11598675 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2013)

Ex Parte Hwang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 2013

11598675 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/598,675 11/14/2006 In-Jin Hwang 52743 1027 1609 7590 09/03/2013 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. 1300 19TH STREET, N.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON,, DC 20036 EXAMINER BILODEAU, DAVID ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2647 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/03/2013 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 IN-JIN HWANG, JAE-HO LEE, JONG-KYUN SHIN, YOUNG-HWAN KIM, YEONG-MOO RYU, and HARK-SANG KIM ____________ Appeal 2012-009789 Application 11/598,675 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-39. (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2012-009789 Application 11/598,675 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention is “an apparatus that automatically matches impedance for a frequency of an antenna in a wireless terminal.” (Spec. ¶[0002]). Claim 22, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 22. An apparatus for automatically matching a frequency of an antenna in a wireless terminal receiving at least two communication services, the apparatus comprising: [a] a controller for [a1] determining operation states of the wireless terminal and for [a2] controlling an automatic matching module to automatically match impedance for transmission/reception frequencies of the antenna based on a determined operation state of the wireless terminal; [b] the automatic matching module for automatically matching impedance for the reception frequency received from the antenna, for transmitting the impedance-matched reception frequency to a switching module, for automatically matching impedance for a transmission frequency received from the switching module, and for transmitting the impedance-matched transmission frequency to the antenna; [c] the switching module for being switched to one of at least two communication service modules according to a type of a reception signal received in the antenna; and [d] said at least two communication service modules for transmitting/receiving a frequency of the antenna through the automatic matching module if said at least two communication service modules are linked with the automatic matching module through switching of the switching module, [e] wherein the automatic matching module matches the impedance for the reception frequency received from the antenna according to the determined operation state of the wireless terminal, and [f] wherein the automatic matching module changes the impedance by variably controlling a capacitance by selectively actuating a plurality of capacitors. Appeal 2012-009789 Application 11/598,675 3 (Steps lettered and emphasis added to the disputed limitation). REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable based upon the teachings of Talvitie (US 6,895,225 B1, issued May 17, 2005), Takei (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0262028 A1, published Nov. 23, 2006), and Sroka (US 5,778,308, issued July 7, 1998). (Ans. 6-16). GROUPING OF CLAIMS Based on Appellants’ arguments, we decide the appeal of the obviousness rejection of claims 1-39 on the basis of representative claim 22. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellants’ contentions regarding the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of the claims. 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 Answer in response to arguments made in Appellants’ Appeal Brief. (Ans. 16-20). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below: A. Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding the cited references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested "[a] a controller for [a1] determining operation states of the wireless terminal and for [a2] controlling an automatic matching module to automatically match impedance for transmission/reception frequencies of the Appeal 2012-009789 Application 11/598,675 4 antenna based on a determined operation state of the wireless terminal," within the meaning of claim 22 and the commensurate language of independent claims 1, 6, 12, 38 and 39? Appellants contend: [T]he "Examiner is equating the instant application[']s 'operational state' to the [Talvitie's] 'standby state and use positions.'" See the Advisory Action at p. 2. Appellants respectfully disagree. As previously noted, Talvitie describes that "the control means 7 runs [an] application at intervals to examine and adjust the need for matching if necessary." See Talvitie at 5:13-15 (emphasis added). Further, "the signal processing means 6 is used to measure at intervals the power reflected from the antenna, and if the reflected power exceeds the predetermined threshold value, the control means 7 changes the matching of the matching means 9." See Talvitie at 5:66-6:2. The intervals at which this application is executed is completely independent of the actual operation of the terminal. Accordingly, Talvitie does not teach or suggest a controller for determining operation states of the wireless terminal. (Reply Br. 2-3). Appellants also contend Talvitie "does not control the match based on the operation state," but "describes continually adjusting the matching, regardless of the operation state." (App. Br. 11). Appellants' contentions are not persuasive because Appellants do not rebut the Examiner's findings that Talvitie's controller and detecting means would have taught or suggested limitation [a1] "determining operation states of the wireless terminal" (claim1). Specifically, the Examiner finds Talvitie's wireless terminals' at least two operational states: (a) standby state at startup (not operating, retracted antenna position) (Ans. 17-18; Talvitie, Appeal 2012-009789 Application 11/598,675 5 col. 4, l. 67 – col. 5, l. 5; col. 1, ll. 56-58) and (b) in use state (operating, antenna extended) (Ans. 17-18; Talvitie, col. 5, ll. 12-15; col. 1, ll. 59-60), would have taught or suggested the claimed "operational states." (Ans. 7, 17-19). The Examiner also finds Talvitie's controller and/or detecting means determines operation states ((a) standby state at startup or (b) in use state)) by a switch or by measuring the power reflected back from the antenna. (Ans. 17; Fig. 2, See Talvitie, col. 7, l. 66- col. 8, l. 6; claim 4). Specifically, Talvitie's control means determines the (a) standby state at startup and matches impedance by setting the matching means to a first value. (Ans. 17; Talvitie, col. 7, l. 66 - col. 8, l. 6). Also, Talvitie's controller and/or detecting means determines the (b) in use state (operating, antenna extended, not standby state at startup) at least by measuring the power reflected back from the antenna or monitoring a switch on an antenna. (Ans. 17; Fig. 2, See Talvitie, col. 7, l. 66 - col. 8, l. 6; claim 4). Regarding limitation [a2] "match impedance . . . based on a determined operation state . . . ," the Examiner finds Talvitie would have taught or suggested the limitation by either:1 (1) "match[ing] impedance" by setting the first matching value "based on" the determined standby state at startup ("determined operational state") (Talvitie, col. 4, l. 67 – col. 5, l. 5), or (2) "match[ing] impedance" by setting the impedance by running an application at intervals "based on" the determined in use state ("determined operational state"). (Ans. 18; Talvitie, col. 5, ll. 12-15). 1 We note claim 1 limitation [a2] recites "based on a determined operation state" which requires at least one determined operation state. Appeal 2012-009789 Application 11/598,675 6 Appellants' contention (Reply Br. 2) that Talvitie's "intervals at which this application is executed is completely independent of the" "determined operational states" is not persuasive because Talvitie's controller determines the "in use state" (operational state). (Ans. 17-18). Thus, Talvitie's running the application at intervals is "based on" being in the in use state. (Ans. 18; Talvitie, col. 5, ll. 12-15). Talvitie's matching means 9 changes the antenna matching based on the position of the antenna (stand by or in use positions, "operation states"), which also would have taught or suggested claim 22's limitations at issue. (Talvitie, col. 6, ll. 61-63; col. 7, ll. 2-9; Figs. 3A-3c). For these reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of representative claim 22, and of claims 1-21 and 23-39, which fall therewith. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-39 under § 103. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-39 under § 103. No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED llw