Ex Parte Gronemeyer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2014

10632051 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte STEVE GRONEMEYER and ROBERT TSO
____________________

Appeal 2011-010023
Application 10/632,051
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-010023
Application 10/632,051

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

The claims are directed to a serial radio frequency to baseband
interface with power control. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A radio frequency (RF) to baseband interface providing
power control over an RF section that processes RF signals and
that is coupled to a baseband section that processes baseband
signals, the interface comprising:

a bi-directional message interface for communicating a
power control message from the baseband section to the RF
section; and a data interface for communicating data from the
RF section to the baseband section, wherein the RF section
includes a register for receiving the power control message
from the baseband section and wherein devices to be controlled
by the power control message are coupled to the register to
receive respective power control data from the received power
control message; and

a data interface for communicating data from the RF
section to the baseband section.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Molnar US 2002/0142741 Al Oct. 3, 2002
Syrjarinne US 2003/0107514 Al Jun. 12, 2003
Kaewell US 6,775,531 B1 Aug. 10, 2004
Lindlar US 7,149,473 B1 Dec. 12, 2006
Appeal 2011-010023
Application 10/632,051

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable by Molnar in view of Kaewell and Lindlar.
Claims 14-20 and 22-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable by Molnar in view of Kaewell and Lindlar, and further in
view of Syrjarinne.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 13 of U.S.
Patent No. 7,634,025 (“’025 patent”) issued to Gronemeyer, in view of
Molnar.

ANALYSIS
Nonstatutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
The Examiner merely asserts that claim 21 is rejected based upon
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-3 and 13 of
the ’025 patent in view of Molnar. (Ans. 10).
Appellants argue:
it is admitted that claims 1-3 of Patent no. 7,634,025 do not
include a register to receive power control messages from a
baseband unit. The Office Action cited Molnar as disclosing
this feature. As set forth above, however, this feature is not
disclosed or suggested by Molnar. Contrary to the Examiner’s
assertion, Molnar does not disclose or suggest any register that
receives power control messages. Applicant further notes that,
as described above, while Molnar does disclose a serial
message interface, it does not disclose communicating power
control messages from the baseband section to the RF section
using this interface. This limitations is also absent from claims
1-3 of U.S. Patent no. 7,634,025.
Appeal 2011-010023
Application 10/632,051

4

(App. Br. 17).
We find that dependent claim 21 is directed to a “RF front end for a
satellite positioning system receiver” and claims 1-3 and 13 of the ’025
patent are directed to “method of interfacing a radio frequency (RF) section
in a wireless device with a baseband section in the wireless device.” We
note that the Examiner has not provided any analysis as to why the claimed
RF front end is obvious over the method steps recited in the ’025 patent.
Nor has the Examiner has provided any convincing line of reasoning why
the register of the Molnar patent renders obvious the difference in the recited
claim limitations. Therefore, we find that the Examiner has not set forth a
sufficient required showing in the rejection of dependent claim 21. We
conclude that dependent claim 21 is not rendered obvious in light of Molnar
as maintained by the Examiner. The Examiner has not shown that claim 21
is an obvious modification of what has already been claimed in the method
of claims 1-3 and 13 of the ’025 patent.

35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants address claims 1-13 as a group. (App. Br. 7). Therefore,
we select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group and
will address Appellants’ arguments thereto. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner rejects the claim 1 over the combination of Molnar,
Kaewell, and Lindlar. (Ans. 4-7, 11-23). The Examiner’s basic rejection is
based upon the Molnar reference teaching a majority of the claim limitations
with the Kaewell and Lindlar references relied upon for limited rationales
Appeal 2011-010023
Application 10/632,051

5
(see Ans. 16 (“Kaewell’s teaching is used solely for its teaching that is
clearly showing the operation of a local level shifter (LLS) in power up and
power down operations of an RF circuit.” (emphasis omitted)); Ans. 19
(“Lindlar’s reference is used solely for its teaching of a bidirectional
message/signal in a serial interface, regardless of whether such
message/signal is for ‘power control’ which has been taught by Molnar.”
(emphasis omitted))).
The Examiner maintains that the data bits are transferred to a register
in the serial interface 332 with latches 334. (See Molnar ¶ [0064]; Ans. 4-5).
The Examiner further maintains that the data in the data latches causes the
local level shifts (LLS) to provide a voltage. (Ans. 4-5). The Lindlar
reference is used solely for its teaching of a bi-directional message/signal in
a serial interface, regardless of whether such message/signal is for “power
control” which has been taught by the Molnar voltage VBO .
We further note that Molnar states:
The local level shifters 336 allow for automatic internal
level shifting of low voltage baseband digital control signals.
The low voltage digital interface results in overall power
savings for the wireless communication device 22 because test
registers and main registers within the radio frequency
integrated circuit 338 need not be reprogrammed when
powering up the radio frequency integrated circuit 338.
Although described with particular reference to a portable
transceiver, the low voltage digital interface system can be
implemented in any system in which it is desirable to minimize
redundant programming and save power.

(Molnar ¶ [0060]). We find Molnar teaches the use of the standby voltage
and the local level shifters to reduce power by eliminating the need to
reprogram at power up of the radio frequency integrated circuit. Therefore,
Appeal 2011-010023
Application 10/632,051

6
the Molnar reference teaches communicating a power control message.
While the Examiner recognizes that the Molnar reference is not bi-
directional, the Examiner relies upon the Lindlar reference to teach and
suggest this claimed feature.
The Examiner further maintains:
Lindlar’s reference is used solely for its teaching of a
bidirectional message or signal in a serial interface. Since one
skilled in the art would recognize the benefit of a bi-directional
message/signal in Lindlar, it would have been obvious to one
skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to modify
Molnar for providing a bidirectional message to the serial
interface in Molnar as well, for utilizing advantages of two
way communication such as communicating digital control
signals between the baseband section and the RF section, for
exchanging data, status, information according to the current
operation mode of the transceiver.

(Ans. 20). We agree with the Examiner that the Lindlar reference suggests
the well-known use of bi-directional communications.
Appellants contend that the Molnar reference does not describe the
type of messages that are sent via the interface. Appellants contend that the
Molnar reference does not disclose or suggest controlling power to any of
the components devices except through a complete shutdown. (App. Br. 8-
9). Appellants point out that the Examiner relies upon connection 326,
which includes clock, data, and latch enablement signals that make up the
serial interface, and that the Molnar reference does not indicate these data
values “control the power consumption of any components in the RF section
except the serial interface.” (App. Br. 9). We again note that Appellants’
argument is not commensurate in scope with the express language of
independent claim 1. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of error in the
Appeal 2011-010023
Application 10/632,051

7
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Independent claim 1 does not set
forth any limitation on the extent of shutdown or controlling of power. Nor
does the language of independent claim 1 set forth any specific detail
regarding the messages.
We find the “messages” to be directed to nonfunctional descriptive
material which does not limit the claimed invention. Appellants appear to
argue that the signals in the Molnar reference are not “a power control
message.” (App. Br. 9-10, 13, 14). Again, we find Appellants’ argument is
directed to unclaimed subject matter since the content of the nonfunctional
descriptive material in the “message” has not been recited in the language of
independent claim 1. Moreover, as recited, the message is merely data and
nonfunctional descriptive material which does not perform any function
recited in the language of independent claim 1. Therefore, Appellants’
reliance thereon is unavailing.
Appellants provide additional arguments to the Kaewell and Lindlar
references regarding the specific implementations of the inventions in those
references. The Examiner has clarified that these references were relied
upon for limited teachings and suggestions. (App. Br. 10-13). We note that
Appellants did not file a Reply Brief to further respond to the Examiner’s
clarifications.
While we understand Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner has
additionally identified that bi-directional communication was known and
desirable. Appellants have not controverted this finding. Furthermore, we
find that the relied upon teachings in the Kaewell reference are generally
taught by the Molnar reference, but the Kaewell reference provides
further/additional details which we find unnecessary for the evaluation of
Appeal 2011-010023
Application 10/632,051

8
patentability of independent claim 1. Therefore, Appellants’ arguments do
not show error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of
representative independent claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims 7 and 10, Appellants address the
individual teachings but do not address the combination of the bi-directional
communication with the Molnar reference. Therefore, Appellants’ argument
is unavailing since it does not respond to the rejection as set forth by the
Examiner. (App. Br. 14).
With respect to claims 14-20 and 22-33, Appellants address the claims
as a single group. (App. Br. 15). Therefore, we select independent claim 14
as the representative claim for the group and address Appellants’ arguments
thereto. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants rely upon the
arguments addressed with respect to claim 1. (App. Br. 15). Appellants
briefly discuss the Syrjarinne reference, but maintain that the reference does
not provide the material missing from the base combination. Since
Appellants did not show error in the base rejection, we similarly find
Appellants’ reliance thereon to be unavailing, and we sustain the rejection of
representative claim 14.
With respect to dependent claims 15, 23, and 29, Appellants present
similar arguments as set forth with respect to dependent claim 7. Again, we
find Appellants’ argument does not address the combination of references as
set forth by the Examiner and does not show error in the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness.
Appeal 2011-010023
Application 10/632,051

9

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 under non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1-20 and 22-33 for
obviousness.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 is
reversed and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 and 22-33 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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

msc