Ex Parte Karabinis et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201311036637 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2013) 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. 11/036,637 01/14/2005 Peter D. Karabinis 9301-87IP 3424 20792 7590 09/25/2013 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC PO BOX 37428 RALEIGH, NC 27627 EXAMINER PEREZ, ANGELICA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2648 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/25/2013 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 PETER D. KARABINIS, SANTANU DUTTA, GARY G. CHURAN, and DUNMIN ZHENG ________________ Appeal 2011-004731 Application 11/036,637 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before KEVIN F. TURNER, STEPHEN C. SIU, and STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-004731 Application 11/036,637 2 SUMMARY Before us is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants’ claims are directed to methods and apparatus for operating satellite radiotelephone communication systems. Spec. 1:4-6. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below (disputed limitation is indicated in italics): 1. A method of operating a satellite radiotelephone communications system, the method comprising: receiving first radio signals by a first satellite, the received first radio signals including a desired signal using a frequency and an interfering signal using the frequency; combining the first radio signals based on a first performance criterion to generate a first output signal; receiving second radio signals by a second satellite, the received second radio signals including a measure of the desired signal; combining the second radio signals based on a second performance criterion to produce a second output signal; and combining the first and second output signals to generate an estimate of the desired signal. REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Casabona (U.S. 2004/0042569 A1, Mar. 4, 2004) and Dent (U.S. 5,812,947, Sep. 22, 1998). Appeal 2011-004731 Application 11/036,637 3 2. Claims 5, 12, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Casabona, Dent, and Tsujimoto (U.S 6,741,838 B2, May 25, 2004). ISSUE Appellants’ response to the Examiner’s rejections presents us with the following dispositive issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited art discloses “receiving second radio signals by a second satellite, the received second radio signals including a measure of the desired signal” as recited by claim 1? ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites “receiving second radio signals by a second satellite, the received second radio signals including a measure of the desired signal.” Independent claims 8 and 15 recite commensurate limitations. Appellants assert the Examiner erred in finding that Casabona discloses this limitation. App. Br. 6-7. The Examiner finds that Casabona teaches or suggests this limitation in its discussion of “‘adjacent satellite cancelation’ and ‘adjacent satellite interferer.’” Ans. 4 (citing Casabona Fig. 2, element S2, ¶37-38.); see also Ans. 9. Appellants argue the cited interference is “merely one form [of] interference that may be included in [the first signals received by the first satellite], and adjacent satellite interference therefore does not disclose or suggest receiving second radio signals by a second satellite.” App. Br. 6-7. The claims require a first and second signals respectively received by first and second satellites. The Examiner finds that “the received radio signals received by a first satellite are S1 and S2.” Ans. 8. The Examiner also finds that “the second radio signals correspond to (S2).” Id. at 9. We Appeal 2011-004731 Application 11/036,637 4 agree with the Appellants. Casabona’s “adjacent satellite interference” is an interfering signal received by the first satellite. Casabona ¶ 0022. The Examiner has not directed us to a discussion in Casabona that teaches or suggests receiving signals at a second satellite. Thus, we find error in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and their dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20. DECISION We reverse the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the cited art. REVERSED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation