Ex Parte Griesing et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 29, 2018

14327318 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/327,318 07/09/2014
34845 7590
Anderson Gorecki LLP
2 Dundee Park Dr.
Suite 301A
Andover, MA 01810
10/31/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John Robert Griesing
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.
540-028U 7381
EXAMINER
CHENG, CHI TANG P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2018 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):
handerson@andersongorecki.com
jgorecki@smmalaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN ROBERT GRIES ING
and
CHARLES R. WRIGHT
Appeal2018-001937
Application 14/327,318 1
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1-60, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE. 2
1 Appellants identify Azimuth Systems, Inc., as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 2.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed July 9, 2014, the
Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed March 24, 2017, the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.") filed June 26, 2017, the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed
October 18, 2017, and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed December 18,
2017.
Appeal2018-001937
Application 14/327,318
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to methods and apparatuses "for testing the
performance of a wireless device in a multi cell network environment" using
"a combination of real cells, real user devices, and a multi-cell network
emulator which provides emulated cells, emulated real devices, and channel
emulation." (Spec. ,r,r 6-8; Abstract.)
Claims 1, 20, 39, and 58 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a multi-cell network emulator comprising:
a first interface configured to communicate with a
first real cell device which generates a first real cell signal;
a second interface configured to communicate with
a real user device;
at least one cell emulator configured to generate a
plurality of emulated cell signals; and
a connection matrix configured to provide bi-
directional communication between the first interface and
the second interface, and to provide communication
between the second interface and the cell emulator such
that the real user device receives the emulated cell signals.
(App. Br. 31--43 (Claims App.).)
REJECTIONS 3 & REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1-3, 9, 14--22, 28, 33--41, 47, and 52---60 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Natarajan et al. (US
3 Claims 1, 20, and 39 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite. (Final Act. 5---6.) However, this rejection was withdrawn in the
Examiner's Answer, and is thus, not before us. (Ans. 2.).
2
Appeal2018-001937
Application 14/327,318
2012/0003982 Al, published Jan. 5, 2012, "Natarajan"). (Final Act. 7-12,
22.) 4
(2) Claims 4--8 and 10-13, 23-27, 29-32, 42--46, and 48-51 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Natarajan and Yu
et al. (US 2013/0315092 Al, published Nov. 28, 2013, "Yu"). (Final Act.
13-22.) 5
ANALYSIS
The Examiner, among other things, finds Natarajan teaches "at least
one cell emulator configured to generate a plurality of emulated cell signals"
such that a "real user device receives the [ cell emulator's] emulated cell
4 Claims 20-38 and 39-57 are rejected under "35 USC§ 102/103" (see
Final Act. 22) but are not individually listed by the Examiner under the
§ 102 and§ 103 rejections. Instead, the Examiner states "[a]s for claims 20-
38, please see respective rejections above for claims 1-19, in the same
order," and "[a]s for claims 39-57, please see respective rejections above for
claims 1-19, in the same order." (Final Act. 22 (emphases omitted).) We
find this oversight on the Examiner's part is harmless error and interpret the
rejection of claims 20-22, 28, 33--41, 47, and 52-57 to be rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) over Natarajan, because claims 20-22 and 39--41
include features similar to respective claims 1-3 (rejected based on
Natarajan), claims 28 and 47 include features similar to claim 9 (rejected
based on Natarajan), and claims 33-38 and 52-57 include features similar to
respective claims 14--19 (rejected based on Natarajan).
5 As explained supra (seen. 3), claims 20-38 and 39-57 are rejected under
"35 USC§ 102/103" (see Final Act. 22) but are not individually listed by the
Examiner under the § 102 and § 103 rejections. Again, we find this
oversight on the Examiner's part is harmless error and interpret the rejection
of claims 23-27, 29-32, 42--46, and 48-51 to be rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Natarajan and Yu, because claims 23-27 and 42--46
include features similar to respective claims 4--8 (rejected based on
Natarajan and Yu), and claims 29-32 and 48-51 include features similar to
respective claims 10-13 (rejected based on Natarajan and Yu).
3
Appeal2018-001937
Application 14/327,318
signals," as recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 8 (citing Natarajan ,r,r 17-27,
Figs. 1-3); Ans. 3--4.) Particularly, the Examiner finds Natarajan's
"'controller 106', 'robotic platform 122' and 'fading simulator 118' [are] ...
collectively [a] 'cell emulator."' (Final Act. 8; see also Final Act. 3.) The
Examiner finds Natarajan's "signals that comprise some or all of the 'real'
RF signals 109 conditioned by functionalities of 'controller 106', 'robotic
platform 122' and 'fading simulator 118' [see, e.g., paragraphs 20 and 26]
... disclos[ e] 'plurality of emulated cell signals."' (Final Act. 8.) We do
not agree.
We agree with Appellants' arguments that Natarajan does not
anticipate Appellants' claim 1. (App. Br. 20-24; Reply Br. 16-24.)
Particularly, we agree "[n]one of those devices [ofNatarajan, i.e., controller
(106), robotic platform (122) and fading simulator (118)], either alone or in
combination, is equivalent to a cell emulator." (Reply Br. 17 ( emphasis
added).) Rather, Natarajan's controller 106, robotic platform 122, and
fading simulator 118 simulate the environment-"i.e. the conditions that
would occur over the air such as weather, distance, interference and
obstructions"-not the behavior of a base station (cell). (App. Br. 22.) For
example, Natarajan's "fading simulator 118 [is used] to simulate fading
(e.g., multipath, signal deflection, etc.)" to "enable processing of various
fading scenarios, which when applied to outputs of the switching matrix 102,
may enable a user to test (replicate, simulate) a specific environment that
may or may not be deployed in the field." (See Natarajan ,r,r 20-21; App.
Br. 22, 24.) Thus, Natarajan's fading simulator does not teach a cell
emulator configured to generate a plurality of emulated cell signals, as
recited in claim 1.
4
Appeal2018-001937
Application 14/327,318
Natarajan's controller 106 controls a "switching matrix 102, via wired
or wireless communications, to enable selection and manipulation ( e.g.,
controlling signal strengths, etc.) of the RANs [(radio access networks)] 104"
that are real telecommunications networks. (See Natarajan ,r,r 12, 17
(emphasis added).) Thus, Natarajan's controller 106 and switching matrix
102 interconnect real telecommunications networks having real cells (RANs
104), and "attenuate (condition) a real signal [from the real
telecommunications networks] to simulate fading in the channel between the
real telecommunications device (114) and the real radio access networks
[104]." (Reply Br. 18, 22-23; see Natarajan ,r,r 16, 18, 25.) Thus,
Natarajan's controller 106, switching matrix 102, and real
telecommunications networks (RANs 104) are not a "base station [(cell)]
emulator [that] can be used in a test system to generate test signals in lieu of
a real base station." (App. Br. 23 ( emphasis added).) Additionally,
Natarajan's RF signals conditioned or attenuated by controller 106 are not
"an emulated [ cell] signal, i.e. a signal that emulates a different cell device."
(Reply Br. 18-19.) Thus, Natarajan does not teach a cell emulator
configured to generate a plurality of emulated cell signals, as claimed. Yu
has not been used to cure the above-noted deficiencies ofNatarajan.
As the Examiner has not shown, nor do we find, that Natarajan
teaches a cell emulator configured to generate a plurality of emulated cell
signals, as recited in claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1 as anticipated by Natarajan. We also do not sustain the Examiner's
anticipation rejection of independent claims 20, 39, and 58 (reciting cell
emulators generating emulated cell signals), for the same reasons as claim 1.
(See App. Br. 20, 24.) We also do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation
5
Appeal2018-001937
Application 14/327,318
and obviousness rejections of claims 2-19, 21-38, 40-57, 59, and 60
dependent from one of claims 1, 20, 39, and 58. Because the above-
discussed issue is dispositive as to the rejections of all claims, we do not
reach additional issues raised by Appellants' arguments as to the rejections
of claims 2-8, 10-13, 19, 59, and 60 (App. Br. 24--29).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-60 is reversed.
REVERSED
6