 is similarly dedicated to high-band reception and transmission. Id. Appellant further argues that, whereas power amplifiers (“PAs”) 920 and 964 are used to amplify both of their respective sub-band frequency ranges, the low noise amplifiers (“LNAs”) are not, and a separate LNA is required for each sub-band. Id. Moreover, Appellant contends Caimi teaches switching among high- band transmit/receive lines or components and among low-band transmit/receive lines or components independently of each other. App. Br. Appeal 2013-003937 Application 12/470,960 15 25. Appellant argues that the “deep structural modifications” required to use both antennae for low-band and high-band communication fundamentally changes the nature of band-switched antenna structure and that neither Caimi nor the Examiner provides any significant or precise motivation or suggestion to do so. Id. The Examiner finds Caimi teaches all of the limitations of the claim, with the exception of the feature of simultaneously connecting receive lines to two antennas. Ans. 24. The Examiner finds Robinett teaches a mode that simultaneously connects a receive line with an antennae and another receive line with another antennae. Id. at 23 (citing Robinett, col. 8, ll. 40–67, col. 9, ll. 4–19 (“[w]hen operating in a diversity mode, the main and diversity CDMA receive paths are both active ….”), col. 9, ll. 20–31, (“when operating in non-diversity mode, the main and diversity CDMA receive paths may be independently tuned to different RF channels”). The Examiner points out Appellant has provided no justification for Appellant’s argument that “deep structural modifications” would be required to combine the teachings of Caimi and Robinett, other than a technical explanation alleging that the various components in Fig. 22 of Caimi operate in distinct frequency ranges. Ans. 24. The Examiner finds Appellant does not elaborate further on why this technical observation would prohibit a person of ordinary skill in the art from combining the teachings in Robinett (viz., that different receive lines can be simultaneously connected to different antennas) with the teachings and disclosed structure in Caimi. Id. at 24–25. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner found, inter alia, Robinett teaches “when operating in non-diversity mode, the main and diversity CDMA receive paths may be independently tuned to different RF channels.” Appeal 2013-003937 Application 12/470,960 16 Ans. 24, 25 (citing Robinett, col. 9, ll. 20–31). The Examiner finds that Robinett would thus teach an ordinary artisan that different frequency bands associated with multiple antennas may be active at the same time. Id. at 25. The Examiner determines this, combined with the other teachings of Robinett cited in the Final Office Action motivate an ordinary artisan to combine Robinett with Caimi to provide a more robust and efficient form of data communications. Id. at 25; see also Final Act. 14 (citing Caimi ¶¶ 2– 26; Weber, Abstract and cols. 1 and 2; Robinett, cols. 1 and 2). Appellant replies that Caimi discloses a single power amplifier for each low-band and high-band, and a single low noise amplifier for each operating frequency in the low-band and the high-band. Reply Br. 10. Appellant argues that using the two disclosed antennas of CAIMI for diversity changes this principle of operation, and it would no longer be able to transmit and receive on these four separate operating frequencies. Id. Appellant thus argues the proposed use of the band-switched antenna structure of Caimi for diversity renders it unsatisfactory for such multi- frequency GSM operation, because receiving individual high-band and low- band signals would no longer be possible without adding a second antenna to each of the low-band antenna 902 and the high-band antenna 904. Id. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s reasoning. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (C.C.P.A. 1981). Appeal 2013-003937 Application 12/470,960 17 In general, Caimi teaches “a first switching element for switchably supplying the first signal or the second signal to the transmitting antenna, a first receiver, a second receiver and a second switching element for switchably directing a signal received at the receiving antenna to the first receiver or the second receiver.” Caimi ¶ 28. Appellant does not dispute Caimi teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 except the third and fourth switching functions. Reply Br. 10. Those limitations recite “a third switching mode connecting a first one of the primary receive lines to the first one of the antennas and a first one of the secondary receive lines to the second one of the antennas” and “a fourth switching mode connecting a second one of the primary receive lines to the first one of the antennas and a second one of secondary receive lines to the second one of the antennas.” We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Robinett’s teaching of “when operating in non-diversity mode, the main and diversity CDMA receive paths may be independently tuned to different RF channels” teaches the latter limitations. See Ans. 24, 25 (citing Robinett, col. 9, ll. 20–31). Appellant is not specific with respect to the requisite nature of the “deep structural modifications” necessary to combine Caimi with Robinett, nor, indeed, is it necessary that all of the structural elements or functions of Caimi be combined with Robinett. We agree with the Examiner that the combined references teach the limitations of claim 13, and we find that the Examiner’s reasoning concerning the motivation to combine the references is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. We consequently affirm the rejection of claim 13. DECISION Appeal 2013-003937 Application 12/470,960 18 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6, 8, 9, and 11–21 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 10 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) 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)(iv) (2010). AFFIRMED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation